Recent Flooding

[loriusgarrulus]

https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/warnings

 

This shows where its flooded. Other maps on site show areas at risk. 

[old man]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

You could be right as it was the Tory's.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flood-insurance-agreement-reached

Either way we need something like it. 

Absolutely. 

We also maybe, need legislation to stop local councils from allowing further building on flood plains which they continue to permit as a way of increasing revenue?

[Scully]

Some of the houses and businesses in my home town have been flooded so often that premiums are now extortionate. Following storm Desmond where some residents were still living in rented accommodation almost a year later, some can’t afford the premiums and some can’t get insurance, and I know two businesses which can’t get insurance. One business beside the river had until recently been on the market for seven years. He has now taken it off the market and resigned himself to the fact it’s not going to sell. He was flooded twice within a week during the storm. I don’t know whether he can get insurance or not. 

[Rewulf]

Actually, it's partially the  EU s fault. 

Flooding both near and further away, what they didn't tell you.

We were required to accept the European Water Framework Directive (EWF) into UK law in 2000 whilst Tony Blair (Lab) was our PM.
What it has brought about is this awful situation.
No longer were the authorities charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive.

So, in order to comply with the obligations imposed on us by the European Union we had to stop dredging and embanking and allow rivers to ‘re-connect with their floodplains’, as the currently fashionable jargon has it.

And to ensure this is done, the obligation to dredge has been shifted from the relevant statutory authority (now the Environment Agency) onto each individual landowner, at the same time making sure there are no funds for dredging. And any sand and gravel that might be removed is now classed as ‘hazardous waste’ and cannot be deposited to raise the river banks, as it used to be, but has to be carted away.

On the other hand there is an apparently inexhaustible supply of grant money available for all manner of conservation and river ‘restoration’ schemes carried out by various bodies, all of which aim to put into effect the utopian requirements of the E W F Directive to make rivers as ‘natural’ as possible.

For example, 47 rivers trusts have sprung up over the last decade, charities heavily encouraged and grant-aided by the European Union, Natural England, the Environment Agency, and also by specific grants from various well-meaning bodies such as the National Lottery, water companies and county councils.

Blaming this flooding on climate change, whilst convenient, is inaccurate.

[JDog]

Rewulf for President. 

[Rewulf]

28 minutes ago, JDog said:

Rewulf for President. 

☺️😂

[JDog]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

☺️😂

Seriously though, that is a major piece of investigative journalism. I have yet to hear that quoted by anyone in Government or the Environment Agency as a reason for continued flooding problems.

[Mice!]

 

It was on FB yesterday 

[henry d]

13 minutes ago, Mice! said:

 

It was on FB yesterday 

Sounds like rubbish to me as we have had several lots of work to embank the river to prevent flooding one of which was started earlier in the year and is now partially completed

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, Mice! said:

It was on FB yesterday

Yep, there's where I got it from, most likely from one of my ultra far right FB groups 😂

 

3 minutes ago, henry d said:

Sounds like rubbish to me

It would do. 

[Lord v]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Actually, it's partially the  EU s fault. 

Flooding both near and further away, what they didn't tell you.

We were required to accept the European Water Framework Directive (EWF) into UK law in 2000 whilst Tony Blair (Lab) was our PM.
What it has brought about is this awful situation.
No longer were the authorities charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive. Not quite true - modified water courses are absolutely permitted to prevent flooding, including the use of more traditionally engineered solutions. But just because something looks 'soft' doesn't mean its not engineered. A WFD assessment is required for most works (but not on all water courses) - however there are permitted works that are excluded that allow management of flooding on a local level. The assessment definitely allows engineered solutions, plus nothing stops heavy engineering improving things!  

You also really need to look to the FWMA published in 2010 as the source of most current legislation regarding flooding as it relates to the rest of your post. This (largely) came off the back of the Pit Report rather than EU legislation.

So, in order to comply with the obligations imposed on us by the European Union we had to stop dredging and embanking and allow rivers to ‘re-connect with their floodplains’, as the currently fashionable jargon has it. There are strong ecological and hydrological reasons behind allowing rivers do what they are naturally intended to do. The primary one is the fundamental flaw in dredging which is it only works if everyone does it. One weak link in the chain and an area is stuffed as greater and greater volumes of water are carried more rapidly down stream. It also makes far more sense that flood storage is provided close to source, not mention quite a number of natural wetland habitats were lost during the mass dredging through the 60's and 70's. It also allows the flow of rivers to be more even across the year and avoids peaky or flashy flows that really cause the flooding and on the flip side droughts....

