You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Has anyone mentioned the fact that modern farming methods cause much higher rates of soil erosion that will silt up the rivers faster?
How much does it cost to build a 1 or 2m high embankment on flat land to run the road along? The Victorians managed to do hundreds of miles of embankments for railways with pick and shovel. Surely raising vulnerable roads a few feet wouldn't be expensive?
That is one of the options included in the £100m costing but I don't think they've broken out the elevated road element. It would certainly improve access to villages during flood events but if other parts of the plan are going to stop the flooding it may not make economic sense to raise the roads as well.
Has anyone mentioned the fact that modern farming methods cause much higher rates of soil erosion that will silt up the rivers faster?
What, like the specific exemption of oilseed rape crops from having to include ground cover to abate runoff for example? Not sure.
You may be interested in a few facts about the rain this winter to help educate the debate. Parts of the South of England had between 85 and 95% of the annual average rainfall in 10 weeks. That is somewhere between 600 and 700mm.
With the records that are around that is more rain than has ever been seen in that time period. There are quite a few records going back more than 100 years so we can start to see this is an exceptional event.
If you use a figure of 0-2% chance of flooding that is not time limited. If you flood today/this year you still have a 0-2% chance of flooding tomorrow/next year.
The climate change scenarios from 5-10 years ago predicted warmer wetter winters and dry summers. This has happened this year and may be a signal that it is going to happen more often. However the cold/freezing winters previously are also in the scenarios if things like the gulf stream move, so we are still in a wait and see/keep measuring mode.
Hydrologist hat off and tries to find a patch of dry land to get the bike on to.
You make a good point mantn.
It is the same issue with the snow a couple of winters back. Yes we could spend millions on snow ploughs and grittters, but for a one in a few years / decade / century extreme event. Or we could suck up that winters can be harsh, and sometimes lives are affected, quite severely. I spent a month in the harsh winters a month ago having to travel an in ploughed, in gritted little road, and walk a mile up a mountainside to get to work (unless I could hitch a ride on the quad that was taking food up to the outdoor centre and farm). It was part and parcel of living where we did. It was frustrating. But I did not go asking the council for a shiny extra fritter and plough or compensation.
IMO lots of this has been a press frenzy with political scoring going on, and upset, hurt flood victims lashing out.
I still feel for the people involved in any flooding, it is terrible. They are victims of poor land management both in the vicinity of their home and dozens of miles away upstream. They are also victims of living on vulnerable land. The effects of flood are far greater than snow or wind.
But, we just can't financially afford to spend hundreds of millions on preventing them from being flooded again, because the locations some are in are so vulnerable.
Perhaps we should work with insurance companies, and instead of paying for repairs to some buildings, think big and consider moving some properties, building mounds or floating house etc like the Dutch have. Working with insurance companies now would save them and the taxpayer money in the long term.
However the cold/freezing winters previously are also in the scenarios if things like the gulf stream move, so we [s]are still in a wait and see/keep measuring mode[/s] haven't got a clue what's going on.
So summers are going to be hot & dry or cooler & wet and winters will be colder & snowy or mild & wet. That's cleared that up 😉
So summers are going to be hot & dry or cooler & wet and winters will be colder & snowy or mild & wet. That's cleared that up
yup. its called weather.
With the records that are around that is more rain than has ever been seen in that time period. There are quite a few records going back more than 100 years so we can start to see this is an exceptional event.
Not convinced. January 2014 for example had fairly similar rainfall to the four wettest months pre 1960. So, yes a wet winter but nothing not seen before.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/no-julia-rainfall/
Other trends are not exceptional either.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/corinne/
The main problems that the Levels had was not one wet month, but three consecutive wet months. This is the exceptional event.
Count zero - I think there is a big difference between the Netherlands and the Somerset levels in that if the dutch dont carry on keeping the sea at bay and maintaining drainage , they lose their country - the economic and social consequences are huge.
In regards to the 'it has been managed for X many years' - let me provide a couple of examples :
1) A port Authority dredges a river for navigation purposes, not flood mitigation, but there are added benefits for flood mitigation. Are the Port Authority then obliged to continue dredging for decades to come even though they may not need to dredge for navigation anymore.
