Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2020 15:41:15 GMT
The essential point, . . that some clearly don't want to recognize or acknowledge, is that the freak weather events we're getting more frequently of late are coming hard on the heels of 30 (+) years of the dredging embargo instituted by the EA on all of their rivers, navigable or otherwise, and gleefully supported by BWB and their wretched successors on the river waterways and navigations for which they are responsible. Clearly, there is no one single remedy for the now all too frequent serious flooding events we're getting, and there is nothing we can do about whatever climate change may be contributing to those occurrences. What can be done, however, is to significantly increase the effectiveness of any existing or planned flood defences by resuming large scale routine targeted (at known shoaling areas) dredging of every UK river, . . with the majority of the effort concentrating on the two major rivers, the Severn and the Trent, which drain such vast areas via their many tributaries. Exactly. The perfect opportunity to take the money and run. These flood alleviation schemes don't build themselves. Dredging would probably be a nice little earner but it seems improbable that it would be as profitable to the big boys as a spot of heavy duty construction. I wonder how many people in charge of decision making can be traced back to large construction companies. It seems similar to the concrete railway sleepers thing. I find the Maidenhead and Windsor flood alleviation scheme quite interesting as it also provided a new river like waterway allowing developers to build properties which firstly were beside water and secondly were protected from flooding. Win win situation for the construction and building companies. How I wish my family silver was not sold off before I was born.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Feb 20, 2020 16:01:38 GMT
The Somerset Levels and the Washes of East Anglia's Fenlands were created by Dutch engineers way back under the reign of Charles 1. Although the primary intention was to drain marshland for agricultural use the Washes were designed to temporarily hold surplus waters under extreme conditions before returning them quickly to rivers as levels permitted. One of the essential factors in the schemes was that the drainage channels (ranging from minor field ditches to much larger cuts) were kept clear of vegetation and silt, pumping stations where necessary were properly maintained and that the main rivers were also kept clear of silt and the flow of waters to the sea unimpeded. For years this work was carried out effectively by local landowners then later by local drainage boards. The formation of the National Rivers Authority in 1990 made some changes to the way the schemes were managed.
But worse was to come when the Environment Agency took over in 1996. The Agency was unwisely given a mix of responsibilities that were always virtually incompatible but nothing less than a recipe for disaster where one was allowed to take precedence over every single other factor. The 'environment' came only to be seen by the agency staff as nature and wildlife, a position actively promoted later by the EA's Chair, Baroness Barbara Young - recruited from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. She knew all the tricks to promote her new priorities over all others and had her staff trawl through EU-imposed regulations to find ways to prevent proper and essential maintenance of watercourses. Farmers, landowners and drainage boards were threatened with prosecution in a two-fold attack that effectively banned both dredging and disposal of so-called contaminated waste - silt from those dredgings. Her mantra, repeated over and over again was "For instant wildlife, just add water".
And so it has gone on - with years of neglect through misguided policy resulting in an added dimension to the problem - the EA now has neither the funds, equipment or expertise to put matters right.
Is there hope that now we are out of the EU we may, at last, see an end to the Water Framework Directive and other EU nonsense that dear Lady Young was so fond of, all of which has prevented the proper, traditional and effective maintenance of our waterways for drainage and navigation? Or will they now just find yet another excuse?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2020 18:21:47 GMT
I remember when the EA started up. Originally they were going to be called the "environmental agency" but that idea was sidelined due to the obvious "mental agency" shorthand.
Too many conflicting inputs.
Wildlife over navigation.
Similar to the situation with pavements where you get the road surface raised rather than kerbs lowered. This must be to do with disability groups enabling wheelchair access at the expense of other people's children's safety on pavements.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Feb 20, 2020 18:49:09 GMT
It's interesting to reprise what the House of Commons Environment Committee had to say in its report to Parliament on the Winter Floods of 2013/2014 as part of its conclusions and recommendations:
"Dredging. The importance of land drainage should not be underestimated. Local solutions and the history of local drainage in the relevant catchment area should be taken into account when deciding on measures to prevent flood risk. Where dredging is appropriate, the benefits need to be sustained through routine maintenance. Too often work is neglected until a need is created for costly one-off capital investment. When dredging is beneficial as part of a portfolio of measures, Defra must give a long-term commitment to fund regular maintenance in the relevant catchment area."
"Maintenance Funding. We recommend that Defra increase revenue funding to ensure that there is sufficient investment in maintenance work, including conveyance and dredging."