Keeping water 'in bank' might keep your house dry, (as long as the chap immediately downstream has done it) but it's pretty rubbish at everything else.  Dredging actually increases the silt runoff down stream where vegetation is stripped from banks, this ends in a massive cycle of ever increasing dredging in an effort to clear the ever increasing silt. Plus surely its far better for a random field to get flooded rather than your living room? 

And to ensure this is done, the obligation to dredge has been shifted from the relevant statutory authority (now the Environment Agency) onto each individual landowner, at the same time making sure there are no funds for dredging. And any sand and gravel that might be removed is now classed as ‘hazardous waste’ and cannot be deposited to raise the river banks, as it used to be, but has to be carted away. The Environment Agency has always had (and maintains) responsibility for those watercourses deemed main rivers. This was always alongside various smaller bodies such as various IDB's across the country. Land Drainage law has always stipulated that landowners have a responsibility to maintain watercourses within their land and a right (and responsibility) to deal with run off, despite the presence of a Land drainage act (circa 1930 - 1991 in its current form) a lot of the law around land drainage is covered by precedent  through civil case law making it a particularly interesting (and convoluted) field. More recently the EAs powers have been devolved to local authorities, creating what are referred to as LLAFs. Same job, different name. The one benefit of the LLFA is that they are Statutory Consultee on all planning application, not just the ones near main rivers like the EA were. This gives (in theory) more people, time and manpower to ensure flooding is properly considered as part of a planning. There is significant argument to be made about how well these departments funded and perform, but that's for another post.

On the other hand there is an apparently inexhaustible supply of grant money available for all manner of conservation and river ‘restoration’ schemes carried out by various bodies, all of which aim to put into effect the utopian requirements of the E W F Directive to make rivers as ‘natural’ as possible. We seem to be arguing here that 'natural' rivers are a bad thing? 

For example, 47 rivers trusts have sprung up over the last decade, charities heavily encouraged and grant-aided by the European Union, Natural England, the Environment Agency, and also by specific grants from various well-meaning bodies such as the National Lottery, water companies and county councils. Are we saying statutory authorites shouldn't be concerened about these things? Especially in the case of water companies and local authorities they neither have the time or expertise to look at these things properly. They would waste a lot of their money just trying to get the right people in to even start.  

Blaming this flooding on climate change, whilst convenient, is inaccurate.

Not sure where you got that from but a lot of that is as misleading as blaming it on climate change!

Not saying the current system is perfect - it isn't. But the situation is far more nuanced than you make out. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Lord v

[Lord v]

28 minutes ago, henry d said:

Sounds like rubbish to me as we have had several lots of work to embank the river to prevent flooding one of which was started earlier in the year and is now partially completed

You're under SEPA and Scottish water anyway.... a little more forward thinking, but not without their flaws. 

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, Lord v said:

The primary one is the fundamental flaw in dredging which is it only works if everyone does it. One weak link in the chain and an area is stuffed as greater and greater volumes of water are carried more rapidly down stream

So, if we have massive rainfall, we simply have to put up with it? As dredging, flood defence ect, just puts the problem downstream? 

10 minutes ago, Lord v said:

Plus surely its far better for a random field to get flooded rather than your living room

That depends, some people's living rooms are in that 'random' field, but hey ho, shouldn't live there eh? 

11 minutes ago, Lord v said:

We seem to be arguing here that 'natural' rivers are a bad thing? 

I'm arguing no such thing. 

The 'blame' in this case was put towards the tories, climate change, poor management of waterways, but unless you are prepared to say there is no truth in the original piece whatsoever, some of the blame can be attributed to the EU meddling, as it usually does. 

[Lord v]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

So, if we have massive rainfall, we simply have to put up with it? As dredging, flood defence ect, just puts the problem downstream? No. That sentence specifically referred to dredging. Oddly, that's not the only method of flood protection. 

That depends, some people's living rooms are in that 'random' field, but hey ho, shouldn't live there eh? I didn't say that and well you know it. Fields, by definition, tend not incorporate living rooms.  

I'm arguing no such thing. As you didn't actually write that - I suppose you aren't.

The 'blame' in this case was put towards the tories, climate change, poor management of waterways, but unless you are prepared to say there is no truth in the original piece whatsoever, some of the blame can be attributed to the EU meddling, as it usually does.

The truth in that piece is limited, very limited. Are our waterways perfectly managed? No. But what specific aims of the WFD are you objecting to? 

 

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, Lord v said:

The truth in that piece is limited, very limited. Are our waterways perfectly managed? No. But what specific aims of the WFD are you objecting to? 

