Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 12:37:38 GMT
Obviously all rivers are land drains by definition but there is a balance to be struck between pleasure boating and flood defence. Quite right. But the existing, well-tried and largely accepted 'balance' between those interests on the Anglian rivers is about to be destroyed by reversion to a "do-nothing" approach by the EA. It is a way of working they seem more than happy to adopt given any feeble excuse and/or spurious and unpublished evidence. As Carl points out, Gazza Likes this doesn't fit in this instance! |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 17, 2016 13:42:27 GMT
Interesting disscussion, I don't know enough about the area to add anything to the discussion. But gazza, have you done anything about this, emailed relevant people, contacted your local mp etc, voicing your concern about the proposals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 14:03:15 GMT
That's the next step, we have reasonable representation on the river through two associations - the Association of Nene River Clubs and Friends of the River Nene, both will have some input into this We have a local councillor who is a member at Titchmarsh (one of the locations affected) and is going to get his ear bent  Whether Sue Cant and her colleagues listen is a different matter - based on my limited dealings with her and her department I have my suspicions on the likelihood of that! |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 17, 2016 14:08:47 GMT
Approaching them through the associations is good, but don't let it stop you doing the same as an individual and encouraging as many individuals as possible to do the same.
The best thing with things like this, is to find out the relevant individuals and get people to fill their email inboxes with concerns/complaints on a regular basis. I've helped win a few campaigns like this and it's something anybody with an Internet connection can do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 15:07:08 GMT
Approaching them through the associations is good, but don't let it stop you doing the same as an individual and encouraging as many individuals as possible to do the same. The best thing with things like this, is to find out the relevant individuals and get people to fill their email inboxes with concerns/complaints on a regular basis. I've helped win a few campaigns like this and it's something anybody with an Internet connection can do. Thanks for that Kris, it looks like a concerted effort needs making by all of us affected by this daft idea. I can see us back on the Broads in time - that or an interloper on your big rivers and canals That hinges on the old girl being mostly finished so isn't likely to be anytime soon, even if the EA/C&RT do their level best to cock it up down here! |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 17, 2016 16:08:07 GMT
To me the most worrying aspect of crt taking over Ea waterways, is this will give them the perfect opputunity to clamp down on cc's further and increase liscence fees. In the name of integrating the two sets of legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Oct 17, 2016 19:27:35 GMT
To me the most worrying aspect of crt taking over Ea waterways, is this will give them the perfect opputunity to clamp down on cc's further and increase liscence fees. In the name of integrating the two sets of legislation. I'm not sure this is true Kris. The laws applicable EA rivers and CaRT rivers/canals are quite different and I am not sure that there is any requirement to have a home mooring on EA. On the other hand, being able to moor on EA rivers for more than a day or two presents a challenge in itself due to riparian ownership and the law. With regard to licence fees there is nothing to stop massive price increases now on CaRT waters as we have come to the end of the period where CaRT's board of Trustees undertook to limit them to inflation. That aside, I have two major concerns - 1. A merger would reduce choice of navigation authority. 2. It is difficult to see government providing adequate funding. |
|
|
|
Post by larkboy on Oct 17, 2016 22:16:21 GMT
I have to say this all sounds deeply depressing...... I'm not very good at protesting to officialdom, but any advice on sticking my oar in officially would be welcome as this really will impact my wife and I, and all those of us that live and navigate this system. To those of you who are in touch with the protagonists, I salute you.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Oct 17, 2016 22:43:25 GMT
I have to say this all sounds deeply depressing...... I'm not very good at protesting to officialdom, but any advice on sticking my oar in officially would be welcome as this really will impact my wife and I, and all those of us that live and navigate this system. To those of you who are in touch with the protagonists, I salute you. An email to the EA Anglian Waterways Manager voicing your concern could do no harm. It will be one of many on his desk! irven.forbes@environment-agency.gov.ukFor a start, you could point out just how ludicrous this statement is: Our studies show that reversing locks, to manage water levels on the River Nene, does not significantly contribute to reducing flood risk. Operating the locks in this way can reduce flood risk in some smaller flooding events by creating a little more capacity in the channel to move flood water more quickly downstream. However, in larger flood events lock reversal has little or no flood risk benefit as locks and other structures become overwhelmed by flood water.
Every 'flood event' starts off as a 'smaller flood event' and only becomes a 'larger flood event' when the discharge of water is restricted. If "Operating the locks in this way can reduce flood risk in some smaller flooding events by creating a little more capacity in the channel to move flood water more quickly downstream" then there can be no excuse for not following the long-established practice of maximising capacity by using the locks for flood discharge as soon as flows reach the SSA levels and navigation is not advised. |
|
|
|
Post by larkboy on Oct 17, 2016 22:59:15 GMT
I have to say this all sounds deeply depressing...... I'm not very good at protesting to officialdom, but any advice on sticking my oar in officially would be welcome as this really will impact my wife and I, and all those of us that live and navigate this system. To those of you who are in touch with the protagonists, I salute you. An email to the EA Anglian Waterways Manager voicing your concern could do no harm. It will be one of many on his desk! irven.forbes@environment-agency.gov.ukFor a start, you could point out just how ludicrous this statement is: Our studies show that reversing locks, to manage water levels on the River Nene, does not significantly contribute to reducing flood risk. Operating the locks in this way can reduce flood risk in some smaller flooding events by creating a little more capacity in the channel to move flood water more quickly downstream. However, in larger flood events lock reversal has little or no flood risk benefit as locks and other structures become overwhelmed by flood water.
