UK flooding

Pross

Well apparently the Thames doesn't need dredging. No, the flooding there is due to the Jubilee River that was constructed to protect Windsor (source - a local Councillor and I know from my time in a technical department at a Council that Councillors know everything about everything).

Someone soon will probably try blaming the flooding on the fact that it has been ****ing wet for 3 months.

briantrumpet

johnfinch wrote:

You've also got to consider how saturated the ground was before the latest rains (and notice that January isn't included) as well as land use changes, etc., not just the total rainfall in the month in which the flood started.

Indeed. And therein lies a significant part of the problem, and why the farming community was raising concerns back last Summer to get dredging back as part of the management of the Levels: if you keep them wet through the Summer, you have little 'sponge effect' when the rains do come. It's too late to wait until the monsoon season to reduce the impact of flooding. If you have saturated ground, and then the run-off can't get off that ground, well, it's going to flood. What a surprise.

The Royal Bath and West of England Society and Michael Eavis (you know, the Glastonbury man) launched a fund last year to try to get things going. The views in the BBC article are rather prophetic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-24143795
http://www.justgiving.com/Somerset-Levels-Relief-Fund

rolf_f

briantrumpet wrote:

Indeed. And therein lies a significant part of the problem, and why the farming community was raising concerns back last Summer to get dredging back as part of the management of the Levels: if you keep them wet through the Summer, you have little 'sponge effect' when the rains do come.

Dredging only increases the volume of the channels by a limited amount and it won't really affect things much in the summer. As long as the rivers and drains aren't overflowing, then it doesn't matter whether they have been dredged or not because by definition they are handling that flow - in this case, because it has been so extremely wet, the only real issue on the dredging argument is about how much sooner it caused the flooding to occur - probably not much sooner. A little ironically, the argument for dredging would have been far more convincing had the floods been much less serious.

It's certainly true though that a damp summer can impact on how the soil reacts to rainfall in the winter - but again, the dredging wouldn't change that. All it does is buy you a little time and this year it could never have bought anywhere near enough.

They'd be better off planting trees than dredging. That really might have an effect.

briantrumpet

Rolf F wrote:

It's certainly true though that a damp summer can impact on how the soil reacts to rainfall in the winter - but again, the dredging wouldn't change that. All it does is buy you a little time and this year it could never have bought anywhere near enough.

They'd be better off planting trees than dredging. That really might have an effect.

But it's not just a 'damp Summer' problem. I don't know a single Levels farmer, but my guess would be that the Levels have been allowed to retain much more water right through the year, though a systematic raising of the water levels. Obviously if you're going to raise water levels and plan to keep them there, then it's not going to be a priority to stop the drainage silting up.

I don't think that Michael Eavis would be arguing that maintenance of the drainage system was going to eliminate this year's problems (and neither would I), but obviously the farmers remain entirely unconvinced that letting the drainage system silt up is the best way to avoid or alleviate potential flooding. Maybe all the maintenance that was done up till a few years ago was a waste of time ... but if you add together remote scientists claiming that dredging is a waste of time, then see your fields suffering repeated heavy flooding on a scale not seen before, then it's not surprising that you question the views of those scientists. If I were a farmer there, I'd be feeling that people in suits in dry offices were doing an experiment with my livelihood, and that the experiment hasn't gone so well this year. I think I'd be angry too. Farmers generally have to be sanguine about the weather, but if you have horrible weather compounded by dubious and opaque policy decisions made by faceless government officials in far-off offices, then I'm not surprised if they question the policies. Maybe they are misguided, but my inclination would be to give some weight to the observations of the people who see the direct effects of the policies in the very fields they are trying to make a living from.

It doesn't have to be (and probably will never be) a simple either/or solution. Trees, dredging ... whatever's going to help reduce the problems.

mm1

Surprised no one has mentioned the flood relief engineering around the Dorney Reach and Marlow - the Eton rowing lake is part of a much larger flood relief scheme, that includes a massive storm drain below Clivden. As well as protecting the most populous bits of the Thames valley, there are WW1 ammunition dumps where the Environment Agency and MOD might be a bit nervous about flooding!