2) A community is downstream of a large hydropower reservoir, that is maintained at a half full level in order to maximise the hydropower output - this provides a huge amount of storage to capture flood hydrographs which results in a lower flood peak flow at the location of the community. Are the hydropower operators then obliged to always keep the reservoir at a half full level even though the primary purpose of the reservoir is hydropower not flood defence. What if the operators wish to walk away, the reservoir would maintain a full level and offer no flood storage.
Countzero, my point is, it is easy to become so reliant upon management to keep flooding at bay, but it is always prudent to keep in mind that management may change or stop, especially if the primary purpose is not flood defence.
The climate is also not what it has been like for the last 150 years - it is time to not focus on the point of 'we haven't flooded for X many years' but focus on the point of ' we have flooded - is this likely to be a more common event due to climate shift'
Farming and flooding link
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26466653
I'm way too close to all this to comment but here's a quite frankly jaw dropping extract from a statement I put together this week:
[i]At 5am on Tuesday 24 December the Leigh Barrier Flood Storage Area (FSA) was empty and the River Medway was flowing unrestricted in its normal channel. The FSA is legally permitted to store a maximum of 5.5 million cubic metres of water. By 8pm on 24 December, at the peak of this flood, the FSA was storing water at 10mm below its safe limit.[/i]
So, in one day on one part of one river last year, a storage structure was holding back 5.5 million tonnes of water, at this time they were also restricting the outflow to 160 tonnes a second.
I'm sypmathetic to the pepole who've been flooded, but I think some people need a sense of perspective. There was a woman on the news in floods of tears because of the 'devastation' to her life. In reality her wood floors were knackered.
Compare that to people whose whole towns were washed away in the tsunami, or demolished in an earthquake with nowhere to go; or the guy whose brother was swallowed up slowly by a sinkhole as he watched, never to be seen again.
I always think of the family in Olkahoma or wherever it was being interviewed after their house was reduced to splinters by a tornado. The guy smiled and said 'we're all fine and that's the important thing'.
Just because someone else has a greater problem in the world, doesn't mean someone elses problems become irrelvent.
Using your logic, we'd never eat any food as we'd donate it all to Oxfam for the starving masses, we wouldn't sleep in our own beds, would give our rooms to homeless people instead.
No-one is saying the plight of flood victims is the end of the world for them, however, it's your HOME, this is the pride and joy you've spent time, money, effort and built memories in. It also financially affects the person from an insurance perspective, resale value/potential etc. Whilst i agree with the "we're all fine" logic, having used it recently due to flooding issues, that doesn't change the fact it's had an adverse effect on my life recently.
I'm sypmathetic to the pepole who've been flooded, but I think some people need a sense of perspective. There was a woman on the news in floods of tears because of the 'devastation' to her life. In reality her wood floors were knackered.
But the shame, THE SHAME, how will she now keep up with the Joneses without those environmentally friendly reclaimed oak floorboards?
I'm a little more sympathetic to e.g. farmers who have lost vast sums of income and possibly their who livelihood owing to damage to land/crops/livestock.
People who've lost a few knick knacks and a carpet, less so.
edit: ^ yes, I understand it's a complete hassle, a royal pain in the backside and very disruptive - but knick knacks get replaced by insurance.
I'm a little more sympathetic to farmers who have lost vast sums of income owing to damage to land/crops/livestock.
Yep. And a little concerned that our food prices will go up later in the year, which could end up hurting people already on the breadline.
Just because someone else has a greater problem in the world, doesn't mean someone elses problems become irrelvent.
I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but you need a sense of perspective - we all do. Don't forget that most of us in this country have it easy.
it's your HOME, this is the pride and joy you've spent time, money, effort and built memories in
Yes - and it's all still there. It just needs some fixing up, that's all.
It's my home that was sold before this, it's now not sold and TBH i'm not sure it can be sold. We were selling it as we wanted a new home, for our son to grow up in, a home with a garden he can play in and friends he can invite over to play.
Minor inconveninece though yeah... that's all it is... just a small irritation. Lying awake night after night when it's raining, taking day after day off work to man the pump, spending hours and hours through the night in the cold making sure the pump has diesel while watching the level of water get closer to your home, to your family who you're there to protect...
