River Lugg, Herefordshire

[Exfarmer]

They either move out and then repopulate once the waters have receded or drown. Has ever been thus and wildlife has managed to exist like this for millions of years

The problem with dredging rivers and the type of works that Mr. Price has carried out is that whilst initially it allows for a greater volume of water to move downstream (which in turn can cause problems for those downstream) but reduces flow levels in the summer which leads to silting up - a process which is accelerated by removal of bankside vegetation which makes the banks potentially unstable. After a few years you are faced with a silted-up river channel that needs dredging again.
There has been a lot of research and work carried out on the best method for flood prevention and the current thinking is to try to slow down and disperse the water (like a good old fashioned water meadow, you know those things that all got destroyed in the last century).
If you simply dredge wider deeper rivers then the water flows faster downstream to where your neighbour hasn't dredged and their land floods worse than it used to.
Mr. Price may have relieved flooding in the area temporarily but will have potentially made it worse downstream and the effects will be short lived.
Flood management is far more complicated than simple examples of pint glasses and sand or a bloke with a JCB who thinks he knows best...

you are forgetting rivers naturally meander and are cutting into the banks of the outside of the bend all the time this then is deposited on the inside of the next bend or where the flow slows thanks to a lower fall. This natural cut and deposit eventually forms the so called ox Bow and in extremis is exhibited by there mighty rivers of the world such as the Irrawaddy which I have travelled , you can actually see the river inn action and frequent;y the boats ( all built in Glasgow 100 years ago ) run aground. The villages often have to move half a mile or more where they stay for a few years and then move back again.
Engineers since the Roman times have evolved methods to get round these troublesome rivers and one is to straighten them, once straight there is no cutting of the bank so no silt build up. This can only work so far since unfortunately towns and cities have ev loved round the river so piling on the outside and dredging on the inside is necessary to hold the course.
The natural deposition of silt does of course reduce the flow but it seems the EA believe they can beat nature and somehow hold this water back, very much like King Canute tried to hold back the tide. This deposition of silt causes other issues as the flow is restricted at points it speeds up the river encouraging greater undercut of the outside bank meaning more issues downstream. also the bank side trees ( planted in the mistaken belief that it will stabilise the bank) then fall in causing even greater issues
I have lived on the banks of the great ouse for over 30 years ( no longer ) and have seen the benefits that dredging can bring and the huge issues the major housebuilding will cause and the impossibility of trying to stop the flow caused by not dredging.
Another major benefit from dredging is contrary to all the experts belief actually give far more water in the channel during the summer months, my local river ( now) is suffering badly from de oxygenation in the summer due to the very low water levels , you certainly wont see any more barges coming here ons a river which was navigable since the days of the romans

 

[Ffermer Bach]

If you dont pollard riverside trees they grow so big and blow over and rip the bank out with the roots. All very well this " it will flood worse further downstream" arguement but if thats correct then letting 1 of the 3 arches block has caused people upstream to flood . I dont believe in dredging rivers with gravel beds but the ditches that supply them ought to be dredged and the rivers should be cleared of obstructions like fallen trees and mounds of washed up gravel

I believe it is simplistic to just say dredging bad, natural flow good, there has to be a "sweet spot" somewhere between the two, bearing in mind that all the land that borders a waterway is owned and used either for food production or living on.

 

[ollie989898]

The EA should have nothing to do with rivers besides monitoring polluton. IDBs should be in charge of maintaining or improving watercourses as they now are on the Somerset levels.

The EA is a decades-long experiment that failed. They carried out zero drainage works on the levels in their time as many landowners in the region will attest to. Now all being rotationally managed by people who know how to operate a digger or maintain sluices and pumps. Each county of the UK should have it's own IDB and take their funding straight out of the hands of the EA.

