Talk:Environment Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Thames (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Thames which includes the Thames locks, crossings, islands, tributaries, settlements, ports, marinas, all river-based businesses, services, sport, events and leisure activities as well as the Thames in history, art and literature. If you would like to help you can improve the article attached to this page and/or sign up on the project page where you will find resources and task lists.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Executive agency?[edit]

Does anyone know if the Environment Agency qualifies as an Executive Agency? I was going to include it on the list of executive agenices but I wasnt sure. 81.77.29.41 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The Environment Agency is an executive NDPB funded by both DEFRA and WAG. (you might also want to look at Countryside Council for Wales and Natural England currently omitted from the list) .Velela 07:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I dont think that the EA is an Executive Agency in the same way that say, CEFAS is an Executive Agency of DEFRA. Executive Agency staff are civil servants as if they worked for their 'executive' departments, EA staff are not. The EA are quite correctly identified as a Non-Departmental Public Body but this is not the same as an Executive Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.162.93 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pig and poultry section very much needs shortening!![edit]

In my opinion, the length and the detail of the pig and poultry section recently added to this article is simply ridiculous. Such detail is not needed and the section is almost as long as the entire rest of the article. Would someone please trim that section down? - mbeychok 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include names of current department heads?[edit]

I note that the "Organizational Management" section includes the names of the current directors of each of the Directorates. Wikipedia includes the environmental agencies of many other nations ... and I believe that none of those others get into that level of detail. Is it really necessary here? The names will change with time and require monitoring and revisions.

I don't see how that level of detailed minutia is necessary. What do others think? - mbeychok 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason for inclusion is that, as an outsider, the Agency appears to be in the midst of a significant cultural shift. It has always been rather beaurocratic, risk averse and lumbering and has tried in recent years to be more dynamic and more willing to take a risk balanced approach. Part of this was reflected in the directorate composition. The apparent failure of the the directorate leading this innovative approach may reflect on the potential cultural shift of the Agency itself and may be a signal of a move back towards more prescriptive regulation. The names of the individuals are not greatly significant but may assist Wikipedia readers in their dealings with the Agency - all the names are in the public domain. Velela 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Velela, your response is an interesting bit of history. But it doesn't really explain why that level of detail is necessary, does it? I wasn't concerned as to whether or not the names are in the public domain ... rather I was asking whether that sort of detailed listing was needed in the article. It just seems to lengthen the article needlessly. Regards, - mbeychok 23:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the board of directors and roles should be listed. As a reader I find the question about changes in IT interesting and should email the webmaster. The source for list of names is buried in documents such as the 2006/7 annual report. Isn't Graham Ledward still director of HR in the Bristol Office? Thanks--BenjaminAlfredSamuel (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it, and looking at other NDPBs and Agencies on Wikipedia, I have to say I agree with User:Mbeychok. Velela's comments have no bearing on whether names are necessary, but perhaps a "Criticism" section is needed to detail these issues (assuming there are valid citations of them), much like the NHS and others have. BenjaminAlfredSamuel may find the changes in IT interesting, but that doesn't make it relevant for a Wikipedia article. Comparing this article to other more developed articles demonstrates that Director's names are not relevant and should be removed. What do others think? RTFArt (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Remove director's names but the chief executive and chairman should stay. Bazonka (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes in senior management[edit]

As this source indicates, there has been a period of uncertainty, which the appointment of a new Chairman somewhat alleviates. The imminent departure of the current CEO is also of interest.

The Directors of Finance and Water Management are also very close to retirement age, but since they haven't announced their intentions yet I haven't changed anything in that section. OceanKiwi (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the future changes should be mentioned - but in text, not as part of the lists of chairmen / chief execs. Your edit makes it look like the changes have already happened. This is highly misleading. My edit that you reverted did mention the future changes - perhaps you hadn't spotted it. I'd also corrected the Corp Affairs director - this was reverted too.Bazonka (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Bazonka, you're right: I hadn't spotted your mention of the future changes. OceanKiwi (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Detail on Navigation[edit]

In order to keep the length of the article relevant, and avoid unnecessary detail, I've removed the following:

