-enf of line- Somerset the facts

Since seeing Cameron put the blame firmly at the foot of previous Labour governments and their lack of action over the Somerset levels, I decided to do some research and found some very pertinent data or direct evidence to the contrary. 
This data points the firstly at the Tory government of 1990, that through the cutting of funding, economically forced the Environment agency (or the department for the environment as it was termed back then) along a path that is disastrous for the region. The levels themselves had been dredged and pumped free of excess water since the 1700's (wiki) and the fact that this was altered for the more "cost effective" approach of using the locks and pumps to remove the water alone is problematic indeed; and though this was continued by labour government's it also has to be said that this is not a real surprise, as most post war governments, apart from one, have ever considered the long term picture over short term goals. 
They see as far as the next election and that is all they do. 
That being the case, what also needs to be added is the pertinent fact that this government must have been aware of the Somerset levels situation and cut the funding anyway, therefore this disaster could have been prevented, and was not. 
I state this, not out of some need to be visceral at our pointless government, there are some far more articulate individuals out there who are doing a better job of that then I. However, what I have found out is how the environment agency works and this is very valid when considering looking at the problem, and the region itself. 
The environment agency, is like any other government department, it receives its money from the chancellor, who gets his money from the taxpayer. This fund is then broken down into various internal departments: such as fisheries, farming, forestry commission and flooding coastal defense. In looking that the latter, Bi-annual surveys of the land are carried out region by region by the Environment agency; these surveys are detailed reports about the water table and its impact on the individuals who live in that region, these reports also contain a list of recommendations that are specific for that region. 
These surveys are then given to the government, and specifically the treasury, who then consider the direct evidence of the surveys as to whether funding is needed for specific regions or not. Ergo, its not the fault of the agency itself; however the decision rests in the hands the government at the time. 
This also leads me to consider that after the storms of 2012, and the surveys that were commissioned by the Environment agency, which must have been considered both by the chancellor and by the Prime minister, yet still did nothing. 
In fact, the opposite was carried out as funding to the E.A was cut even more last year/ this year. With that I rest. Read the reports, look at the direct evidence and make your own considered opinion. The most pertinent of facts is in the floods report which points out specifically that "Routine maintenance activities typically happen annually, subject to economic justification." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_levels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyne

http://www.theguardian.com/.../government-cuts-flood-risk...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_floods

https://www.gov.uk/.../spending-round-2013-complete.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/.../floods/109548.aspx

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6zWwnD9TbqsC&pg=RA1-PA10&dq=house+of+...