I wouldn't be astonished if Wrasbury and Datchet have been allowed to flood, but I still think that the Home Counties are a safer bet than Bangladesh as climate change accelerates.

Pickles will have had a hand in making 1500 Environment Agency flooding staff redundant recently. His CV is worth looking at, on a par with the fiction that "Lord" Jeffrey Archer used to peddle as his CV (allegedly).

Pross

Why are the opinions of farmers being held up as gospel on here? Many flooding problems are caused by farmers who care only about their piece of land. They fill in drainage ditches and plough in the direction of the slope which causes run off onto roads and into other peoples properties not to mention removal of vegetation. There's a road near my home town that is being constantly closed at present. It's near the river and you would assume that it's due to the river over-topping but it's actually water running off a field into a low spot on the road. The benefits of dredging have been grossly exaggerated in this crises but unfortunately the only way to prove that would be to have a parallel universe where we get the same rainfall on a dredged system.

mm1

Sorry Pross, you mentioned the Jubilee river. Wonder what will happen when the water hits 100 year old mustard gas shells?

If the climate change hypothesis is correct (and FWTW, I think it is) the pronlem is partially of our own making. It will affect the poorest worst. Challenging our addiction to massive and inequitable energy consumption (cars for personal transportation seen almost as a right), would be political suicide, so don't expect politicians to do anything other than what they do best - futhering their own self interest, ego and greed.

rolf_f

briantrumpet wrote:

But it's not just a 'damp Summer' problem. I don't know a single Levels farmer, but my guess would be that the Levels have been allowed to retain much more water right through the year, though a systematic raising of the water levels. Obviously if you're going to raise water levels and plan to keep them there, then it's not going to be a priority to stop the drainage silting up.

You shouldn't guess anything. However, it is hard to see why the levels would have been kept wet over the summer. It serves no purpose. The river and drain network would be perfectly capable of carrying normal summer flows dredged or undredged. There is no point in having washlands if they are full of water when you need them - effectively you need to save them for when you need them most accounting for how long they take to drain.

It's fine to listen to the farmers but they often have no idea what they are talking about - I heard one levels farmer saying that a bucket half full of silt contains less water than one with no silt in it and that therefore it was common sense to dredge; which is such a grossly simplistic view of the issue that you wonder how people can spend their lives working on the land and have such a limited understanding of how the system actually works.

The problem is that people with very limited understanding of the issues keep finding very simple solutions which sound superficially obvious - but which just aren't the answers on what is a complex and very artificial catchment.

bianchimoon

random man wrote:

The floods this year have created a lot of media and political frenzy. I don't remember this much fuss when Doncaster, Hull or Cockermouth were under water.
Who's Eric Pickles going to blame now Datchet and Staines are flooded?

The fact is, we've had a hell of a lot of rain in the south this year. I was born and brought up near Staines and Windsor and in 58 years I've never seen the Thames as high as it is now.
Eric ickles should apologise to the Environment Agency and just admit he's a fat tw@t who knows fark all.

I think Eric ickles should just bob along there, belly flop into a few floods, water dispersed, problem solved (Watch out for the tidal surge further down river though)

briantrumpet

Rolf F wrote:

You shouldn't guess anything. However, it is hard to see why the levels would have been kept wet over the summer. It serves no purpose. The river and drain network would be perfectly capable of carrying normal summer flows dredged or undredged. There is no point in having washlands if they are full of water when you need them - effectively you need to save them for when you need them most accounting for how long they take to drain.

It's fine to listen to the farmers but they often have no idea what they are talking about - I heard one levels farmer saying that a bucket half full of silt contains less water than one with no silt in it and that therefore it was common sense to dredge; which is such a grossly simplistic view of the issue that you wonder how people can spend their lives working on the land and have such a limited understanding of how the system actually works.

