Farmers want more subsidies for flooding water meadows

[wickedwickedmotox]

Figgy, you clearly have an unrivalled knowledge of not only the countryside but also running a farm, well done for a well researched and knowledgable post. Maybe its time you started a thread on stupid "townies buying houses on flood plains" aswell?.

[rtb]

Listening to the BBC news this morning the farmers union is wanting extra subsidies paying to farmers,to allow water meadows and flood plains to be flooded a little, to help with all floods we have been getting in recent years.

Another spokesmen on the topic said every family in this country pays £400.00 in farming subsidies now. I was suprised at the amount that were paying.

And they want more!!

Figgy

After a very quick search I found this ''A survey of public spending in the UK' IFS Briefing note BN 43 page 16

Government spending per family 2008-09 ...social security £5400, health services £3600, education £2600, defence £1200, public order £1100, debt interest £800, transport £700.......Just to try and bring some balance to your figures. Oh, and to be correct, farmers do not receive subsidies anymore, they receive a Single Farm Payment for meeting the conditions of cross compliance.

[Gav912]

The farm I work on would be over the moon if the shoot would naff off and take all their damned partridges with them especially after last years disaster involving our rape crop, 8 acres lost at expected yield of 2 ton/acre at a minimum price of £300 per ton......and some of you wonder why farmers want paying by shooting syndicates?!

 

We're sick and tired of people wandering about on our wildlife/conservation headlands despite signs being putting up asking them not to.........at our last inspection that little nugget landed us a large fine. those of you who think the subsidies are stuck straight in the farmers back pocket are very much misguided, especially if you saw the outgoing costs of the average sized arable farm that you are so keen to get shooting permission on let alone one with livestock as well. One bill alone for last spring for a pesticide (1200kg of) to allow us to grow the spuds that McDonalds and Walkers desire was £17000, that's the sort of thing the subsidies help with.

 

I had to drill some of our conservation strips last year and was presented with a 3inch thick folder of paperwork to go with them about the dos and don'ts and how we have to look after them every year so its hardly money for nothing.

[keg]

There is nothing wrong with farmers selling land the problem lies with the planning authorities if the land is in the green belt or on flood planes permission should not be given to build on it so if a developer buys some greenbelt land for an inflated price then he/she should be made to use the land for what it is designated as ie growing stuff on or grazing.

So they won't buy it as isn't that what the farmers do?

[keg]

 

As a farmer, that was my first, though rather obvious thought!

 

Now, if you want to talk about subsidies, then go ahead, but I am not getting involved - the only thing I will say is that if you "think" they are something for nothing, then you need to do a bit more research...

My best mate and his family farm... except they don't as they cannot make it pay. My mate is a builder/property developer. The oldest brother does hardcore and topsoil and the middle one does a bit of everything.

 

Speak to the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys about the CAP, in my opinion it was invented by them, for them...

 

There is a huge amount of ignorance and generalisation on this thread.

 

Rant over

[scotslad]

Ignoreing all the ignorant and ill informed comments about farmers subsidieds and the SFP etc...

 

Its about time our govermnet eventually woke up and seen the light, building on flood plains, little river management etc has all encouraged flooding as well as the severity of heavy rain which is now far more common than used to be. (100 year flood events are happening far more regularly than once every 100 years)

 

But mainly the simple fact of channelling water as a means of a flood defence was never going to work and cost's an absolute fortune

Most more forward thinking coutries like OZ and NZ have been doing this for years, even some parts of USA, puting culverts/drains to take high water levels away from towns/cities to fllod low lying farm land.

 

It was the post war government that actually paid to drain and build flood banks round vast areas off farmland, if they organised the drains to take the water away quickly when water level has subsided would cuase minimal damage to a lot of farmland

 

So would u not rather a farmer is paid a small bit of money to flood a field rather than someones front room being flooded, even if it's not ur front romm will still push up insurance costs for everyone

[sonicdmb]

Main causes of flooding as I see them

Moor land drained for grazing pushed and paid for by government (now being filled back in to some extent) this causes run off

Allowing building on flood plains pushing water downstream.

the lack of river maintenance including drains culverts in towns slowing the flow

 

There is some planning rules that try to offset hard standing etc in the over a certain amount 10m2 or so iirc you must have planning or it must be permeable or a slow release storage system put in. It will help some but is a case of case of closing the door after the horse bolted then died of old age.

 

The biggest problem with the grant of planning on flood plains is that many councils are scared to say no because if they do and the developer appeals it could cost them hundreds of thousands in court costs. happens on green field sites too.

 

Those who begrudge the subsidy payments should think carefully before saying they should be stopped, if you had to pay the true cost for food production you'd be worse off by more than the £400 per family quoted.

[the enigma]

If it wasn't for subsidies your grocery bill would be a damn sight higher. Simples

[figgy]

Figgy, you clearly have an unrivalled knowledge of not only the countryside but also running a farm, well done for a well researched and knowledgable post. Maybe its time you started a thread on stupid "townies buying houses on flood plains" aswell?.