Every 'flood event' starts off as a 'smaller flood event' and only becomes a 'larger flood event' when the discharge of water is restricted. If "Operating the locks in this way can reduce flood risk in some smaller flooding events by creating a little more capacity in the channel to move flood water more quickly downstream" then there can be no excuse for not following the long-established practice of maximising capacity by using the locks for flood discharge as soon as flows reach the SSA levels and navigation is not advised. Thanks for that, I will utilise my lunch break tomorrow to compose an email of my concerns to the E.A. I feel this could be the first of many. |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 18, 2016 7:31:09 GMT
An email to the EA Anglian Waterways Manager voicing your concern could do no harm. It will be one of many on his desk! irven.forbes@environment-agency.gov.ukFor a start, you could point out just how ludicrous this statement is: Our studies show that reversing locks, to manage water levels on the River Nene, does not significantly contribute to reducing flood risk. Operating the locks in this way can reduce flood risk in some smaller flooding events by creating a little more capacity in the channel to move flood water more quickly downstream. However, in larger flood events lock reversal has little or no flood risk benefit as locks and other structures become overwhelmed by flood water.
Every 'flood event' starts off as a 'smaller flood event' and only becomes a 'larger flood event' when the discharge of water is restricted. If "Operating the locks in this way can reduce flood risk in some smaller flooding events by creating a little more capacity in the channel to move flood water more quickly downstream" then there can be no excuse for not following the long-established practice of maximising capacity by using the locks for flood discharge as soon as flows reach the SSA levels and navigation is not advised. Thanks for that, I will utilise my lunch break tomorrow to compose an email of my concerns to the E.A. I feel this could be the first of many. That's it email them and keep emailing them, encourage as many people as possible to do the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 11:19:37 GMT
A clip from 1990 that has surfaced on the Friends of The Nene facebook page, gives a good indication of the way the locks should function in normal river conditions.
The statement by the EA that the locks were designed for navigation is very economical wuith the truth, the dual role they serve can be seen from this video if you are not familiar with the river.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Oct 24, 2016 12:17:31 GMT
A clip from 1990 that has surfaced on the Friends of The Nene facebook page, gives a good indication of the way the locks should function in normal river conditions. The statement by the EA that the locks were designed for navigation is very economical wuith the truth, the dual role they serve can be seen from this video if you are not familiar with the river. Thanks, very interesting! And if you want to go back just a little further in the history of the Nene navigation, the opening chapter of Stanley Asher’s 1957 report to the IWA Fenlands Branch “The River Nene Navigation” also gives a clear picture of the dual role of the Nene locks. “There are 38 locks throughout the navigation, all of which are in very good condition and of modern construction. Dimensions are 83 feet 6 inches long and 15 feet wide with wooden conventional type top gates each containing a sluice known locally as a “paddle” or a “slacker”, and a vertically rising guillotine of steel in lieu of the normal type bottom gates.
Usually the slackers are found in the “closed” or down position and normal reaction is to leave them down after clearing a lock. The slackers are, however, used by the Nene River Board engineers to control the run of water during rainy weather, in order to minimise the risk of flooding in the valley and lower reaches of the river; working to a remarkably accurate forecast available to them, the engineers open the slackers and regulate the river levels well in advance of the expected rainfall.
Thus, upon arrival at a lock, one slacker might be discovered to be fully open or partially open, and the other slacker might be fully closed. It may even happen that the navigator will encounter a whole sequence of locks with slackers left in this manner. He is at liberty to reset them to suit with his requirements while locking through, but, and this is vitally important, the slackers must be left exactly as found.
Failure to comply in this respect will result in a “rocket” from the N.R.B. engineers who, although usually very tolerant and friendly people, are justifiably angry when their carefully calculated levels are messed up by failure of other people to comply with above regulation.”It is possible, of course, that the EA staff currently charged with management of the river Nene are equally "tolerant and friendly people" as their N.R.B. counterparts from nearly 60-years ago. Sadly their knowledge of the river is most definitely not on a par as their latest bit of incompetence demonstrates so well. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 24, 2016 13:52:29 GMT
It is very unfortunate that the inexperience is not confined to the Nene, and that where the EA have been taking over the drainage functions once monitored and operated by specific Boards, the inexperience has been potentially devastating.
The River Glen sluice was operated by a resident on-site employee of the Welland & Deepings Internal drainage Board for decades, but when he retired last year the EA took over the responsibility.
They have been spending huge sums on replacing the mitre gates and setting up remote monitoring devices – but that can never replace men on the spot, nor could they hope to respond in time to any difficulties arising. The EA are currently facing potential litigation over the damage caused to several riparian properties following lack of care early this year.
The gates were opened to allow floating rubbish to flow out, but no-one thought to keep an eye out for when the tide came in. Consequently, logs were swept back into the sluice as the gates were being closed – and the gates were naturally jammed open. As a result there was NO stemming of the tide, and the Reservoir flooded. Drastic opening of the Sluice once the tide went out, meant that rapid draw down alongside abnormally soaked upper banks resulted in land slippage and failure of individual bank protection, putting the houses at risk also.
It remains to be seen whether that dispute will be settled out of court, but the really alarming thought is what the result could have been, had there been a very high tide? No doubt the fields would have been protected by the banks and dykes, but dozens of houses would have been flooded to the roof tops. These locks and sluices at crucial points need personal supervision at certain times, and supervision, at that, of people who know what they are doing.
If things can be so parlous under EA administration, I shudder to think of the effect of having CaRT take over. In any takeover, it must surely be anticipated that the EA retain supervision over the flood defences, leaving CaRT to deal only with boat regulation [but then – what the hell for, and to what end?]
The IWA will have a lot to answer for if their active promotion of a CaRT take-over ever succeeds. Not that "I told you so" would be any comfort.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 14:12:22 GMT
|
|