The Environment Agency is also responsible for these navigations

Much like the previous pig and poultry section, we need to keep the article balanced, with a general overview of what the Environment Agency does. Whilst it's navigation responsibilities are important, there is already a sub-section which provides sufficient information. Happy to hear other opinions on this... RTFArt (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not irrelevant and unnecessary detail - the brief text includes the links to the navigations for which the EA is responsible and by removing them you are making life harder for readers. Please restore them. Motmit (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This section was originally in line with that on the Environment Agency's own website: The Navigation responsibilities of the EA are are very small part of what it does, and if this article was to reflect the same amount of detail for all those it would be much, much longer. Navigation represents less than 4% of the Agency's expenditure, and an even smaller percentage in terms of income. Balance is required. If you think a separate article on the Navigation responsibilities of the Agency is required, feel free to create that article and link back to this one. RTFArt (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not a matter of proportions of expenditure. Navigation and river management is one of the most visible aspects of EA work, and flood control is intricately linked with navigation. See the article Locks on the River Thames for a sample. Motmit (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not say the additions were irrelevant, merely that we need to keep the LENGTH of the article in mind, as well as try to keep a balanced general overview of what the Environment Agency does. I take your point about it not being a matter of proportions of expenditure, but your opinion about what you say is "one of the most visible aspect of EA work" is simply another appeal to quantity (one that is significantly more difficult to actually quantify). At least a reference to income and expenditure is an objective measure. We could also compare with Fisheries (over 1 million rod licenses a year) or discuss how many EA staff are involved in Navigation duties, whether there is a Director of Navigation, and many other aspects which measurably demonstrate that whilst Navigation is important, it is still a _relatively_ small part of what the Agency does. If navigation and flood management were as intricately linked as you suggest they would be part of the same business unit, which they aren't. Managing flood risk and Navigation are two quite different things.
In addition, I would suggest that your view of the EA's visibility is possibly linked to your own personal experience of the EA, since you've obviously spent a lot of time on and around the non-tidal reaches of the Thames (and probably many others). You may even work for the EA in the navigation team. Rather than simply present your point of view, we need the article to be a general overview (ie. not too detailed) of what the EA is and does.
As you've pointed out, there is already detail of the subject covered in other articles, (and the Agency website itself) which we can link to from this page. I'll attempt to incorporate those links so that if people are interested they can easily find out. If you still feel that the EA's Navigation responsibilities are really very important, you're welcome to create a separate article to which we can link to from this. RTFArt (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I must concur with Motmit. The text relating to navigation was not excessive in any way, and I would support its retention as it was before your edit. Please don't delete it again without consensus. Mayalld (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the last edit? I did actually attempt to include the detail wants to see there. RTFArt (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. The new version was inferior to the long standing version. Mayalld (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could be a little less abrasive, and describe in what way you feel it was "inferior". In addition, I agree that the long standing version is better, but we are actually discussing the additional detail first added by Motmit less than three hours ago. Perhaps we should revert to the original (before Motmit's addition) and continue this discussion on this talk page.
This was the original, before Momit's edit:
The Environment Agency is one of the major navigation authorities in charge of inland rivers, estuaries and harbours in England and Wales. It manages nearly 1000km of Britain's rivers, and is the Harbour Authority for Rye and the Conservancy Authority for the Dee Estuary. [1] Where necessary the Agency maintains and operates systems of sluices, weirs and locks in order to manage water-levels. Functions in relation to most canals are undertaken by the British Waterways Board.
This was my last edit, attempting to incorporate the additional detail that Momit felt was required:
The Environment Agency is one of the major navigation authorities in charge of inland rivers, estuaries and harbours in England and Wales. It manages navigation for nearly 1000km of Britain's rivers, including the non-tidal River Thames, the Fens and Anglian systems, the River Medway and the River Wye. It is also the Harbour Authority for Rye and the Conservancy Authority for the Dee Estuary. [2] Where necessary, the Agency maintains and operates systems of sluices, weirs and locks in order to manage water-levels. Functions in relation to most canals are undertaken by the British Waterways Board.
I feel that the last version manages to incorporate the detail Momit feels should be there, without the need for a list, which none of the other responsibilities (both Water Management and Environment Protection) have. If we start adding detail to each section, we will have regressed back to the point we were before with the pig and poultry section (see above discussion), and including the names of Directors. How else can we add to the version above, to address Momit's viewpoint? RTFArt (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologise if I seem abrasive, and for not realising that the "long standing version" was actually more recent. I do, however feel that the version incorporating a short list is superior to putting it all in prose. Mayalld (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not being one to waste much time on talk pages - preferring to add to WP as an information source, I will just make a few observations.

a The inappropriate personal attribution made above is incorrect
b The article needs serious improvement - much of it reads as a bland uninformative civil service document - "consequence reducing activities"!!!
c WP is a joint effort which means articles can draw on multiple input. Who is the "we" that dismisses the valid and independent input from two very experienced editors?

