fermec860
Member
- Location
- Warwicshire
Environmental schemes it's easy and cheaper to leave everything alone
Do we need to bring back the NRA
- Thread starter Gill Horse
- Start date
Gill Horse
Member
- Location
- lancashire
But that's it in a nutshell
It isn't cheaper in the long term because off all the extra costs and misery caused when homes, property and businesses are unnecessarily flooded
I know that we cannot stop all flood events but it's got a lot worse since most of the maintenance on the main waterways has been withdrawn
It isn't cheaper in the long term because off all the extra costs and misery caused when homes, property and businesses are unnecessarily flooded
I know that we cannot stop all flood events but it's got a lot worse since most of the maintenance on the main waterways has been withdrawn
- Location
- Lincolnshire
The only grips you see round here are the ones the council cut into your land to dump their water onto your fields from the road
Because the highways authority neglect the roadside drains. They don't even know where they are so now we are back to medieval days of just cutting a grip to get the water off the road. This doesn't take the water away though and it softens the substrate so the road starts giving way and cracking.
In my eyes, population rises = they build more houses etc
There becomes more vehicles on the road =they build more roads
whic both create lots of water quickly
when do you ever see anything been done to rivers/streams and ditches which were created decades ago when the population and roads were a fraction of today
There becomes more vehicles on the road =they build more roads
whic both create lots of water quickly
when do you ever see anything been done to rivers/streams and ditches which were created decades ago when the population and roads were a fraction of today
- Location
- Lincolnshire
The EA will only be happy when a lot of agricultural land is a semi permanent wetland. That's the way it appears anyway. All part of the big "export your production and rewild the UK" theme.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I will admit though that our farming practices need to change. Winter rainfall erosion is out of control IMO. There are many steeply sloping fiekds left bare over winter. Some would be better grassed down and left that way. Subsidies brought a lot of unsuitable land under the plough, which nobody in their right mind would cultivate based on real rather than fantasy economics, never mind environmental damage.
Northeastfarmer
Member
- Location
- Cleveland
Don’t worry I soon fill them back in once they’ve left
Been watching a farming vid from Minnesota and they were putting drains in where the water flows in heavy rains down the low parts of the field
every so many metres they put pipe from the drain straight up just above the surface,they called it a stand pipe and the water went straight down the pipe
they repeated it this all the way to the low part of the field
basically it stopped the water building up and eroding big gulleys across the field
hope this makes sense
Campani
Member
You have to remember flooding of farmland and flooding of houses are two different problems. For farmland it's all about how long the flood lasts. It doesn't matter as much if all the field or only half is flooded as long as it leaves quickly. For housing it does matter how high the flood gets. It might be the difference between the garden outside flooding for a week and the kitchen flooding for half a day. Cost wise the garden flooding is nothing compared to a new kitchen. It therefore makes sense to spread flood water out to reduce peaks. This however means farmland is under water for longer, and farmers should be paid for this service.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Following your theme and courting opporobium, your observations would lead to more permanent grass and probably temporary grass in conjunction with remaining arable land. The upshot would be less cereals and more grass. In which case should society reduce consumption of white meats which require conversion of cereals to meat, thus a loss of carbohydrate and a sensible rationing of red meat to eke out the supplies. Unless we can think of ways to utilise the grass without converting to meat for human food. Interesting thesis for some to comment on.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Actually the opposite is true. The actual volume of even quite large rivers is virtually inconsequential compared to the volumes of water running off the land in a major rainfall event. Starting with a completely empty dry river might buy you perhaps 10 minutes worth of flow in rain like South Yorkshire has just suffered.
It goes to the local IDB's. EA flood risk maintenance work is funded from their precept on council tax. Capital work is funded from central government (well, partly: since 2014 they have been required to obtain match funding from the community).
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
In rainfall such as South Yorkshire has just experienced or that Cumbria has repeatedly suffered there WILL BE FLOODING. Nature works on the basis that rivers and streams are kept clear by the normal flow hence the channel will adapt to that level of flow. Once the flow exceeds that by much nature resorts to the floodplain to buffer the excess. It is our fault for putting things in the way of this.
As others have posted much of the silt clogging our rivers and streams is agricultural soil washed away due to inappropriate land management on a landscape scale. In almost every case if you think you don't have soil erosion it's because you haven't looked hard enough yet.