 

[lloyd]

They either move out and then repopulate once the waters have receded or drown. Has ever been thus and wildlife has managed to exist like this for millions of years

The problem with dredging rivers and the type of works that Mr. Price has carried out is that whilst initially it allows for a greater volume of water to move downstream (which in turn can cause problems for those downstream) but reduces flow levels in the summer which leads to silting up - a process which is accelerated by removal of bankside vegetation which makes the banks potentially unstable. After a few years you are faced with a silted-up river channel that needs dredging again.
There has been a lot of research and work carried out on the best method for flood prevention and the current thinking is to try to slow down and disperse the water (like a good old fashioned water meadow, you know those things that all got destroyed in the last century).
If you simply dredge wider deeper rivers then the water flows faster downstream to where your neighbour hasn't dredged and their land floods worse than it used to.
Mr. Price may have relieved flooding in the area temporarily but will have potentially made it worse downstream and the effects will be short lived.
Flood management is far more complicated than simple examples of pint glasses and sand or a bloke with a JCB who thinks he knows best...

Depends who owns the land downstream and whether the river authority
have been neglectful in its maintenance over a considerable length of time.
I understand there has been recent, consented flood prevention work further down at
the town of Leominster.Obviously that displaced water has to go somewhere.

 

[Werzle]

Pollarding the bankside trees is the landowners' responsibility, isn't it?

I dont know, the trouble is people pollard one tree with a chainsaw and nobody says anything but what if you get a 360 in and pollard half a mile of river bank? You cant risk a fine of thousands. Trees on the banks of ditches are the IDB's job so why arent trees on or in the river the EA's job? Its a minefield.

 

[Werzle]

Depends who owns the land downstream and whether the river authority
have been neglectful in its maintenance over a considerable length of time.
I understand there has been recent, consented flood prevention work further down at
the town of Leominster.Obviously that extra water has to go somewhere.

How did they dig and scrape about in the water without doing the damage they claim JP did? Its a nonsense , the EA and Wildlife trusts have got political and want to make an example of him. Somebody ought to bring the terrible state of river and brook maintainance out into the wider domain and get some main bods sacked from the EA

 

[Werzle]

you are forgetting rivers naturally meander and are cutting into the banks of the outside of the bend all the time this then is deposited on the inside of the next bend or where the flow slows thanks to a lower fall. This natural cut and deposit eventually forms the so called ox Bow and in extremis is exhibited by there mighty rivers of the world such as the Irrawaddy which I have travelled , you can actually see the river inn action and frequent;y the boats ( all built in Glasgow 100 years ago ) run aground. The villages often have to move half a mile or more where they stay for a few years and then move back again.
Engineers since the Roman times have evolved methods to get round these troublesome rivers and one is to straighten them, once straight there is no cutting of the bank so no silt build up. This can only work so far since unfortunately towns and cities have ev loved round the river so piling on the outside and dredging on the inside is necessary to hold the course.
The natural deposition of silt does of course reduce the flow but it seems the EA believe they can beat nature and somehow hold this water back, very much like King Canute tried to hold back the tide. This deposition of silt causes other issues as the flow is restricted at points it speeds up the river encouraging greater undercut of the outside bank meaning more issues downstream. also the bank side trees ( planted in the mistaken belief that it will stabilise the bank) then fall in causing even greater issues
I have lived on the banks of the great ouse for over 30 years ( no longer ) and have seen the benefits that dredging can bring and the huge issues the major housebuilding will cause and the impossibility of trying to stop the flow caused by not dredging.
Another major benefit from dredging is contrary to all the experts belief actually give far more water in the channel during the summer months, my local river ( now) is suffering badly from de oxygenation in the summer due to the very low water levels , you certainly wont see any more barges coming here ons a river which was navigable since the days of the romans

The EA and the like think that clogging rivers with fallen trees that havent actually cracked off completely is the answer to slowing water but its storing up massive problems for the future and killing fish etc that thrive in flowing water and not stagnant water

 

[lloyd]

How did they dig and scrape about in the water without doing the damage they claim JP did? Its a nonsense , the EA and Wildlife trusts have got political and want to make an example of him. Somebody ought to bring the terrible state of river and brook maintainance out into the wider domain and get some main bods sacked from the EA

All I know is from my past meeting with a representative of a conservation
group is they want to keep rivers unmaintained and clogged up so they flood the adjacent land
turning it back into wetlands .The importance of food production seemed non
existant as long as the beavers ,badgers and otters were happy.
I'm actually all for conservation but there is no middle ground with some of these
organisations it seems.