The problem is that people with very limited understanding of the issues keep finding very simple solutions which sound superficially obvious - but which just aren't the answers on what is a complex and very artificial catchment.

You might well be right, and maybe it is just that the farmers (and I) don't understand what's going on (I'm not saying that sarcastically). In fact, I'm sure I don't understand, but I'm not convinced that the EA do either. Or if they do, they have an agenda which gives insufficient weight to farming on the levels.

But let's put together the recent history: The Head of EA at the time dredging ceased, straight from the RSPB, who is on record as saying she wanted to put a limpet mine on every pumping station, and "instant wildlife: just add water"; in 2011 (for instance) the RSPB saying, "Standing on Burrow Mump it's fantastic to once again see these meadows flooded and alive with thousands of waterbirds. We know from our work on the other side of the River Parrett at West Sedgemoor that if you manage the water levels properly you will see birds return in huge numbers". (There's why, it might be perceived, that the levels would be kept wet.) If you then tell the farmers they don't understand a complex system (subtext: the EA and the scientists do), and then you see the flooding on the scale that you have in the last two years, it's not surprising that they (and I) jump to conclusions, given that the main change they've seen in a system that seems to have trundled on in a satisfactory fashion up until recently is the EA taking on responsibility for the drainage and then ceasing to dredge.

In other words, if the 'experts' keep on telling the people who actually work and live there that they only have limited understanding and "trust us - you can't possibly understand a complex system as well as we do", and then they witness what they have done over the past couple of winters, you shouldn't be surprised that they jump to conclusions. To paraphrase a Feynman quote, maybe they have a belief in the ignorance of experts.

If you and the EA are right and dredging is of no or little value as one part of how to manage the levels, then there's obviously still a lot of persuasion to do. The recent history and most obvious physical evidence and isn't being helpful in that process.

If, on the other hand, the movement is simply to completely change the nature of the levels back to a wetland nature reserve, fine (again, though I'd argue against the loss of what was valuable farmland, I don't mean that sarcastically), but that should be a clear policy decision, and one that properly recognises the human ramifications. It is the very complexity of the system that makes it difficult for people living there to work out whether they are the victims of mismanagement/conspiracy, or just bad luck.

RideOnTime

briantrumpet wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

You shouldn't guess anything. However, it is hard to see why the levels would have been kept wet over the summer. It serves no purpose. The river and drain network would be perfectly capable of carrying normal summer flows dredged or undredged. There is no point in having washlands if they are full of water when you need them - effectively you need to save them for when you need them most accounting for how long they take to drain.

It's fine to listen to the farmers but they often have no idea what they are talking about - I heard one levels farmer saying that a bucket half full of silt contains less water than one with no silt in it and that therefore it was common sense to dredge; which is such a grossly simplistic view of the issue that you wonder how people can spend their lives working on the land and have such a limited understanding of how the system actually works.

The problem is that people with very limited understanding of the issues keep finding very simple solutions which sound superficially obvious - but which just aren't the answers on what is a complex and very artificial catchment.

You might well be right, and maybe it is just that the farmers (and I) don't understand what's going on (I'm not saying that sarcastically). In fact, I'm sure I don't understand, but I'm not convinced that the EA do either. Or if they do, they have an agenda which gives insufficient weight to farming on the levels.

But let's put together the recent history: The Head of EA at the time dredging ceased, straight from the RSPB, who is on record as saying she wanted to put a limpet mine on every pumping station, and "instant wildlife: just add water"; in 2011 (for instance) the RSPB saying, "Standing on Burrow Mump it's fantastic to once again see these meadows flooded and alive with thousands of waterbirds. We know from our work on the other side of the River Parrett at West Sedgemoor that if you manage the water levels properly you will see birds return in huge numbers". (There's why, it might be perceived, that the levels would be kept wet.) If you then tell the farmers they don't understand a complex system (subtext: the EA and the scientists do), and then you see the flooding on the scale that you have in the last two years, it's not surprising that they (and I) jump to conclusions, given that the main change they've seen in a system that seems to have trundled on in a satisfactory fashion up until recently is the EA taking on responsibility for the drainage and then ceasing to dredge.

