Storeman
Member
- Location
- South East Englandshire
Neither...
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Neither...
Strangely enough, you CAN have an opinion on these matters without being a vegan clip-board wielding Gaurdian reading eco-twit...I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Have you seen the video on 'kingsland life' dated 16th Feb 2020?The big mystery around this whole situation is:- Considering that the area doesn't have a history of bad flooding and the EA, Parish Council and Mr. Price were all in agreement that it was only the bridge arch that needed unblocking... WHY did he carry out works on 1.5km of river that weren't needed???
Mr. Prices claims that it was for flood prevention are rubbish as there wasn't really any flooding to prevent.
One can only assume that:-
I'm sure some apologist will be along to say 'He knew best what to do with the river' (because farmers ALWAYS know best and other farmers will argue black is white to back them).
- He simply didn't like the river as it was or...
- He had an axe to grind with NE and/or the EA or...
- He had a sudden rush of blood to the head or...
- He had something else to gain from straightening and widening a length of perfectly happy river (planning application anyone?)
But there is no logical reason why anyone would do what Mr. Price has done, risking his finances and liberty in the process, without a logical reason. Flood prevention is not a logical reason!
Looks like a fascinating book. Obviously he would be locked up today for such a crime as producing food off the land. Probably in a few years time , with food shortages would be a hero again.There is a really good book written by a chap called Alan Bloom (yes he founded Blooms Nurseries and Bressingham Gardens). The book is called “The Farm in the Fen” and was published in 1944.
He took over Priory Farm, Burwell just before the war and The WARAG wanted him to reclaim the farm and part of Wicken Fen to produce vital food for the war.
It is a fascinating book and he certainly learned a lot about drainage and what obstructs it.
Well worth a read if you can get hold of it. The last chapter is as true today as it was then.
So impressed by what he had achieved, the WARAG invited King George and Queen Elizabeth to visit the farm to see what had been achieved. They came to it by a barge.
If there is one phrase from the book that the EA needs to learn, it is that “You cannot push water up hill”!
If you try to do so, it will build up behind a blockage flooding everywhere until it can get over and above that blockage.
View attachment 1037853
View attachment 1037850View attachment 1037849View attachment 1037848View attachment 1037846View attachment 1037845View attachment 1037844View attachment 1037843View attachment 1037842View attachment 1037852View attachment 1037851
Strangely enough, you CAN have an opinion on these matters without being a vegan clip-board wielding Gaurdian reading eco-twit...
If you have lived on a farm all your life then yes you do know it better than anyone.The big mystery around this whole situation is:- Considering that the area doesn't have a history of bad flooding and the EA, Parish Council and Mr. Price were all in agreement that it was only the bridge arch that needed unblocking... WHY did he carry out works on 1.5km of river that weren't needed???
Mr. Prices claims that it was for flood prevention are rubbish as there wasn't really any flooding to prevent.
One can only assume that:-
I'm sure some apologist will be along to say 'He knew best what to do with the river' (because farmers ALWAYS know best and other farmers will argue black is white to back them).
- He simply didn't like the river as it was or...
- He had an axe to grind with NE and/or the EA or...
- He had a sudden rush of blood to the head or...
- He had something else to gain from straightening and widening a length of perfectly happy river (planning application anyone?)
But there is no logical reason why anyone would do what Mr. Price has done, risking his finances and liberty in the process, without a logical reason. Flood prevention is not a logical reason!
In that case you must be an idealist.Neither...
You seem to have a lot of knowledge of what was said and done before Mr. Price started his work, were you there?The big mystery around this whole situation is:- Considering that the area doesn't have a history of bad flooding and the EA, Parish Council and Mr. Price were all in agreement that it was only the bridge arch that needed unblocking... WHY did he carry out works on 1.5km of river that weren't needed???
Mr. Prices claims that it was for flood prevention are rubbish as there wasn't really any flooding to prevent.
One can only assume that:-
I'm sure some apologist will be along to say 'He knew best what to do with the river' (because farmers ALWAYS know best and other farmers will argue black is white to back them).
- He simply didn't like the river as it was or...
- He had an axe to grind with NE and/or the EA or...
- He had a sudden rush of blood to the head or...
- He had something else to gain from straightening and widening a length of perfectly happy river (planning application anyone?)
But there is no logical reason why anyone would do what Mr. Price has done, risking his finances and liberty in the process, without a logical reason. Flood prevention is not a logical reason!