I grew up in the countryside and know quite a few farmers. What have I said about running a farm, nothing,that's right nothin. I quoted a BBC news Programme as stated in my first post and the amount every family pays for farm subsidies regardless of what they are now called. Also about the proposal of paying farmers more for allowing flooding on flood plains and water meadows.

 

Some one posted about how its the farmers who give us our shooting. I replied its not for nothing or out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

You then spout on about my unrivalled knowledge and well researched post, your obviously not suited about it.

 

Keep hearing about poor farmers can't make any money and there is nothing in it for them blah blah blah, easy sell up and do something else that does pay. No body is forcing them to farm the land.

 

 

Figgy

Edited January 30, 2014 by figgy

[dashman1]

Well said figgy could not agree more atb

[pigeon controller]

I have two comments on this subjects. Thirty plus years ago the river Severn would flood over the large grass fields at Ukinghall to a depth of approx three inches . When it left the fields it had a cover of silt ,this was very good for the grass. They subsequently built a flood barrier and it moved the water down to Tewksbury and caused floods.

 

The Grand Union canal near my home states its depth should be 5 ft 3 ins, when fishing it for Zander bait it measures 18 inches. At Knowle and Hatton the canal drops off the Birmingham Plateau this is ten miles from the centre of Birmingham . Talking to an older boy on the canal he said that he used to work the locks and when they had rain they would open the locks at both locations to prevent the canal overflowing into the local rivers and prevent floods . This is not the case now !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Rant Over

[pycoed]

I have two comments on this subjects. Thirty plus years ago the river Severn would flood over the large grass fields at Ukinghall to a depth of approx three inches . When it left the fields it had a cover of silt ,this was very good for the grass. They subsequently built a flood barrier and it moved the water down to Tewksbury and caused floods.

 

The Grand Union canal near my home states its depth should be 5 ft 3 ins, when fishing it for Zander bait it measures 18 inches. At Knowle and Hatton the canal drops off the Birmingham Plateau this is ten miles from the centre of Birmingham . Talking to an older boy on the canal he said that he used to work the locks and when they had rain they would open the locks at both locations to prevent the canal overflowing into the local rivers and prevent floods . This is not the case now !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Rant Over

Oh no! Not silt? - that's now "controlled waste" & you need a carrier's licence to shift it more than a gnat's cock from the water. This is part of the idiocy that farmers now have to contend with ( & I ain't a farmer by the way). If the EA had been running the Nile valley, we'd have never heard of the ancient Egyptians.

[Kes]

Isnt it simply that those farmers in Somerset had a reasonable expectation that their land would be usable to farm. Various EU directives later and an indolent Environment Agency and the land they farm is under water. This should not happen since, although below sea level, the Somerset levels are pumped to keep them flood free. If the water cant get to the pumps fast enough due to silting in the dykes, are we to blame the farmers who pay for land drainage as we all do?

Holland, which is mostly below sea level, seems to manage the problem satisfactorily. I wouldnt like to cope with all the paperwork, re SFP having seen some myself. Added to which, DEFRA seem unable to make prompt, correct payments to those who manage the maze of paperwork.

[welsh1]

It would make no real difference if the dykes were cleared, the combination of lots of rain which normally would flow down the dykes and rivers to the sea and high tides and winds is the main factor.

 

The sea is forcing it self up the mouth of the rivers, and in effect acting like a huge bung,it would make no difference if the rivers and dykes were cleared, the water is simply filling up and over flowing.

 

The only remedy to this phenomena is to jack up the land on one side about 50ft so the flow would be more powerful than the incoming sea,but this as we all know is only possible with the help of Hollywood and Bruce Willis.

[the enigma]

I grew up in the countryside and know quite a few farmers. What have I said about running a farm, nothing,that's right nothin. I quoted a BBC news Programme as stated in my first post and the amount every family pays for farm subsidies regardless of what they are now called. Also about the proposal of paying farmers more for allowing flooding on flood plains and water meadows.

 

Some one posted about how its the farmers who give us our shooting. I replied its not for nothing or out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

You then spout on about my unrivalled knowledge and well researched post, your obviously not suited about it.

 

Keep hearing about poor farmers can't make any money and there is nothing in it for them blah blah blah, easy sell up and do something else that does pay. No body is forcing them to farm the land.

 

 

Figgy

 

Seeing as you seem to think that it's unreasonable for farmers' to be compensated for loss of production, because the Environment Agency or whoever isn't doing their job in maintaining waterways, I assume that if they ever come to you, and ask to flood your house, you'll just shrug your shoulders and say "oh well."

[Kes]

It would make no real difference if the dykes were cleared, the combination of lots of rain which normally would flow down the dykes and rivers to the sea and high tides and winds is the main factor.

 

The sea is forcing it self up the mouth of the rivers, and in effect acting like a huge bung,it would make no difference if the rivers and dykes were cleared, the water is simply filling up and over flowing.

 

The only remedy to this phenomena is to jack up the land on one side about 50ft so the flow would be more powerful than the incoming sea,but this as we all know is only possible with the help of Hollywood and Bruce Willis.

I dont actually agree with your assessment since I believe it is the localised fluvial flooding which is the main problem, It doesnt matter where the sea level is as long as you can pump water up fast enough. The hydraulic backwater curve for the river Severn say may add a few feet to the pumping height but its not actually the water from the Severn thats inundating the land, Added to which the assessment of future pumping capacity required, should have considered the variable height as part of the capacity assessment since the pumping height reduces any pumps capacity. Its the inability to clear it of the water that has fallen from the sky and cannot drain away that is permitting the problem to persist. Pumping capacity will be a crucial factor here, given the extreme rainfall we have had. There should also be stand-by pumps for servicing etc so if all were working full throttle, getting water out wouldnt be a problem just getting it to the pumps.

I may be wrong but clearing and deepening the dykes will increase storage capacity rather a lot, allowing increased pumping capacity a buffer against the rainfall levels. I'm not there so I dont know but in this scenario the farmers have a case.

[welsh1]

You would have to make very deep rivers,and then all you would be doing is cutting into the watertable and as such achieve very little.

 

Cut and copied from another conversation..

 

When the sea is as high as it currently is through tidal surges, though, the rivers cannot drain the land. They simply back up and the water stays where it is because the sea is currently 5.8 metres higher than normal at high tide. effectively the rivers are plugged.

Add to that the fact that the rain is still falling and we have a large catchment area all draining into a flood plain via a porous karst system, and a naturally high water table, and the flood-pain is effectively acting as a giant flood basin.

The area is very flat, and as a result any dredging would simply create a slightly deeper channel which would have limited effect on the ability of the land to drain. With the tidal surges so high, having deeper river's would have made little difference. What would be needed is steeper gradient which would allow the river flow to overcome the tidal surge, leading to only localised coastal flooding. Unfortunately it is impossible to raise the Somerset Levels in such a manner, and so flooding will occur.

[Kes]

You would have to make very deep rivers,and then all you would be doing is cutting into the watertable and as such achieve very little.

 

Cut and copied from another conversation..

 

When the sea is as high as it currently is through tidal surges, though, the rivers cannot drain the land. They simply back up and the water stays where it is because the sea is currently 5.8 metres higher than normal at high tide. effectively the rivers are plugged.

 

Add to that the fact that the rain is still falling and we have a large catchment area all draining into a flood plain via a porous karst system, and a naturally high water table, and the flood-pain is effectively acting as a giant flood basin.

 

The area is very flat, and as a result any dredging would simply create a slightly deeper channel which would have limited effect on the ability of the land to drain. With the tidal surges so high, having deeper river's would have made little difference. What would be needed is steeper gradient which would allow the river flow to overcome the tidal surge, leading to only localised coastal flooding. Unfortunately it is impossible to raise the Somerset Levels in such a manner, and so flooding will occur.

The example of Holland suggests, despite a porous bedrock, it is possible to maintain a sub sea level land area reasonably dry. I am not aware that the somerset geology differs markedly from other european areas. But as said, I could be wrong.

[scotslad]

While the high tide obvousily does affect things that is only for a few hours twice a day the rest of the time it does not affect the rivers, even a 6m tide should only backwater so far inland.

 

Sepa and the Ea have put so many restrictions in about entering rivers and moving gravel that nothing has been done for years, before that farmers were always moving gravel and emptying places, u don't want to be deeping them just cleaning the gravel/silt that has filled them in so restoring them back to there orignal depth and size.

[welsh1]

The example of Holland suggests, despite a porous bedrock, it is possible to maintain a sub sea level land area reasonably dry. I am not aware that the somerset geology differs markedly from other european areas. But as said, I could be wrong.

In the Netherlands they deliberately reclaimed land and knew they were below sea level but even so they had some huge floods,in the 1950's they had a huge flood and over a 1000 died,so they set about making a huge and complex series of locks ,dams, and levies,and they control any surges this way.

But recently even they have realised they are fighting a losing battle and so have taken some areas and displaced the people and deliberately used the land as flood plain,new developments are also designed with flooding in mind,with large public areas and car parks.This country could not justify the cost of a dutch system for something that is such a rare occurrence.

While the high tide obvousily does affect things that is only for a few hours twice a day the rest of the time it does not affect the rivers, even a 6m tide should only backwater so far inland.

 

Sepa and the Ea have put so many restrictions in about entering rivers and moving gravel that nothing has been done for years, before that farmers were always moving gravel and emptying places, u don't want to be deeping them just cleaning the gravel/silt that has filled them in so restoring them back to there orignal depth and size.

It is quite simple, there is more water pouring into the plain than flowing out,normally after a couple of days of rain from the hills the water would reach the rivers and flow out, but with the sustained rain the rivers have filled, and the water table and sub strata which would usually absorb and store water in underground caves and holes are also filled, the water cannot soak away so will sit and cause flooding the wind and the large seas have stopped the water flowing out to sea.

Very adverse wind,rain and sea conditions have all conspired to create the floods.

Dredging would just give you a few feet deeper water in places,it simply does not have the power to flow out to sea,it is to flat ,it needs a steeper gradient to force its way to the sea, but that is not possible.