No doubt we can all look forward to yet another Parliamentary Report this time round which will again be totally ignored. Don't worry, instead of doing what actually needs doing, the experts at the EA can always make a phone call to the Army to erect some temporary barriers after the flood has already ruined homes and livelihoods.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 20, 2020 21:10:21 GMT
There comes a point where the facts are ascertained though, as we get more information and better measurements we can be nearer the truth, sometimes it's just a fact, not up for discussion, not an opinion. 2+2=4 but if a scientist or an expert says it some just will not believe it. Like the the MMR vaccine scandal ? Rog Yes, there were the majority saying it was OK and one who had an agenda promoting the mmr issue. He was not promoting the facts. He was after fame and glory and had a bee in his bonnet. This let to the current below optimum 95% take up rate and the spread of measles mumps and rubella again. All nasty diseases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 7:23:59 GMT
Sorry Jim but that's rather twisting facts to suit. Wakefield and a cohort of scientists came up with the 'truth' ... later proved to be nonsense but still responsible for huge failure to immunise. Perhaps thalidomide is another example. Your suggestion that scientists always get it right, and we are fools to not accept their truth, was the point I was rebutting. Rog
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 21, 2020 7:42:04 GMT
the EA's Chair, Baroness Barbara Young - recruited from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. She knew all the tricks to promote her new priorities over all others and had her staff trawl through EU-imposed regulations to find ways to prevent proper and essential maintenance of watercourses. Farmers, landowners and drainage boards were threatened with prosecution in a two-fold attack that effectively banned both dredging and disposal of so-called contaminated waste - silt from those dredgings. Her mantra, repeated over and over again was "For instant wildlife, just add water". Another silly hat. "Perhaps one wag would argue that she has gone even further and has been actively trying to assist in a death – of farming communities on the Somerset Levels by helping to flood them off the land." autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/somerset-levels-flooding-when-will-baroness-young-be-called-to-account/
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 21, 2020 7:53:10 GMT
. . . . . . . . . . . No doubt we can all look forward to yet another Parliamentary Report this time round which will again be totally ignored. Don't worry, instead of doing what actually needs doing, the experts at the EA can always make a phone call to the Army to erect some temporary barriers after the flood has already ruined homes and livelihoods. Don't forget, . . there is also Thunderboat's very own fount of all piss and wind knowledge to turn to when all else fails. I would think Bodger in full 'King Canute' mode would be a force to be reckoned with !
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Feb 21, 2020 7:57:40 GMT
Bloody right !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 7:59:14 GMT
Sorry Jim but that's rather twisting facts to suit. Wakefield and a cohort of scientists came up with the 'truth' ... later proved to be nonsense but still responsible for huge failure to immunise. Perhaps thalidomide is another example. Your suggestion that scientists always get it right, and we are fools to not accept their truth, was the point I was rebutting. Rog Scientists and engineers will sometimes only read what they want to read, and hear what they want to hear, to back up their personal theories and understanding. That is where the real danger lies. Basically arrogance. Arrogance isn't just confined to scientists and engineers of course but when it's a very high risk project (like CERN) that becomes a big issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 8:03:51 GMT
Not just arrogance ... money really does talk ... in science as much as any other walk of life.
Certain research products, if linked to 'themes of the day' will receive huge levels of funding not otherwise available.
I am not wise enough to always recognise the truth, but I'm wise enough to not always believe what scientists say, blindly.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 8:18:06 GMT
As regards dredging and maintaining drains to prevent flooding, Holland is a good example.
One interesting feature is that they can use flooding as a defence measure and create a giant moat. Maybe that's what our government is doing...inadvertently...
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Feb 21, 2020 9:28:21 GMT
Of course what you deniers are forgetting is that sea levels are risiing 3mm yearly [this is an average some places its more some less] so why are these levels rising? Its because the bloody ice is melting!! Also the rising sea levels make it more difficult for the water to drain, I know that dredging will help and flood defenses help as well but dredging is the first thing you should do not the last, we are out of the EU now so can put the silt back on farmlands where it came from in the first place, thereby building up the level making it more difficult for that land to flood
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 21, 2020 9:37:14 GMT
Sorry Jim but that's rather twisting facts to suit. Wakefield and a cohort of scientists came up with the 'truth' ... later proved to be nonsense but still responsible for huge failure to immunise. Perhaps thalidomide is another example. Your suggestion that scientists always get it right, and we are fools to not accept their truth, was the point I was rebutting. Rog That's not what I was saying though. I was saying that some people, not all, react as soon as they hear the word Scientist or Expert automatically dismiss it even if the proposition is 1+1+2. They prefer alternative facts.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 21, 2020 9:45:44 GMT
Sorry Jim but that's rather twisting facts to suit. Wakefield and a cohort of scientists came up with the 'truth' ... later proved to be nonsense but still responsible for huge failure to immunise. Perhaps thalidomide is another example. Your suggestion that scientists always get it right, and we are fools to not accept their truth, was the point I was rebutting. Rog That's not what I was saying though. I was saying that some people, not all, react as soon as they hear the word Scientist or Expert automatically dismiss it even if the proposition is 1+1+2. They prefer alternative facts. sorry Jim you were claiming that what the scientists are saying is 100% fact ..... that is incorrect, It is not a "fact" it is a theory, it may be correct but at this stage it is still a theory and alternatives should always be considered as they may turn out to be correct ....... only death and taxes are certainties in this life
|
|