I get the feeling we have a retired EA man posting! I havent seen a picture yet that shows 1.5km of river being dug outYou seem to have a lot of knowledge of what was said and done before Mr. Price started his work, were you there?
Because 1.5 km is immediately upstreamThe big mystery around this whole situation is:- Considering that the area doesn't have a history of bad flooding and the EA, Parish Council and Mr. Price were all in agreement that it was only the bridge arch that needed unblocking... WHY did he carry out works on 1.5km of river that weren't needed???
Mr. Prices claims that it was for flood prevention are rubbish as there wasn't really any flooding to prevent.
One can only assume that:-
I'm sure some apologist will be along to say 'He knew best what to do with the river' (because farmers ALWAYS know best and other farmers will argue black is white to back them).
- He simply didn't like the river as it was or...
- He had an axe to grind with NE and/or the EA or...
- He had a sudden rush of blood to the head or...
- He had something else to gain from straightening and widening a length of perfectly happy river (planning application anyone?)
But there is no logical reason why anyone would do what Mr. Price has done, risking his finances and liberty in the process, without a logical reason. Flood prevention is not a logical reason!
All ratepayers pay drainage charges in the precept , they are collected by the council and passed on.Farmers and landowners are not the only ones affected but private individuals who do not pay water rates. A drain which flows under my land but does not gather water from my plot, drains a large corner of the village. the drain then runs about 150 yards under another field and then out into the river. For much of winter 20/21 the top of the drain outfall was up to two feet under water and five meters downstream was a fallen tree. That tree is still present and so is the silt build up. Years ago when the river received annual light maintenance the winter rain flushed away any minor obstructions but now it is a job for a sizeable machine employed at great expense and, in the short term at least, highly destructive.
Our drainage board hides behind the fact that the greens don`t like dredging but the reality is that they won`t spend money and their employees don`t do physical work.. In the past our local small river was maintained by two men making an annual pass with muck rakes and forks. They could cover anything up to two miles in a day. There were no 360 diggers and I never saw a dragline working there.
Our local chalk stream was a spawning ground for trout and dace, Prior to 1953 floods it was also used by sea trout but after the floods an automatic barrier closed the outfall at every tide even though the tidal rise was only apparent over less than a mile with normal tides. The river had abundant eels and stickle back, water voles and kingfishers. Now there is nothing. Water extraction has reduced the midsummer flow to a trickle and the rubbish deposited has rendered the winter flow to a series of tree strewn dams. The water extraction is not really caused by farmers but by very deep bores, even below the aquifers, where water quality is exeptionally good and low in nitrates. This water is piped to Essex to dilute the nitrares in their water. It is well known to be one of Anglian Water`s most valuable assets.we have a piece of the river crouch border some of our fields, down here in essex, ive known this river, used to fish, play in the river from a young child some 50 odd years ago? i can say that this river and the part that runs on my fields boundaries, has deteriorated over those many years in both maintence and water quality? on water quality i notice the NRA or some other Govt body? dip the water at the small bridge to check on water quality? just have a smell close to the edge of my field to smell it ? a sewage overflow is on the other bank? Up to the 1970s, barges from germany, holland etc could come up this river to load unload at battlesbridge, their was a mill there then? since then the whole river has become silted, chocked up with rubbish?
Where do you get this myth of no history of bad flooding. Just shows how clueless you really are.Its not as though its not well documented.The big mystery around this whole situation is:- Considering that the area doesn't have a history of bad flooding and the EA, Parish Council and Mr. Price were all in agreement that it was only the bridge arch that needed unblocking... WHY did he carry out works on 1.5km of river that weren't needed???
Mr. Prices claims that it was for flood prevention are rubbish as there wasn't really any flooding to prevent.
One can only assume that:-
I'm sure some apologist will be along to say 'He knew best what to do with the river' (because farmers ALWAYS know best and other farmers will argue black is white to back them).
- He simply didn't like the river as it was or...
- He had an axe to grind with NE and/or the EA or...
- He had a sudden rush of blood to the head or...
- He had something else to gain from straightening and widening a length of perfectly happy river (planning application anyone?)
But there is no logical reason why anyone would do what Mr. Price has done, risking his finances and liberty in the process, without a logical reason. Flood prevention is not a logical reason!
so he didn't do enoughNot even close to 1.5km don’t know where that figure has come from