 

[Werzle]

All I know is from my past meeting with a representative of a conservation
group is they want to keep rivers unmaintained and clogged up so they flood the adjacent land
turning it back into wetlands .The importance of food production seemed non
existant as long as the beavers ,badgers and otters were happy.

Well there in for a f##king shock because theres going to be alot more JP's for them to waste money on going to court who arent going to stand for there land being turned into wetlands

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Well there in for a f##king shock because theres going to be alot more JP's for them to waste money on going to court who arent going to stand for there land being turned into wetlands

or war ag's telling farmers to produce more!

 

[lloyd]

or war ag's telling farmers to produce more!

This government is more likely to charter private
aircraft to bring wheat out of Ukraine than let us
produce more.

 

[Old apprentice]

I dont know, the trouble is people pollard one tree with a chainsaw and nobody says anything but what if you get a 360 in and pollard half a mile of river bank? You cant risk a fine of thousands. Trees on the banks of ditches are the IDB's job so why arent trees on or in the river the EA's job? Its a minefield.

What is IDBs ?

 

[onthehoof]

If you simply dredge wider deeper rivers then the water flows faster downstream to where your neighbour hasn't dredged and their land floods worse than it used to.

That argument is too simplistic.
Every river in the UK is different, some are short and fast flowing with steep valley sides some are slow and circulatous, some have a lot of development upstream, some downstream.
Depending where you live along it's length you want every one upstream to slow the water and everyone downstream to speed it up that would be the best way to protect your property from flooding.
The river here is about 150 miles long there are massive developments upstream - Buckingham, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Newport Pagnell, Bedford, St Neots, Huntingdon, there is nowhere along this course to slow the water otherwise you just flood the next town upstream, when the river gets here it reaches the fens and the land is completely flat but we are still 22 miles from the sea I think the fall is about 6ft in those 22 miles the river here is also tidal so the floodwater coming downstream meets the incoming tide and has nowhere to go on top of this the tide brings in vast quantities of silt from the Wash which settles on the riverbed as the tide turns, the river here used to be continually dredged to keep the water flowing but now minimal if any work is done, think what would happen if the gutters on your house were not cleared for decades, so in effect each catchment should be analysed individually and the best solution that benefits the most people should be enforced, otherwise we just accept that some properties will flood and let nature do what nature does

 

[Werzle]

What is IDBs ?

Internal drainage boards

 

[onthehoof]

What is IDBs ?

Internal Drainage boards, in areas which are usually flat, low lying or below sea level and water has to be pumped into the rivers as there is no gravity, they are independent and raise money through drainage charges applied to land, (the EA also charge landowners a drainage fee but choose to spend the revenue elsewhere)

 

[onthehoof]

https://www.nfuonline.com/assets/6628

 

[onthehoof]

Yeah right!

 

[Old apprentice]

What you get of ea is one idea fits all each river water corse should be assessed on its own merit but that does not seam to be the case slow running and tidie requires dredging fast flowing are usually gravel and gravel banks need removal or moved . 6 feet of fall in 22 miles is to me horrendous not to manage it properly tremendous silt build ups. Fast flowing gravel rivers can sift thousands of tons in a larg flood equally need management.

 

[JCfarmer]

Flood management is far more complicated than simple examples of pint glasses and sand or a bloke with a JCB who thinks he knows best...

So a man or a woman with an EA high viz on their back knows better?

They either move out and then repopulate once the waters have receded or drown. Has ever been thus and wildlife has managed to exist like this for millions of years

They managed to exist perfectly well in the 60s and 70s when they actually took care of the rivers.

If you simply dredge wider deeper rivers then the water flows faster downstream to where your neighbour hasn't dredged and their land floods worse than it used to

Mr Price's neighbours would need big balls!?

 

[Exfarmer]

Well there in for a f##king shock because theres going to be alot more JP's for them to waste money on going to court who arent going to stand for there land being turned into wetlands

There has been a lot flooded by the Suffolk wildlife trust damming the Waveney / Little Ouse and several hundred acres of once arable lands has suffered as a result.
Until the EA came along, to dam a river required both an act of parliament and remedial work upstream to ensure that land was not affected unless you owned itb of course.
I used to farm as lot opf land below below Milton Keynes and after that started the river flows changed dramatically