UK Flooding

[Arthurgray50@blu]

The article mentioned by Ianc99, is what l have been saying all along.

The Tories have been in power for six years now, and cuts are there everyday affair. And this is what happening. IF you cut this and that, this is what will happen each time there is heavy rain or bad weather.

What will happen when we get really heavy know - flooding. The poor resident's of towns up and down the UK that live near rivers. They will suffer again.

The Government has to put money into building better flood barriers.

And people will now say that l am battering the Tories again. Well lets put it this way. He has to look after his own country first and foremost.

[Stephen]

Cuts were made way before the Tories got in!

Simple solution is never buy a home on a flood plain or near a river.

Its not just the poor residents that are affected. Rich people live near rivers too.

[TheDaddy]

You couldn't make it up

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weat...r-repairs.html

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Cuts were made way before the Tories got in!

Simple solution is never buy a home on a flood plain or near a river.

Its not just the poor residents that are affected. Rich people live near rivers too.

Indeed both governments are to blame.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Cuts were made way before the Tories got in!

Simple solution is never buy a home on a flood plain or near a river.

So where do you suggest people live given that in some areas about the only places where the local NIMBYs will tolerate building is flood plains?

This is far from a simple solution. Who sits on planning committees? Councillors. What's always a vote winner? Pandering to NIMBYs and BANANAs by pledging to keep house prices high 'preserve the local environment'.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

So where do you suggest people live given that in some areas about the only places where the local NIMBYs will tolerate building is flood plains?

This is far from a simple solution. Who sits on planning committees? Councillors. What's always a vote winner? Pandering to NIMBYs and BANANAs by pledging to keep house prices high 'preserve the local environment'.

Build new homes on raised platforms or stilts?

Maybe even floating platforms so they raised with the water level?

[tweetiepooh]

If homes do need to be built where it floods them maybe they do need to learn from places that have the same issue and build using "stilts" or other forms of raising the structure.

Anyone who has lived abroad knows that infrastructure and structures are built to suit conditions. So they have big storm drains because rain usually falls in short but heavy bursts so need to clear it away quickly. Houses are built above ground level so not damaged by the flooding that will happen.

We live in a more temperate climate hence any major deviation causes chaos and demands from those affected. Snow, wind, rain, drought whatever, we are just not equipped to cope with extremes that only happen very infrequently in any single area. And people don't want to spend huge amounts on things that may not happen. As already mentioned if millions (more likely much more than that) were spent to protect and the event didn't happen then people would complain that they misspent it.
(Look at the Y2K issue - I was part of a coding team to fix Y2K issues for a hospital so I know it was a real problem - millions were spent to prevent problems and when the problems didn't happen people complain it was spent for naught and that was to fix a one time event that would have caused real issues. Same mentality. Even if the defences were needed someone would say too much was spent because it worked too well.)

[rogerdraig]

the problem is building in flood plains

I live in Newport ( south wales ) we have a river with at maximum a 13 meter tidal range

the reason we don't flood often ( it has happened ) is because we have hundreds of years of flood planning with the Gwent levels and their many reens ( water ditches ) plus decades of walls and tunnels and pumping stations

just dredging or sticking a few dams in place will not protect you when you build on the part that was meant to flood

the idea that its any one government fault or that any one government could fix it is far fetched unless you throw unlimited cash at it and even then water will likely still win in the end if you try to do short term fixes

[techguyone]

I agree with Tweetie (I also worked on a Y2K project team)

Reality is, the climate changes, it changed before man, it'll change after man, perhaps if we spent less time as a species bickering about who did what, and actually adapted our practises around Nature, we might get on better.

Meandering rivers are an option, as are leaky dams, temp water run off areas etc.

Whilst some people are stuck with living underwater, many more aren't, I do despair when you get morons going on about their 'wonderful river view' then crying when their property goes submarine, why would anyone (who has a choice) willingly set up house in an area known for flooding , and since the year 2000 it's happened enough times in the usual places for people to be in the know.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by techguyone

I agree with Tweetie (I also worked on a Y2K project team)

Reality is, the climate changes, it changed before man, it'll change after man, perhaps if we spent less time as a species bickering about who did what, and actually adapted our practises around Nature, we might get on better.

Meandering rivers are an option, as are leaky dams, temp water run off areas etc.

Whilst some people are stuck with living underwater, many more aren't, I do despair when you get morons going on about their 'wonderful river view' then crying when their property goes submarine, why would anyone (who has a choice) willingly set up house in an area known for flooding , and since the year 2000 it's happened enough times in the usual places for people to be in the know.

'Bickering about who did what' is kinda crucial when you consider that the changes that are happening now have never before occurred so rapidly through natural causes. ( I discount apocalyptic events like asteroids and super volcanoes here.) The evidence that our contribution of greenhouse gases is the crucial factor, in this rapidly evolving trend towards warming, is overwhelming. Keeping the global rise below 2C, if that is still possible, may just prevent catastrophe.

Your second point I agree with. At the same time as accepting the blame for adding to existing climate change, we must learn to mitigate against the effects by working with nature as much as possible. Those building along rivers in the past did so knowing that they might get away with a once in a 100 years event, and enjoy the benefits of riverside living. This was not just recreational, because rivers were once a crucial source of water, food and transport. This is why most of our towns are adjacent to rivers. However, today we may be seeing a cluster of 'once in a 100 years' events, possible caused by global warming, and getting worse as time goes by. We no longer need to live along rivers, (our infrastructures allow us to build and thrive anywhere), so we just stop doing it!

Meanwhile we have to decide what towns and what assets are capable of being saved having taken all the flood prevention measures we can. Would we want flood barriers higher than the properties they are supposed to protect? No, probably not. Would we want some farmland turned into permanent wetlands to protect the towns below. Probably. Some farmland and some riverside assets may just have to be let go.

Translate our minimal UK problems into those we see in low altitude islands, in coastal plains, river deltas and lowland countries and we can see why we should be spending even more in aiding those locations regardless of who is to blame. We are talking about the possibility, as sea levels rise and as river flooding increases, of having to relocate billions of people, not just from developing countries either. I have not mentioned drought yet! Sea and river defenses and water supply schemes are the only thing that may buy us time over the next two generations. The consequences for economics, politics, culture and society generally of having to relocate all those people, (refugees and migrants), doesn't bear thinking about; yet we have to think about it.

[denphone]

Environment Agency boss resigns.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35285020

[Ken W]

Originally Posted by denphone

Environment Agency boss resigns.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35285020

About time too.

[Mr K]

Can't really see the point of him resigning, bit of a media witch hunt and a convenient scapegoat for the Govt. He didn't cause the rain or climate change, he didn't cause his own budget cut.

A new mug in charge won't be any better - just somebody else to blame when the next floods come. We're not dealing with the real issues at all, a typical British blame somebody response.

[techguyone]

I agree with K, just a convenient scapegoat for gullible muppets

[denphone]

Originally Posted by techguyone

I agree with K, just a convenient scapegoat for gullible muppets

Just as the last one was.