DBTR - Motmit (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, prose is preferred to lists. I feel that the version Motmit keeps reverting is at least a start, and covers the relevant information. If you have any issues with the grammar or the links aren't right, feel free to improve.RTFArt (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The version I kept reverting was seriously flawed - as highlighted in the edit summaries it contained out of date references, inappropriate links, and bad grammar. Moreover it was poorly structured, confusing navigation and non-navigation responsibilities. Taking the line offered I have felt "free to improve" but it has taken at least 8 edits to highlight the issues individually and get it back to how it should be. Lists/non-lists is a red-herring. I trust therefore that we will not see any reversion to the flawed text. Motmit (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a link or see also to this map: http://www.aina.org.uk/about_aina/documents/95825GBWaterways.pdf would be useful? Although it doesn't seem to have been updated for a while. Rednaxela (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks - incorporated useful link Motmit (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP 3O question[edit]

A request for a Wikipedia:Third opinion was listed five days ago (diff). Is a third opinion still needed? — Athaenara 22:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Response. I see no problem in identifying the major navigations under EA responsibility. However, please do not put them in the article as a bulleted list. (Same w/Water and "Environmental Protection" lists now in the lede.) Instead of lists, our style is to use prose descriptions. The feedback below makes the same point. That said, if the major navigations can be shortened (e.g., "Fens and Anglian system" as the sole item), that would be fine, too. HG | Talk 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with HG. Putting the major navigations into prose rather than a list embedded in the article is more in line with WP:EMBED. It doesn't appear that the Environment Agency's navigation responsibilities are mentioned on many of the articles linked to either. The other problem with naming specific navigation areas is that it could lead to listing specific locations in other areas of responsibility (main rivers for instance). OceanKiwi (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is still listed as WP:3 needed. I'm going to remove it because at least one person is mediating or providing a 3Op. Fr33kmantalk APW 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested feedback[edit]

Very nice work! A few suggestions:

  • I think the most important thing is to add more references. There shouldn't be any paragraphs without at least one reference (and in these cases, the ref should come at the end and endorse everything in the para, but this is not my favorite citation style because it's ambiguous whether the ref covers everything), and there definitely shouldn't be any sections without refs. All statistics and quotes need refs.
  • All the references should be fleshed out with author, date, publisher, title, page numbers, and (for web references) access date. You can use {{cite web}} for this.
  • Good flow - I like how one topic transitions smoothly into the next.
  • I would turn the bulleted list in the lead into prose.
  • Style point: a lot of sentences begin with The Environment Agency or The Agency (e.g. in "Flood and coastal erosion") -- maybe change it up a bit for variety.
  • I think Probability reducing and Consequence reducing may need hyphens.
  • I like '£20 billion' much better than '£1.025bn', but whichever you choose it should be consistent.
  • I would do away with this sentence: The Environment Agency's vision is of a rich, healthy and diverse environment for present and future generations. You mentioned troubles with keeping it neutral, and this seems a little troublesome on that score, even though you're quoting the institution. I'd go with the 'show don't tell' principle and stick to the facts, like the previous sentence. (Of course, now that section will be too small and may need to be integrated elsewhere).
  • explain difficult or unfamiliar terms and concepts such as water abstraction licences, Defra, Sir Michael Pitt.
  • Possible WP:NPOV problem: The Agency also helps people get the most out of the environment, including anglers and boaters. Says who? How could this be objectively measured? I'd scrap this sentence altogether.
  • I'd also opt for info over vague sentences like this, where possible: improve the quality of fisheries in England and Wales by improving habitat. the concept of improving is too vague to be especially helpful.
  • Images are good and free or appropriately FU rationalized. Great work on the logo rationale RTFArt!
  • The need for references is particularly vital when dealing with information related to a living person that is potentially controversial or critical. I've removed the content about Barbara Young until a reference can be provided. All quotes should be sourced anyway, but we have to be particularly vigilant about this when it's info that could harm someone.