Yep, minor inconvenience.
weeksy
You mention selling the house.
Are you in a flood plain? Does your house regularly flood?
Or is it just a one-off?
To my uneducated mind, the two scenarios appear to have different implications on selling.
The main problems that the Levels had was not one wet month, but three consecutive wet months. This is the exceptional event.
Rare but not unique. There was wetter 3 month periods for England in 1929-1930, and 2000, and a similar period in 1960.
Nov 1929 to Jan 1930 455.1mm
Oct 1960 to Dec 1960 396.3mm
Oct 2000 to Dec 2000 442.1mm
Dec 2013 to Feb 2014 395.6mm
For southern England -
Oct 1929 to Dec 1929 457.7
Oct 2000 to Dec 2000 431.6
Dec 2013 to Feb 2014 404.8
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/7404/
Are you in a flood plain? Does your house regularly flood?Or is it just a one-off?
To my uneducated mind, the two scenarios appear to have different implications on selling.
Not in flood plain no, essentially it's a on-off. Whether prospective buyers see that when we re-market it, i don't really know yet.
I'm a little more sympathetic to farmers who have lost vast sums of income owing to damage to land/crops/livestock.
but they are normally the first ones on the telly shouting about how no-one is helping them aren't they ?? why didn't we see them this winter? because they get subsidies
dredging the parrett wouldn't have stopped this flood - the water would have flowed faster over the banks potentially drowning people and taking out bridges etc
there were lots of homeowners impacted, this is true
Whether prospective buyers see that when we re-market it, i don't really know yet.
A house they can't get insurance for.....
A house they can't get insurance for.....
Why would they not ?
"has the house ever flooded" No
"Have any other properties adjacent or near the property flooded" No.
I don't see the issue.... OK, i accept it's a VERY grey area... but techincally the houses didn't flood...
from that post weeksy, I am assuming you don't own a house or have tried to get it insured.
muppet
Yep, minor inconvenience.
Well your family aren't going to die because of 2ft of water, for a start. And yes, it is difficult, but it's really not the end of the world. You've still got a house, a job, and your family aren't dead, so count your blessings.
richc - Member
from that post weeksy, I am assuming you don't own a house or have tried to get it insured.muppet
Are you mad ?
but they are normally the first ones on the telly shouting about how no-one is helping them aren't they ?? why didn't we see them this winter? because they get subsidies
If you think all farmers are rolling in free cash from the EU, you're wrong.
Weeksy - I'm sure your house will sell for the right price.
🙄but they are normally the first ones on the telly shouting about how no-one is helping them aren't they ?? why didn't we see them this winter? because they get subsidiesdredging the parrett wouldn't have stopped this flood - the water would have flowed faster over the banks potentially drowning people and taking out bridges etc
If the Tone and Parrett had been properly dredged, allowing them to carry their proper capacity, not the 50-60% they can currently carry, and a tidal barrier installed like the other rivers, keeping tidal silt deposition to a minimum, then the water would have been much less likely to overflow the banks, and if it did, it would have done so at exactly the same rate as it did this time. Nobody would have been drowned, any more than this time, and no bridges would have been taken out, just like none have been taken out this time.
Why would it?
The bridges down there were designed to accommodate increased water flow, incorporating large holes either side of the main span to allow overflow to pass through the structure instead of backing up and impeding flow.
The lack of action by the EA has allowed the banks to intrude into the river course, blocking the overflow holes, exacerbating the amount of flooding.
This is simple engineering and water management that even I can understand.
I repeat, why did the southern Levels flood, and the northern Levels didn't; because the northern ones were cleared, and had tidal barriers. There are only a few miles distance between the rivers, yet one area had disastrous flooding, with exactly the same rainfall.
So why are those who were flooded stupid for living there, yet those a few miles away, living at the same elevation, are not, because they didn't get flooded.
Here's a Telegraph feature, showing how the lack of dredging has affected the river, with a bridge specifically designed to cope with flooding, but compromised by idiots with an agenda:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10644101/How-Somerset-Levels-river-flooded-after-it-was-not-dredged-for-decades.html
[img]
[/img]
So this chap seems to have more insight that I do.
http://therivermanagementblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/scramble-for-blame-serves-no-one/