Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Floods and devastation

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314927 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
16 Feb 2014 - 8:02 PM

We are pretty much seeing what happened in 47 (linked on the other page) the dredging made then made no difference.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
16 Feb 2014 - 8:02 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110170 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
16 Feb 2014 - 9:08 PM


Quote: We are pretty much seeing what happened in 47 (linked on the other page) the dredging made then made no difference.

that can't possibly be the case Paul, all the Pundits are telling us that its never been so bad and no one knows what's causing it (unless it anthropomorphic global warming of course Tongue )

There isn't one cause so there isn't one solution but replanting the trees on the upland farms, ploughing the contours of hill side fields rather than vertically up and down, removing the upstream flood barriers and reinstating water meadow along with dredging the lowland rivers will all help alleviate the problem

Trouble is there are no subsidies for that, no profits to be made and no interest groups who can be persuaded to vote for the "right political party"

Only pissed off farmers and marsh-men who have managed these situations for generations who were told by then eddicated university types that they didn't know what they were talking about

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314927 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
16 Feb 2014 - 9:43 PM

My old river runs dry on a regular basis Smile

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/25/rivers-water-bill-wildlife-ha...

col_c
col_c  1 United Kingdom
20 Feb 2014 - 9:41 AM

I came across one possible reason why the Environment Agency had decided to stop the dredging

There were probably a couple of reasons why Environment Agency dredging was reduced from former times :

The first is simply money. Governement Cost / Benefit rules set down by the Treasury prevent the EA from spending money where there are relatively few properties - i.e. in rural areas. Chris Smith (EA Chairman) said that the EA did all the dredging it was allowed under these rules in 2013.

The second is that dredging really just moves a flood from one place to another, like traffic congestion is moved when part of a road is widened. In this case the flood would have probably have been moved to the north end of the Levels and Bridgewater.

If the River Parrett is dredged it is pretty clear that with the rainfall event we have just seen that even with the 40% increase in dredged channel section the Somerset Levels would still have flooded. The whole area is at sea level, it has a main river (the Parrett) with a fall of 1 in 5000 over part of its course (i.e. nearly flat) and the second highest tidal range in the world at its mouth. All these things make the Levels a pefect storm for farmers and drainage engineers (no pun intended).
The best bet is probably to slow the water discharge from the headwaters which are in Dorset, but surface water flooding of fields will always happen there, as it does most years, in very wet weather.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314927 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
20 Feb 2014 - 9:09 PM

The biggest reason was probably due to the improving roads, less and less goods were being transported by boat.

The floods of somerset are nothing new, people have a very short memory.

Warning the sound is terrible so turn it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRlRSaeu7PE

tomcat
tomcat e2 Member 85867 forum poststomcat vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
23 Feb 2014 - 6:19 PM


Quote: We are pretty much seeing what happened in 47

We possibly are Paul, but from what I have seen, most of the flooded properties along the Thames, were not even built then

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110170 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
23 Feb 2014 - 9:01 PM


Quote: We are pretty much seeing what happened in 47

We possibly are Paul, but from what I have seen, most of the flooded properties along the Thames, were not even built then

therein lies the problem, not the storms or the rain, nor yet the flooding, but the sheer stupidity of building house alongside a major river prone to flooding (and then building a diversionary side-stream to that river to prevent the flooding of some of the house up-stream by shedding the additional water downstream and flooding even more houses)

Its much the same mentality that blamed the floods arising after Hurricane Katrina on Global Warming, to hide the fact that if they had maintained the Levees properly a category 3 hurricane would never have breached them one of many articles and the flooding would have been much less severe

mikehit
mikehit  46171 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
23 Feb 2014 - 10:07 PM

I remember reading a news report last year that quoted the rising number of deaths in Southern Asia as an indicator of global warming, failing to point out that nearly all deaths are because of the numbers of people being forced to move into flood-prone regions they did not live in 30 years go for totally sensible reasons.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314927 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
24 Feb 2014 - 12:25 AM


Quote: We are pretty much seeing what happened in 47

We possibly are Paul, but from what I have seen, most of the flooded properties along the Thames, were not even built then

therein lies the problem, not the storms or the rain, nor yet the flooding, but the sheer stupidity of building house alongside a major river prone to flooding (and then building a diversionary side-stream to that river to prevent the flooding of some of the house up-stream by shedding the additional water downstream and flooding even more houses)

Its much the same mentality that blamed the floods arising after Hurricane Katrina on Global Warming, to hide the fact that if they had maintained the Levees properly a category 3 hurricane would never have breached them one of many articles and the flooding would have been much less severe

I know of houses that have been built upon natural flood plains and marshes, but most of the properties I have seen that are flooded are quite old.

The Somerset levels are marshes, maybe they should be growing rice instead of corn.

thewilliam
24 Feb 2014 - 10:23 AM

In antiquity, the Somerset Levels were usually flooded in winter. Then, back in the 16th century, some Dutch engineers were brought in to supervise a drainage scheme which included construction of the King's drain that we see from the M5. With proper maintenance, the Dutch system worked well until the Environment Agency imposed a different philosophy .....

Before exchanging contracts on our current house, I checked its flood-risk rating. When told us it was "green", we went ahead but many of the local roads are flooded and impassable so our customers can't always get to us.

There'll be many business failures as a direct result of the flooding and I just hope that ours doesn't get on that list!

Last Modified By thewilliam at 24 Feb 2014 - 10:24 AM
Evertonian
24 Feb 2014 - 10:53 AM

I read somewhere that the floods started well into the middle ages (however they are defined?) and the locals dealt with the situation themselves by digging moats etc. rather like the Dutch Polder system which has been successful for decades. Why we ever stopped the old system perhaps we will never know, but the old engineers managed it along with farmers and rural dwellers.
There again why not build on piles to keep building ground floors above any water level that could be imagined? It is not rocket science, just engineering basics.

thewilliam
24 Feb 2014 - 2:20 PM

It may be that the Environment Agency has seen itself primarily as a protector of wildlife. Dredging the rivers and rhynes does damage the habitat of water-voles and other creatures.

Furthermore, using the dredged silt as a fertilizer is no longer legal because it's now in the highest classification of "special waste", along with spent nuclear fuel. The disposal cost of this formerly valuable silt is now well into 3 figures per tonne. No wonder that the bean-counters reckon it's cheaper to let the farms flood!

Last Modified By thewilliam at 24 Feb 2014 - 2:21 PM
mikehit
mikehit  46171 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
24 Feb 2014 - 2:49 PM


Quote:

Furthermore, using the dredged silt as a fertilizer is no longer legal because it's now in the highest classification of "special waste", along with spent nuclear fuel.

I don't understand that. This is from the EA's own website
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/116322.aspx


Quote: Example activities include:

A contractor is involved in clearing silt and plant matter from sections of a river and deposits the dredgings on the banks of the river.


What types of activities can I do?

You can:

spread listed wastes on agricultural land to improve or maintain the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil.

thewilliam
24 Feb 2014 - 4:43 PM

Maybe the EA folk haven't read their own directives. I can only go by the pathetic excuses given to the Somerset peasantry for the cessation of dredging.

mikehit
mikehit  46171 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
24 Feb 2014 - 5:15 PM

I guess if they allowed it they would have to pay for it Tongue

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.