Artificial land drainage has allowed millions of acres of land that should have stayed as water meadows to become arable land. Nature will simply keep on opposing this. Good luck with winning THAT fight.
The EA has a completely different set of aims from the NRA. The NRA only had responsibility for "main river watercourses" (except the pollution teams who covered all "controlled waters"). The EA also has responsibility for waste regulation and nuclear regulation. It has a completely different set of operating criteria. The culture is so different from that of the NRA that comparing them is pointless. I do agree with some of the criticisms posted here though, hence I left them in 2014.
Waste regulations changed in the late 1990's requiring river silt to be tested for contamination and treated according to what is found. In most cases it can no longer be spread on land, multiplying dredging costs and complexity. That is not going to change back. "Simple" digger jobs that cost us £1500 in 1995 could easily now cost £150,000 as a result, largely due to the waste transport and tipping costs, but dredging budgets have not gone up.
If rivers are managed to speed flood water away from farm land them the urban areas that we have stupidly built in our floodplains will continue to be hit harder. If you think having your land flooded badly is a kick in the guts try wading through the house of someone who has no flood insurance and had been flooded 3 feet deep, as I have frequently done. I'm afraid encouraging farmland to flood instead is a political no-brainer.
The current adoption of "Natural Flood Management" techniques is largely a reaction to falling budgets. Where it works it is much cheaper than dredging or improvement schemes. The trick is to work out where it can appropriately be applied and that is very much a "work in progress".
Before you criticise EA staff too hard remember that many, like me, accepted 6 years of zero pay rises under austerity along with overtime and allowance cuts (while senior managers were still earning performance bonuses). I earnt less in 2014 than 2001. Many of their local staff are fantastic dedicated to what they do. Less so much of the leadership.
Before you get too angry about flooding look back to see what your own land was managed like 80 years ago and ask yourself whether you are part of the problem. Soils high in organic matter hold much more water and drain easier. If you suffer "drought" after 6 dry summer weeks then you've probably got much to consider changing to help yourself (I include myself in that).
As others have posted much of the silt clogging our rivers and streams is agricultural soil washed away due to inappropriate land management on a landscape scale. In almost every case if you think you don't have soil erosion it's because you haven't looked hard enough yet.
Artificial land drainage has allowed millions of acres of land that should have stayed as water meadows to become arable land. Nature will simply keep on opposing this. Good luck with winning THAT fight.
The EA has a completely different set of aims from the NRA. The NRA only had responsibility for "main river watercourses" (except the pollution teams who covered all "controlled waters"). The EA also has responsibility for waste regulation and nuclear regulation. It has a completely different set of operating criteria. The culture is so different from that of the NRA that comparing them is pointless. I do agree with some of the criticisms posted here though, hence I left them in 2014.
Waste regulations changed in the late 1990's requiring river silt to be tested for contamination and treated according to what is found. In most cases it can no longer be spread on land, multiplying dredging costs and complexity. That is not going to change back. "Simple" digger jobs that cost us £1500 in 1995 could easily now cost £150,000 as a result, largely due to the waste transport and tipping costs, but dredging budgets have not gone up.
If rivers are managed to speed flood water away from farm land them the urban areas that we have stupidly built in our floodplains will continue to be hit harder. If you think having your land flooded badly is a kick in the guts try wading through the house of someone who has no flood insurance and had been flooded 3 feet deep, as I have frequently done. I'm afraid encouraging farmland to flood instead is a political no-brainer.
The current adoption of "Natural Flood Management" techniques is largely a reaction to falling budgets. Where it works it is much cheaper than dredging or improvement schemes. The trick is to work out where it can appropriately be applied and that is very much a "work in progress".
Before you criticise EA staff too hard remember that many, like me, accepted 6 years of zero pay rises under austerity along with overtime and allowance cuts (while senior managers were still earning performance bonuses). I earnt less in 2014 than 2001. Many of their local staff are fantastic dedicated to what they do. Less so much of the leadership.
Before you get too angry about flooding look back to see what your own land was managed like 80 years ago and ask yourself whether you are part of the problem. Soils high in organic matter hold much more water and drain easier. If you suffer "drought" after 6 dry summer weeks then you've probably got much to consider changing to help yourself (I include myself in that).