Overall well done and well written. I would upgrade to B class if it weren't for the problem with lack of citations--give me a heads up when these are provided and I'll look again. Definitely drop me a note if I can provide any further explanation or be of any help with anything. delldot talk 02:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points, being tackled - but you are a bit too lenient on the consultant/bureaucrat gobbledegook. Motmit (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

Many of the references would benefit from being formatted as Citation Templates. Have changed some. Help appreciated.Tim P (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Environment Agency Website Changes[edit]

Picking up from what Tim P has started above, the Environment Agency has completely reworked it's website and consequently broken a whole bunch of links and refences. This will take a bit of effort to find the relevant information, or new sources if they have been redacted. RTFArt (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Swines - they must have realised how close we were getting to working out what they do! Motmit (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Damage Prevention[edit]

The notional £3.5 billion figure does not appear on either of the directly linked web pages ref 7 and 8 and therefore may be considered unfounded. It does appear in the 2000 document [1] p. 26, but not as far as I can see in the 2004 document. I suggest changing these references to support the statement Regards Motmit (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Breaking up the Environment Agency[edit]

The last para quotes the 2001 Fleming report as recommending the break up of the EA into a separate Floods Authority. Reading the report I can see no such recommendation. Rather the report complains that there are too many authorities involved (ie those dealing with minor rivers) and recommends "responsibility of flood risk management should be consolidated around one executive agency". It further states "The single authority need not be a new body but could be an extension of the role of an existing participant". Regards Motmit (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In an interview published in the NCE on August 2, 2007 George Fleming, the author of the ICE's 2001 report "Learning to live with rivers" specifically called for the break up of the Environment Agency. I can't find an online version of the interview, but it is printed in black and white (and referenced in the first NCE reference provided: "Ripe for Change"). Whilst his 2001 report might not have specifically stated "break up", his later comments demonstrate that is what he believes is required. The fact that Barbara Young rejected the calls to break it up (rather than deny that these calls existed), also provide evidence that there were calls for the break up. One of the reasons given for breaking it up is the conflict between its roles as habitat protector and planning regulator. So whilst an "existing participant" is a potential solution, the Environment Agency would need some surgery in order to avoid these conflicts.
I will edit the original, making clear what the ICE report actually said, as it might be confusing to those who are not used to reading between the lines of reports prepared for Government. That Fleming himself has recommeded breaking up the Environment Agency is not in any doubt though.
The original version:
In addition, calls to break up the Environment Agency and create a dedicated Flood Risk Management Agency were raised again,[3] echoing the 2001 independent review by the Institution of Civil Engineers[4], which called for an independent floods body separate from the Agency. After the Summer floods, the report's author, George Fleming, renewed this call, saying that the Environment Agency had too many roles and faced too great a conflict between its roles as habitat protector and planning regulator. These calls were rejected by the then CEO Barbara Young[5].
88.144.10.150 (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why could you not respond to the discussion before re-adding this material? I have read the Fleming report - somebody had to - and it makes no mention of breaking up the agency or of conflict with other responsibilities so it can not be used as a basis for "renewed calls" . Fleming appears to be a lone voice on this issue making comments 6 years after his report and Young did not "reject" the calls- just said they were unlikely to be taken seriously (ie "rubbished"). I am not sure why this issue is being soapboxed on Wikipedia and the reinterpretation of sources has to be a concern. Motmit (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I did respond to the discussion before submitting an edited version - it is not simply "re-added". I have also read the ICE's "Learning to Live with Rivers" report - not a bad read wouldn't you say?
As far as Fleming being a "lone voice", that would be your assertion - in reality the discussion about whether there should be a dedicated Flood Management Agency has been a fairly constant subject in various forums, ever since the EA was created. Moreover, I don't see how this is relevant in any case, nor the time-lapsed since the 2001 report. As an ex-president of the ICE, and author of "Learning to live with rivers" Fleming is a respected figure in the industry. I also don't agree with the accusation of soapboxing - the criticism section has been in place for quite a while, has been reviewed many times, and mirrors the format and style common elsewhere on wikipedia. Can you be more specific about which source has be reinterpreted?
The source for the "renewed calls" is the NCE article called "Ripe for change" on 16th May 2008, which I quote:
"Speaking to NCE after last summer's floods, Fleming renewed this call, saying that the Environment Agency had too many roles and faced too great a conflict between its roles as habitat protector and planning regulator (NCE 2 August 2007).
Seems pretty clear to me.