I put the piece out there, that's all. 

My objections are more to do with the blame being put in specific places. 

You say there is little truth in the piece, but don't specify where, are you saying that EU directives have NO bearing whatsoever? 

 

[Dougy]

If you can take a look at the building in your areas, how may new housing estates are being built on what was flood plain, also look at what flood defenses have been put in place. 

 

Have a look on google earth, you used to be able to go back years. 

Water finds its own level, move it from one area its going to end up in another, i am not sure what they expect, stacking it up into holding fields. Near me in the Midlands they have recently built up flood banks, all this does is move the problem, they have also just built on 150 acres of secondary flood plain along the Trent. The longer the numpties keep on ignoring this simple reason for housing being flooded in lowland areas it will never stop. Unless of course we start building houses on stilts,,,, Oh i forgot !!! they are already doing that. 

[ditchman]

with my limited pathetic interlect i will make a few rash statements.....i wont write a diatribe as it will boar the pants off me and everyone else

1. selling off the water board was a bad idea
2. several thousand water baliffes were made redundant for profit
3. baliffes monitored and corrected river levels worked the locks flooded spring grazing replenishing the aquifers (flood plains) dredged rivers
4. EU environmental section does not allow dredging of rivers as it destroys biodiversity
5. developing in floodplains is based on the application accompanied by a "Hec-ras hydraulic model"...(which is rubbish)
6. you can build in a floodplain as long as you balance upstream or downstream..(which very rarely happens)

i also think it is appaling that the EA does not build reservoirs any more ...but just tinker at the edges

i also think it is appaling that the EA keeps rapeing the groundwater (aqufers) to make up the shortfall...and as a result between raping the groundwater and the redundancy of the water baliffes our rivers and streams are drying up and being backfilled.........

our water management is worse now than the 15 century...........you can see that with the ariel photos   the only dry area is where the church sits !

rant over

[Lord v]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

I put the piece out there, that's all. 

My objections are more to do with the blame being put in specific places. 

You say there is little truth in the piece, but don't specify where, are you saying that EU directives have NO bearing whatsoever? 

 

My first response outlined where I disagreed with it. 

There is some bearing, but its so limited that its almost not worth mentioning. The primary goals of the Water Framework Directive Regulations 2003 (to give it its proper name) are to prevent further deterioration in water resources (volume and quality); protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands; and promote sustainable water consumption. A secondary goal is to contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts. 

As I stated above the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 deals with the legislation surrounding flooding described in the rest of the piece. This came from the white papers: Pitt Review (2008), Future Water (2008), Making space for Water (2005). None of which are based on EU directives.   

[dodgy dave]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

☺️😂

IL SECOND THAT

[Lord v]

6 minutes ago, ditchman said:

with my limited pathetic interlect i will make a few rash statements.....i wont write a diatribe as it will boar the pants off me and everyone else

1. selling off the water board was a bad idea - Wasn't the smartest move privatising a natural resource. 
2. several thousand water baliffes were made redundant for profit
3. baliffes monitored and corrected river levels worked the locks flooded spring grazing replenishing the aquifers (flood plains) dredged rivers
4. EU environmental section does not allow dredging of rivers as it destroys biodiversity
5. developing in floodplains is based on the application accompanied by a "Hec-ras hydraulic model"...(which is rubbish) - You will be glad to know HEC-RAS is well on the way out. TU-Flow or ISIS all the way! But seriously, LLFA's and the EA rarely ( I would say 'never', but I have to allow for the odd brown envelope or inexperienced officer) allow major development on the back of a static 1D model anymore. The rules on development are much tighter as backed up by PPG/Sequential test etc. 
6. you can build in a floodplain as long as you balance upstream or downstream..(which very rarely happens) Definite moves to rectify this. Some LA's allow offsetting against wider flood defences. I can see the logic in that it frees up small brownfield sites that would fail the Sequential test but not the practicality with developers using it to dodge responsibility. 

i also think it is appaling that the EA does not build reservoirs any more ...but just tinker at the edges - Down to the worrying lack of Panel Engineers these days. Mostly semi retired bods these days as well. I worked on the Civils design for a reservoir up in Scotland - most of the discussions with the Panel Eng were with him sat on a boat in Norway!  My main worry is with EA 'engineers' that fail to understand a drawing - one queried a basin in a flood compensation area - it was an earth amphitheatre that had spot levels and slope marks. *facepalm*

i also think it is appaling that the EA keeps rapeing the groundwater (aqufers) to make up the shortfall...and as a result between raping the groundwater and the redundancy of the water baliffes our rivers and streams are drying up and being backfilled.........

our water management is worse now than the 15 century...........you can see that with the ariel photos   the only dry area is where the church sits !

rant over - I can rant for days on this! 