In other words, if the 'experts' keep on telling the people who actually work and live there that they only have limited understanding and "trust us - you can't possibly understand a complex system as well as we do", and then they witness what they have done over the past couple of winters, you shouldn't be surprised that they jump to conclusions. To paraphrase a Feynman quote, maybe they have a belief in the ignorance of experts.

If you and the EA are right and dredging is of no or little value as one part of how to manage the levels, then there's obviously still a lot of persuasion to do. The recent history and most obvious physical evidence and isn't being helpful in that process.

If, on the other hand, the movement is simply to completely change the nature of the levels back to a wetland nature reserve, fine (again, though I'd argue against the loss of what was valuable farmland, I don't mean that sarcastically), but that should be a clear policy decision, and one that properly recognises the human ramifications. It is the very complexity of the system that makes it difficult for people living there to work out whether they are the victims of mismanagement/conspiracy, or just bad luck.

Is that your own trumpet?

briantrumpet

RideOnTime wrote:

Is that your own trumpet?

Yes. A 1934 Olds Super.

briantrumpet

Anyway, perhaps there is a better-informed debate in the offing: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... _2030.html - let's hope it leads to better understanding on all sides and more openness and agreement about the best way forward.

In the meantime, could someone dredge round Maidenhead, so that the signals there can be repaired so that the Paddington trains can get back to normal, please?

rolf_f

briantrumpet wrote:

But let's put together the recent history: The Head of EA at the time dredging ceased, straight from the RSPB, who is on record as saying she wanted to put a limpet mine on every pumping station, and "instant wildlife: just add water";

It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else quotes that soundbite/ statement of personal opinion or whatever, it doesn't make it a policy of the EA - the EA isn't the RSPB, or Friends of the Earth, or Greenpeace. Anyone who thinks that the EAs remit is to turn England into an entirely natural nature reserve hasn't been concentrating very hard.

There's no point anyone saying or printing anything if people don't listen in the first place (which is the only non political reason that there have been all these debates/rows in the first place). The experts don't 'tell' the locals that they have only a limited understanding - they explain the issues, just as they have done repeatedly in the media in the last few days, and they are not listened to. One local councillor, on being given an explanation of the circumstances just said "Well I prefer to go with what David Cameron has said". With that sort of mindset, rational arguments don't stand much chance. Apparently 52% of the population believe in the supernatural and 25% have seen a ghost which says it all really.

briantrumpet

Rolf F wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

But let's put together the recent history: The Head of EA at the time dredging ceased, straight from the RSPB, who is on record as saying she wanted to put a limpet mine on every pumping station, and "instant wildlife: just add water";

It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else quotes that soundbite/ statement of personal opinion or whatever, it doesn't make it a policy of the EA - the EA isn't the RSPB, or Friends of the Earth, or Greenpeace. Anyone who thinks that the EAs remit is to turn England into an entirely natural nature reserve hasn't been concentrating very hard.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the EA is turning England into a nature reserve. But if the best reason you can see for many people's scepticism about the matter is that they haven't "been concentrating very hard" (and obviously from your strength of opinion on the matter you think their scepticism is baseless), then it's going to be quite hard for you to win over their minds, even though you think they are wrong (which I can see that you do.)

Mikey23

@briantrumpet... again making perfect sense. but unfortunately does not make for sensationalist TV and radio reporting, sell enough newspapers or win over many Tory voters. So the blame game will continue until everybody gets bored and moves on to summat else...

bendertherobot

Tomorrow's interesting. Most of Wales might just flip sideways due to the wind and end up on top of England.