88.144.10.150 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I opened the discussion ten days ago, so claiming a response a few minutes before updating the article is simply being disingenuous. My assertion on Fleming being a lone voice is based on the citations you have provided - both from a publication associated with the ICE. Having read the Fleming report yourself you do not dispute my statement that it makes no reference to splitting up the agency - so quoting a source that reinterprets it otherwise is the same as reinterpreting it directly. It is reinterpretation to say Young rejected calls when she did not - and that again is an ICE publication. The interpretation of the Pitt report was highly unbalanced highlighting a couple of comments out of the 92 recommendations that were nearly all directed elsewhere than the EA. The whole section on "Criticsm" which takes up about a third of the article was originally highly POV (ie no balance). An independent reviewer removed a section of a personal nature on Sept 9, but this was reinstated by without justification by an IP also coming through ONETEL. As for the rest of it it has taken a concentration of effort not only to find the truth behind the assertions, but also to provide a story that is actually useful and informative. The EA is not above criticism, and I could bring in plenty of material but I do not have a personal axe to grind, except to maintain that Wikipedia should be neutral and accurate and should present information rather than covert views. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Motmit, AFAIK the NCE is an independent publication - it is not part of the ICE, or an ICE publication. The criticism section as it currently stands is mostly fair IMHO, with references to support all the statements made. There is too much stuff about the Pitt report recommendations though, which are a bit irrelevant for a criticism section. Does the Pitt Review/Report require it's own article to cover this? OceanKiwi (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OceanKiwi Thanks for the comments - I am glad you see the criticism section now as "mostly fair", because this is what I have been trying to achieve, together with matching the statements and references. Accurate references are important and if they are needed I will look for them. I spent a long time googling around 'break up of the EA' to find substantiation for the IP's contentions but nothing came to light. You are probably right that NCE is in fact independent of ICE and I have been careful in the article not to imply otherwise. The Pitt report actually answers much of the criticism. All the reports provide useful material on what the EA does and how it has evolved and perhaps much of this would better be included in the flood management section. That prompts another concern I have on the overall structure. There are two aspects to be covered - firstly there is the fairly static stuff on the EA itself, its organisation etc, and secondly there are its various areas of responsibility such as flood risk management etc which are more discursive, dyamic and actually interesting. At present the article tries to box these within the organisation structure which makes the article a bit unbalanced and hard to follow. What do you think? Regards Motmit (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I've been doing a bit more reading on this - I still think your edits are a good start, but could be improved. My comment above was based on my recollection of the NCE article (I remember it fairly well, as there was a period of time when the letters pages of the NCE, were constantly discussing the EA and the need for a single FRM body for quite a few weeks, if not months. A couple of points:
Firstly, this may be a bit pedantic, but I don't think WP should refer to the 2001 report as the "Fleming Report". Unlike the Bye Report, and the Pitt Report, its title has always been 'Learning to Live with Rivers', and is an ICE report produced at the request of the Government. Whilst Fleming was the Chairman of the Presidential Commission that produced it, and I'm sure he influenced the contents, it would be wrong to suggest that he was the author. I haven't seen it referred to as the "Fleming Report" anywhere else. Perhaps we should call it by it's proper title "Learning to Live with Rivers, or if a shorter version is necessary, "2001 ICE Report".
Secondly, the NCE article is unambiguous in stating that Fleming himself called for the breakup of the Environment Agency, the reasons he gave and the date the interview was published - so the citation is already there, and the comments should be attributed to Fleming himself, not the publisher. The final sentence about Baroness Young "correctly predicting" instead of rubbishing/rejecting his views is a bit revisionist IMHO, but I don't really care enough, to be perfectly honest.
Response to structure of the article below, under a new heading - Yay! OceanKiwi (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again - very helpful and I take note. You talk about a period of time past. Is this still an active issue? Motmit (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the 2007 events, yes, very much so - as it's really not clear how to actually deliver an integrated flood management service. As Pitt pointed out (but everyone already knows), responsibilities remain spread over many organisations, many of whom have conflicting priorities (not just the EA). OceanKiwi (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is all about fluvial flooding - does "integrated" include coastal flooding? I picked up some issues in support of local accountability for local drainage - is this a major issue in the debate? Also is there anywhere a list of the major rivers which the EA looks after? Trying to understand the beast. Motmit (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A list of major rivers won't help much, since it isn't just about fluvial flooding (as the 2007 events nicely demonstrated). Integrated Flood Management is about managing flooding from all sources (pluvial, fluvial, tidal and groundwater). Coastal Erosion is a different process, but it makes sense to treat this alongside tidal flooding, since managing one often has a huge effect on the other. You're correct in picking up accountability for local drainage as an issue, but it is only one part. Separating flooding by source is next to impossible, which is why an approach which integrates responsibility for all sources together is considered the best approach by many (including Fleming). How to actually do that for England and Wales is what the debate is primarily about. Dealing with the conflicting priorities is the other major problem yet to be solved. Like another water beast, the Hydra, the beast you're trying to understand has many heads, and appears to be pulling in different directions! Good luck Heracles! OceanKiwi (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Analogy with the Hydra is worrying - cut the head off and two grow instead! As you say this is an area of debate, but is criticism the right categorisation? The brickbats have been getting in the way of an issue that seems to need addressing, but where and how? Now this is criticism [2] !! Motmit (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Structure[edit]

