AT the beginning of May I used this column to set out my reasons for believing the way forward for managing the water levels in the Avon Valley between Fordingbridge and Christchurch was the creation of an internal drainage board. Such a board used to exist years ago, prior to the Environment Agency taking over responsibility for the river.

This part of the Avon Valley is designated as two separate areas of special scientific interest, the river is one, the water meadows the other. They are a Ramsar Convention site – the highest designation for preservation and protection. Natural England has the prime responsibility for protecting these areas. The reason for these designations is the fauna and flora that thrive in the habitats.

The water meadows are a man-made creation from centuries of farming the valley by managing the water level in the river, largely through cutting the weeds.

This costs money: the old internal drainage board used to pay for it by levying an acreage charge on the valley farms.

The Environment Agency paid for it from its budget. In 2009 the agency discontinued weed cutting after Natural England advised that it made no difference to the integrity of the protected habitats. My efforts to review this advice and to restore the weed cutting resulted in my being told by the Secretary of State in April this year that the only prospect was to return to the old way of doing things and reconstitute a locally-managed internal drainage board.

I think there is something of a consensus that believes that a targeted cut at specific places and at specific times can make a key difference. An internal drainage board strikes me as a mechanism for agreeing what ought to be done, paying for it to be done and raising the revenue from the beneficiaries. I have been wrestling with the Secretary of State’s “do it yourself guide to setting up your own internal drain-age board”. The process involves studies and consultations. It suggests the timetable for implementation is two years.

This poses a problem: will the meadows survive another two years without a weed cut? I have no expertise, but just looking at them, they seem to me to be becoming increasingly derelict. I would argue that the time for a weed cut is now, when the warm sunny weather is maximising growth.

Without a weed cut, the meadows won’t dry enough for agriculture for another year, and they will be given over to eight foot reeds and willow wood, losing all the habitats for which taxpayers have shelled out over the years in the form of higher level stewardship subsidies to the landowners.

The meadows are like a sponge and I have put forward the argument that proper management of the water level will enable the valley to soak up greater amounts of water when we have wet weather, which will reduce flood risk in the urban settlements.

This argument has not, however, found favour with the Environment Agency. I have another meeting with the Secretary of State next week, but don’t hold your breath.