Don't take
this as gospel but it's interesting.
Perhaps if the taxpayer were to stop funding deforestation, removal of heather to improve grouse shooting for Hooray Henrys, subsidy of farming on land that's unviable for farming but great to hold water, and indeed removal of a whole bunch of 'flood defence' that nature provides to then pay for entirely artificial defences and clean up that'd be a good start.
We need to co-operate with nature, not spend money buggering it up in one place to then spend more money trying to fix it elsewhere. The current policies are simply moronic on each and every level and the government has shown little interest in fixing it which is unsurprising when it's as infested with an old boys' network and vested interests as this one is.
Incidentally that's not a partisan jibe. I'm sure that we've had other governments as equally beholden to vested interests and it's just not been as easy to track those interests due to no Internet.
---------- Post added at 19:07 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
|
Quote:
|
Diversion channels have been dug; areas of agricultural land are being used to create temporary reservoirs where floodwaters can be held back to prevent flooding of towns downstream; roads and houses are being raised or rebuilt off the floodplain.
|
Hah. In the UK the taxpayer subsidises water management programmes that keep agricultural land, grouse farms, etc, dry at the expense of flooding of towns downstream.