I feel that the current overall structure, which deals with the details of what the EA does before getting into how it is organised works quite well - as most readers will be interested in the former than the latter. Because the EA is a bit of a mish-mash of regulatory bodies and the old NRA service provision stuff, it's always going to be easier for a reader to understand if these bits are dealt with separately. If you, or others, have another suggestion, by all means share. OceanKiwi (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental monitoring[edit]

I have been trying to fill a gaping hole in Wikipedia by creating and writing most of Environmental monitoring and Freshwater environmental quality parameters‎ (which probably needs to change to Environmental quality control parameters). On the assumption that those watching this page may either be working for the Environment Agency or have an interest in it, I would appreciate other editors contributing knowledge and references. Many thanks  Velela  Velela Talk   11:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Velela - I would help if I could but as an outsider it's enough of a challenge to get to grips with navigation, flooding and organisation. In fact I was hoping someone could develop the other aspects - which is rather turning it back on you! Regards Motmit (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Add Topic "The EA is concerned with climate change and Energy, per http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/115167.aspx[edit]

Add Topic:

The EA is concerned with climate change and Energy. [6]

99.190.82.217 (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not in citation given; partially in the title, but titles are not reliable even if the source were reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The EA has a Climate Change Team as part of its Evidence Directorate. The following text is off the EA Intranet: "The Environment Agency has a lead role in adapting England and Wales to the impacts of climate change (adaptation), and limiting the effects by guiding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation). We aim to ensure that adaptation and mitigation measures minimise environmental harm and support environmental improvement, energy security and sustainable development." I can access this beacuse I work there, but I don't think this is directly usable as a source. The gist of it certainly deserves a place in the article though. Bazonka (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I see your point. I also see little relationship between the IP's section and the "gist" of your comment. Perhaps you could propose something? The existence of a "Climate Change Team" should be documented somewhere on the outside.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
A quick search of the EA website gives this page [3], stating "We are taking a leading role in limiting and preparing for the impacts of climate change." Bazonka (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
See related wikilinks Climate change mitigation, Adaptation to global warming, Human impact on the environment, Environmental resources management, Sustainability and environmental management, etc ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
... Sustainability#Definition, Ecosystem services, Planetary boundaries, Planetary management, ... 99.181.158.237 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What point are you trying to make? Bazonka (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Bazonka, It appears to be directed to Mr. Rubin, see the past months of Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin. Also note that User:Arthur Rubin has a history of deleting others User Talk page comments, clear Wikipedia:TPG violations. If of continued interest, User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) on User Talk:Zodon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 and User talk:OhanaUnited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics). 99.190.80.91 (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You should know who it was directed to to whom it was directed, because you wrote it. And, although this talk page comment has nothing to do with editing this article, or, for that matter, any other article, I'm not going to delete it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Obamafication[edit]

Almost everything here, including the logo has been tampered with, and not for the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.120.27 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Bazonka (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Its just vandalism like his/her other edits . Sigh.........  Velella  Velella Talk   22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).