I
I am sorry but you are plain wrong about river capacity not mattering, I can only go on what I have seen locally with the Witham,at low tide at Boston there is little more than a trickle because the silt that has been allowed to build up removes the capacity to get rid of the water. I am led to believe that the river has up to 6 feet of silt in places and as there is very little fall from Lincoln to Boston it slows down to a trickle whilst our side of Lincoln can still be in danger of flooding.bardney island was flooded 2 weeks ago and hardly any water was allowed to drain away in the following weeks so now we have had another rain event there is nowhere to store the water and it has Brocken the bank and flooded farm land near short ferry,the ea are not fit for purpose and there mismanagement has coursed much more wildlife destruction than digging the rivers out ever didActually the opposite is true. The actual volume of even quite large rivers is virtually inconsequential compared to the volumes of water running off the land in a major rainfall event. Starting with a completely empty dry river might buy you perhaps 10 minutes worth of flow in rain like South Yorkshire has just suffered.
It goes to the local IDB's. EA flood risk maintenance work is funded from their precept on council tax. Capital work is funded from central government (well, partly: since 2014 they have been required to obtain match funding from the community).
Father in law worked all his life on rivers for water authority he would be turning in his grave to see all the work they did all go to waste,all the guys back then had worked on rivers all their time and new them inside out
also remember there was allways tugs used to drag big Harrow type things along river bottom when tide was going out to stir all the the silt up so it was washed out to sea,this was done to keep the river bottom clear for small cargo boats to get to the small ports further inland
also remember there was allways tugs used to drag big Harrow type things along river bottom when tide was going out to stir all the the silt up so it was washed out to sea,this was done to keep the river bottom clear for small cargo boats to get to the small ports further inland
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I have no real knowledge of engineering and hydrological aspects of drainage. So defer to others.
But for my 'pennorth' worth, I concurr with your comment about the discharge points - such as the Grand Sluice in Boston, and would hope that small cross sectional area is not constrained as a bottleneck. As for the rest of the arterial drainage system again provided Grand Sluice and the other River/Drain points which discharge to sea are functioning effectively not sure increasing river capacity make that much difference.
In an idle moment last Sunday I did the following calculation. At that stage 200mm rain had fallen across Lincolnshire which is 7000 square kms, so 1.2 billion cubic metres water, since September 22. Some would percolate into chalk / limestone areas but most has fallen onto saturated soil and thus will eventually drain off.
And of course since last weekend possibly upto another 400 million cubic metres has fallen. An interesting question I may pose to the IDB drainage engineers is the combined sea interface outfall capacity in cubic metres per second for Lincolnshire. Pedants question afraid.
But it is proper wet now. Regards.
- Location
- LINCOLNSHIRE/KENYA
I am sorry but you are plain wrong about river capacity not mattering, I can only go on what I have seen locally with the Witham,at low tide at Boston there is little more than a trickle because the silt that has been allowed to build up removes the capacity to get rid of the water. I am led to believe that the river has up to 6 feet of silt in places and as there is very little fall from Lincoln to Boston it slows down to a trickle whilst our side of Lincoln can still be in danger of flooding.bardney island was flooded 2 weeks ago and hardly any water was allowed to drain away in the following weeks so now we have had another rain event there is nowhere to store the water and it has Brocken the bank and flooded farm land near short ferry,the ea are not fit for purpose and there mismanagement has coursed much more wildlife destruction than digging the rivers out ever did
[/QUOTE]
I can agree with this however from an EA point of view all is good as no houses are flooded only farm land our small farm is sodden not so much because of the rain on it but because water is held up in porous drains and dikes . Last week a contractor got his beet harvester stuck across the main drain from us and needed a quadrac and challenger to pull in out .If it happened today you'd need the RNLI
[/QUOTE]
I can agree with this however from an EA point of view all is good as no houses are flooded only farm land our small farm is sodden not so much because of the rain on it but because water is held up in porous drains and dikes . Last week a contractor got his beet harvester stuck across the main drain from us and needed a quadrac and challenger to pull in out .If it happened today you'd need the RNLI
- Location
- Lincolnshire
A deeper river, having a bigger cross sectional area, will / can shift more gallons per minute provided there is enough fall and the discharge point is big enough/low enough. A deeper river will also empty down to a lower level (again dependent on fall and discharge point) which helps to lower the water table of surrounding land, which means that land will soak up more water in a high rainfall event.