 

[Bobba]

Local farmers are saying Somerset has been hailed as an example for councils to follow; the county setup its ownSomerset River Authority, a pioneering partnership of local flood risk-management bodies, following disastrous floods five years ago.

Lessons were learnt from Somerset Levels in 2014. They've got rid of the EA from looking after their rivers and now they have a river authority they haven't had any flooding since then

[RockySpears]

23 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Blaming this flooding on climate change, whilst convenient, is inaccurate.

  Fishlake was once a Port, with shipbuilding etc etc. and much of that part of the UK is BELOW the local river levels, even in dry times!

" FLEEING the pagan Vikings monks from Lindisfarne or Holy Island travelled with their relics and other valuables down the east coast of Northern England, along the Humber and up the river Don to spend a night en route at Fishlake. They disembarked with the body of Saint Cuthbert at what we still call the Landing and spent the night on the site of the present parish church of Saint Cuthbert…..

Towards the end of the mediaeval period the village became an inland, and even a ship-building, port. Names of some of the buildings along the river still bear witness to that era ( such as the Old Anchor Inn and the Custom House)….. "

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/eu-rules-expose-britains-flood-defences/

 

RS

[JohnfromUK]

I live quite near the well known flood town of Tewkesbury.  Over the last couple of days, we have had two types of flood.

1. The two rivers (Severn and Avon) are both in flood, but as at Thursday a.m., nothing unusual in that.  This happens every year, but now causes more problems that in years gone by because there has been A LOT of building causing loss of flood plain, faster run of, and less space for the water to expand rather than rising in level.  Currently approx another 2000 houses either have planning permission, or have applications in for planning that are likely to be passed.  Peak levels are expected on Saturday - and there will be both road closures and properties flooded by then I expect.  The rivers used to be dredged regularly, but (accounts vary a bit) they have not been done since the war.  Many people locally believe dredging would help the water get away more quickly.
2. Yesterday (Thursday 14th Nov) we had quite heavy rain for the best part of 30 hours, falling on already wet ground.  The run off was considerable and many roads (and some houses) were badly affected by the run off water.  One major contributor has been that the drainage (installed perhaps 50 - 75 years ago or more) cannot cope well with the much greater area of fast run off from roofs, drives, patios, car parks etc.  The other problem is much of it doesn't work at all any longer.  I am told the reason for this is that they are no longer cleaned regularly (used to be done several times a year) and the practice of 'top dressing' the roads rather than resurfacing has led to the sumps under the drainage grids and drainage pipes leading from them are clogged with gravel.  Yesterday several places locally flooded and blocked roads simply due to the drainage not working at all.   I walked around today and two drainage grills near my house are both covered by standing water to a depth of 3 or 4 inches.  See picture taken this morning.

We only had about 1 1/2 inches of rain, but the road closures due to flooding have been almost as bad as the great 2007 flood, and river levels are still rising as the rainfall works it's way down.  Fortunately, very locally, no houses are at risk, but only a couple of miles away people have been flooded by run off from blocked ditches and under road culverts.  Part of my ground drains through a culvert which has been blocked for several years by willow tree roots at it's exit end (not my property thankfully) - but the council won't do anything about it and the owner there cannot do it as part of the road needs to come up (and sensibly the tree needs to come down as well).

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I'm just waiting for the Labour party to stop flooding!

They seem to be promising all sorts of stuff lately!

[Rewulf]

The European Commission categorises dredged material as waste rather than a natural resource, making its disposal costly and time-consuming

Back in 2003, Notts county Council regularly dredged various water courses, for the purposes of proper drainage, some of this silt was given to farmers in the local area to spread on the land, a practice going back generations. 

But one day a member of the EA s rapid response team, noticed a pile of silt on a farmers land as he was driving past. 

He questioned the farmer under caution, who told him it was perfectly legit, as NCC had put it there. 

The only problem was, the farmer didn't have a licence to store that type of 'hazardous' waste, and NCC didn't have a licence to transport it. 

Within 24 hours, licences were procured, and the silt removed and disposed of to the satisfaction of the EA. The end? 

No, both farmer and NCC taken to court and fined the maximum permissable under law, of £5000 per charge, plus court costs. 

No more dredging. 

One wonders about all that hazardous material sitting at the bottom of rivers and canals...