Then on Friday and Saturday what's left of the levels will compete to be the New Atlantis.

briantrumpet

bendertherobot wrote:

Tomorrow's interesting. Most of Wales might just flip sideways due to the wind and end up on top of England.

How much of England will that cover? Oh yes, an area the size of Wales. Now if someone could convert that into the SI unit of FP (football pitches), I'd really be able to visualise it.

Anyway, perhaps if it could be organised that some Welsh mountains fall on the Somerset Levels, that should get rid of the water, though it might screw up the drainage a bit.

bendertherobot

Wales is already a recognised unit of measurement mun!

Mikey23

Wales has got more sense than to be flooded. They made it all knobbly... Unlike those stoopid Home Counties oiks who couldn't be bothered ...

bendertherobot

That's cos God designed Wales, see.

rjsterry

Mikey23 wrote:

Wales has got more sense than to be flooded. They made it all knobbly... Unlike those stoopid Home Counties oiks who couldn't be bothered ...

Plenty of flat bits in Wales and elsewhere outside the Home Counties.

Cameron's "money no object" speech today was a bit odd given that not long ago the rhetoric around most floods was all "tough decisions" and not being able to protect everything. Must be a fair few people around previously flooded areas wondering what is different this time.

briantrumpet

There are some interesting things to read here: http://www.ada.org.uk/news.php from the Association of Drainage Authorities, who count amongst their members the Environment Agency, as well as the Internal Drainage Boards.

Mike Healey

Didn't the name Runnymede give some kind of hint about water? Sorry if someone else has already done this, but I can't be bothered to read 6 pages as it's bedtime

Mikey23

I think that 'money no object' thing was so yesterday darling. Seems to have been toned down a bit to money will be made available but will come from within existing budgets today. R4 were majoring on it this morning. May change again tomorrow if it stops raining...

mr_goo

Drove across from Yeovil to Taunton and then to Barnstaple in that weather yesterday. They do have it bad out there for flooding. The Taunton to A303 road was flooded by the time I returned after lunch. Taunton service station lorry park was mostly occupied with Fire & Rescue units from all over the country, so fair play that there is pooling of resources from elsewhere. Dread to think what would happen if another region had a sustained weather event, as can see more reliance on military to fill the places of the emergency services. Quite short sighted to make swinging cuts to personnel me thinks.

As for one of my previous comments about the Motorways needing resurfacing and a responder stating they are in good nick. Well have a drive down the M5 from Taunton. Inside lane is carved up badly, potholed (not deep) and with the debris in piles along the hard shoulder. Made for white knuckle driving on Weds with torrential rain and high side winds to contend with.

RideOnTime

So anyway...

On our local news the other night the presenter gave a very scientific explanation of why the flooding is so bad this year...

apparently...

It's because of the heavy rain.

southdownswolf

RideOnTime wrote:

So anyway...

On our local news the other night the presenter gave a very scientific explanation of why the flooding is so bad this year...

apparently...

It's because of the heavy rain.

Whatever happened to go old fashioned "acid rain"? Don't tend to hear of that anymore.

finchy

southdownswolf wrote:

RideOnTime wrote:

So anyway...

On our local news the other night the presenter gave a very scientific explanation of why the flooding is so bad this year...

apparently...

It's because of the heavy rain.

Whatever happened to go old fashioned "acid rain"? Don't tend to hear of that anymore.

You would if you lived in certain parts of the world...

southdownswolf

johnfinch wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

RideOnTime wrote:

So anyway...

On our local news the other night the presenter gave a very scientific explanation of why the flooding is so bad this year...

apparently...

It's because of the heavy rain.

Whatever happened to go old fashioned "acid rain"? Don't tend to hear of that anymore.

You would if you lived in certain parts of the world...

That may be, we would also hear of much worse flooding that what is happening in the UK. However, back in the 80's and early 90's acid rain always seemed to be in the news, perhaps because of Chernobyl, but now it rarely gets mentioned. Are SO2 and Nox levels that much lower than back then?