So my simple mind says dredging helps, provided levels and discharge points are taken into account. Otherwise in the extreme we would have rivers full to the top and a large freshwater marsh merging with sea along a wide interface which is I suppose what it was like on the Fens till the Dutch came and drained it for us in the 1600's. We seemed to have slipped back 400 years. Maybe the Dutch will have to come over and sort it out again.
So my simple mind says dredging helps, provided levels and discharge points are taken into account. Otherwise in the extreme we would have rivers full to the top and a large freshwater marsh merging with sea along a wide interface which is I suppose what it was like on the Fens till the Dutch came and drained it for us in the 1600's. We seemed to have slipped back 400 years. Maybe the Dutch will have to come over and sort it out again.
THIS MEANS IF IT KEEPS RAINING THE HOUSES ARE MORE AT RISK ! its no different to managing a traffic jam in the rush hour . If the ground water around is high they also get problems with septic tanks etc . They have set up a small wash type system in the parish we had flooding on the land in early Oct these new ponds are still brim full , but the river is at normal level this morning and and has been for at least 14 days we haven't had a fraction of the rain that they have had in the midlands here this week . All this system is is political fraud on behalf of the EA and natural england to create wetland wader habitat and excuse not maintaining the river, the properties it is designed to protect never had an issue anyway , so they are going round telling everyone how successful it is honestly you couldn't make it up !
wanton dwarf
Member
A few years ago I fought against a national project which was going through a SSSI and destroying our family farm in entirety.
We won eventually .. but during the course of that fight I sent many requests for "Freedom of Information".
Other than showing that the EA, River Authorities and Natural England worked AGAINST the public advising the Transport Agency how to avoid their legislation .. which was a complete eye opener for me .. we also got hold of some water testing results on the SSSI.
Farmers are being told by River Authorities they must reduce "Pollution" from Phosphates and Nitrogen .. yet the test results from the EA showed that the SOURCE of the local river was polluted already even before it reached the surface. The reason for this was quite simply the surrounding strata which is coal. Water is going through both an old coal mine and still unmined coal, picking up the nutrients in the coal and leeching them out into the water source.
Yet the EA mention NOTHING to local farmers that any reduction in fertiliser by them will make NO DIFFERENCE what so ever.
Whilst you, your income, your family must suffer pointlessly to reduce "Pollution" those in the EA, River Authorities and Natural England will quite happily lead you up the garden path.
Worse when I tried to recruit someone from the River Authorities to show the Transport Agency had failed to operate due dilligence .. they would NOT work against the government.
I'm afraid the whole system is cronically corrupt and not fit for purpose. Don't even attempt to save an ounce of the existing bureacracy .. slash and burn the lot IMHO.
We won eventually .. but during the course of that fight I sent many requests for "Freedom of Information".
Other than showing that the EA, River Authorities and Natural England worked AGAINST the public advising the Transport Agency how to avoid their legislation .. which was a complete eye opener for me .. we also got hold of some water testing results on the SSSI.
Farmers are being told by River Authorities they must reduce "Pollution" from Phosphates and Nitrogen .. yet the test results from the EA showed that the SOURCE of the local river was polluted already even before it reached the surface. The reason for this was quite simply the surrounding strata which is coal. Water is going through both an old coal mine and still unmined coal, picking up the nutrients in the coal and leeching them out into the water source.
Yet the EA mention NOTHING to local farmers that any reduction in fertiliser by them will make NO DIFFERENCE what so ever.
Whilst you, your income, your family must suffer pointlessly to reduce "Pollution" those in the EA, River Authorities and Natural England will quite happily lead you up the garden path.
Worse when I tried to recruit someone from the River Authorities to show the Transport Agency had failed to operate due dilligence .. they would NOT work against the government.
I'm afraid the whole system is cronically corrupt and not fit for purpose. Don't even attempt to save an ounce of the existing bureacracy .. slash and burn the lot IMHO.
wanton dwarf
Member
It isn't simply a matter of doing one or the other.
The Somerset levels flooding was in part due to the fact that Outlets in Bridgwater were not desilted, not maintained and were not improved.
Worse the RSPB were allowed to raise the water table in Summer to promote wading birds.
Attempting to create wading bird habitats where people live is IMHO very, very, very stupid.
BTW I'm not blaming you.
Last edited: