Sacrificing farm land during a flood to protect properties downstream

[borderterribles]

Here an IDB has a legal obligation to prevent flooding as far as reasonably practical as I understand it.

Their argument was that they were preventing flooding the village by flooding our ground. I fully accept that flooding farmland, however inconvenient to the occupier, is preferable to flooding the homes of many families, but it cannot be fair that IDBs and The EA are allowed to neglect their responsibilities especially whilst charging drainage rates to the unfortunate land holder.

 

[Steevo]

Their argument was that they were preventing flooding the village by flooding our ground. I fully accept that flooding farmland, however inconvenient to the occupier, is preferable to flooding the homes of many families, but it cannot be fair that IDBs and The EA are allowed to neglect their responsibilities especially whilst charging drainage rates to the unfortunate land holder.

Especially since (if a new development) the developer created the problem, the EA didn’t object then, and the house owners purchased the properties with their own free will.

The landowner is often an innocent bystander....who is facing a bill for draining land that the body he is paying are seeking to flood. Madness!

 

[Flat 10]

Their argument was that they were preventing flooding the village by flooding our ground. I fully accept that flooding farmland, however inconvenient to the occupier, is preferable to flooding the homes of many families, but it cannot be fair that IDBs and The EA are allowed to neglect their responsibilities especially whilst charging drainage rates to the unfortunate land holder.

My experience in this part of the world is that IDBs don't and can't shirk their responsibilities but the EA probably do. Under law as I understand it IDBs are accountable and the EA isn't.

 

[Steevo]

My experience in this part of the world is that IDBs don't and can't shirk their responsibilities but the EA probably do. Under law as I understand it IDBs are accountable and the EA isn't.

Typical government! Do as I say.....not as I do!

 

[borderterribles]

My experience in this part of the world is that IDBs don't and can't shirk their responsibilities but the EA probably do. Under law as I understand it IDBs are accountable and the EA isn't.

From memory, any contact with the IDB was via a firm of Solicitors in Doncaster, which would have been 80-90 miles away. I tried writing , objecting and withholding the levy. They just summonsed me to appear at Doncaster Magistrates Court.

 

[Hooby Farmer]

I am watching this thread with interest. I'm currently in a dispute with rivers agency about getting my river dredged. Not a huge distance but 100m either side of a bridge that is getting silted up with big sand bars on both sides of it and under it, which would lead on to be a pressure point for flooding.
Below is my response to attached email, in their following email he also acknowledged that the department does not have a specific definition of sustainability.

Dear sir, thank you for your reply.

You have stated the decision is made on judgement, experience and knowledge of the characteristics of the particular watercourse. My family have lived at the current site which is around 15m from the watercourse, for 3 generations, exceeding 75 years. We are best placed making the decision based on our first hand knowledge and experience.

With regards to your comment that regular removal is not a sustainable practice, to the best of my knowledge this particular stretch of river has not been cleaned out by the Dfl rivers in over 50 years. Could you confirm the last two dates it was cleaned out by the department?

I also require examples of significant adverse impacts which have occurred in a river, with biological and geographical similarities to the River Roe, when cleaned out.

Please provide me with the departments definition of sustainability as I am interested to see if it includes threat to human life or threat to animal life and therefore loss of livelihood for anyone in the agriculture industry. This leads on to further repercussions in the local economy and also tourism. Preventative rather than reactive measures will save the department money, time and resources and reduce negative public image and extensive media coverage.

Please forward me the advice presented by Loughs Agency, as I am interested in finding out if it is based again on judgement or indeed fact.

 

[borderterribles]

I am watching this thread with interest. I'm currently in a dispute with rivers agency about getting my river dredged. Not a huge distance but 100m either side of a bridge that is getting silted up with big sand bars on both sides of it and under it, which would lead on to be a pressure point for flooding.
Below is my response to attached email, in their following email he also acknowledged that the department does not have a specific definition of sustainability.

Dear sir, thank you for your reply.

You have stated the decision is made on judgement, experience and knowledge of the characteristics of the particular watercourse. My family have lived at the current site which is around 15m from the watercourse, for 3 generations, exceeding 75 years. We are best placed making the decision based on our first hand knowledge and experience.

With regards to your comment that regular removal is not a sustainable practice, to the best of my knowledge this particular stretch of river has not been cleaned out by the Dfl rivers in over 50 years. Could you confirm the last two dates it was cleaned out by the department?

I also require examples of significant adverse impacts which have occurred in a river, with biological and geographical similarities to the River Roe, when cleaned out.

Please provide me with the departments definition of sustainability as I am interested to see if it includes threat to human life or threat to animal life and therefore loss of livelihood for anyone in the agriculture industry. This leads on to further repercussions in the local economy and also tourism. Preventative rather than reactive measures will save the department money, time and resources and reduce negative public image and extensive media coverage.

Please forward me the advice presented by Loughs Agency, as I am interested in finding out if it is based again on judgement or indeed fact.

Great letter, you haven't left them many places to go with that, but don't forget that arguing the toss with you is considerably cheaper than doing the job!
In my own case, I gave up trying to get them to do it, hired a big 360°, and cracked on with it. Nobodies died, or even got their settee wet, the ground still floods, but it goes down as quickly as it comes up now.

 

[Steevo]

With regards to your comment that regular removal is not a sustainable practice, to the best of my knowledge this particular stretch of river has not been cleaned out by the Dfl rivers in over 50 years.

I'm not sure building houses on the flood area has eve been a sustainable practice...but they seem to have little problem with that if they get paid for consultancy, rather than having to pay out to do their job!

 

[Smith31]

We have had this situation for over 40 years. We are upstream of York and there are two schemes which do similar things. We get less floods than if there was no bank, but when we do get a big flood it can be held ("managed") on our land longer than it would naturally. We have had trouble with the EA in the past when they have failed to manage the system properly and there is no recourse. We receive no compensation for the flooding which can be as much as 12' deep.

No compensation seems very unfair

 

[mo!]

No compensation seems very unfair

The argument is that the managing of the flood prevents flooding for much of the time so on average we win. We tried a few years ago when the EA didn't follow it's own guidelines and mismanaged the flood to get something out of them. The EA claimed that the evidence from their own engineers was wrong and "their powers were permissive." I.e. we can do what we like. We had the press involved but nowt came of it. We have since contacted Rachel Maskell MP whose constituents homes are protected by the scheme but she couldn't even be bothered to respond. The system works very well if managed correctly and makes around 2" difference in York. That doesn't sound much unless the water is 1.5" from your door!

 

[ollie989898]

I have and still do flood a couple of fields to safeguard any flooding of houses. The consequence of my actions which are efforts of a sympathetic and compassionate nature to others which inflicts a cost to myself which I have to pay for, lead to scrutiny about my field drainage which is not the issue. The old saying that no good turn is unpunished springs to mind. When my field drains were checked by the relevant council person and after they used their latest computer software to work out which in the most complicated part could only be described as Pythagoras therium they concluded it was their council drain that was not big enough and have agreed that my self inflicted flooding of land does limit flooding of property. As it’s their drain that has come to light no action is to be taken surprisingly. Now the people from NE have approached me with a 5 million pound pot of money with the view of putting a series of different measures in to slow the flow of water on my land. After spending a good few hours with the very pleasant man from NE looking and discussing these damming type constructions I asked what sort of payment I could expect he replied nothing. I suggested he went back for a rethink. The story continues

Why oh why am I NEVER about to listen to these kinds of conversations? I REALLY fancy a good laugh.

 

[ollie989898]

I am watching this thread with interest. I'm currently in a dispute with rivers agency about getting my river dredged. Not a huge distance but 100m either side of a bridge that is getting silted up with big sand bars on both sides of it and under it, which would lead on to be a pressure point for flooding.
Below is my response to attached email, in their following email he also acknowledged that the department does not have a specific definition of sustainability.

Dear sir, thank you for your reply.

You have stated the decision is made on judgement, experience and knowledge of the characteristics of the particular watercourse. My family have lived at the current site which is around 15m from the watercourse, for 3 generations, exceeding 75 years. We are best placed making the decision based on our first hand knowledge and experience.

With regards to your comment that regular removal is not a sustainable practice, to the best of my knowledge this particular stretch of river has not been cleaned out by the Dfl rivers in over 50 years. Could you confirm the last two dates it was cleaned out by the department?

I also require examples of significant adverse impacts which have occurred in a river, with biological and geographical similarities to the River Roe, when cleaned out.

Please provide me with the departments definition of sustainability as I am interested to see if it includes threat to human life or threat to animal life and therefore loss of livelihood for anyone in the agriculture industry. This leads on to further repercussions in the local economy and also tourism. Preventative rather than reactive measures will save the department money, time and resources and reduce negative public image and extensive media coverage.

Please forward me the advice presented by Loughs Agency, as I am interested in finding out if it is based again on judgement or indeed fact.

Excellent stuff, remember there is always the freedom of information act if they refuse to divulge anything.

 

[Colt12]

@Spotty dog we are involved in a local 'flood alleviation scheme' with our local council. Probably a much smaller scale than you are. If your interested in how we are doing things pm me.
Or if you Google Aecom or flood alleviation scheme' there's other schemes happening in kilmarnock / East Kilbride.
We are in the discussion and surveying process.

Don't go with AECOM - biggest cowboys on the planet, and going down the chute as a result.

 

[Colt12]

Why oh why am I NEVER about to listen to these kinds of conversations? I REALLY fancy a good laugh.

My neighbour to the right of my field decided that to prevent his field suffering rain run-off from my field (I get the same run-off from my neighbours field at the left side of me, and so-on ...), he would plough a line around the perimeter of 'my field' - that's right 'my field'. Said neighbour frequently comes in, acting the 'big man' and digging those plough ditches even deeper, yet he doesn't have one single ditch in his field. What do you think of that?

 

[ollie989898]

My neighbour to the right of my field decided that to prevent his field suffering rain run-off from my field (I get the same run-off from my neighbours field at the left side of me, and so-on ...), he would plough a line around the perimeter of 'my field' - that's right 'my field'. Said neighbour frequently comes in, acting the 'big man' and digging those plough ditches even deeper, yet he doesn't have one single ditch in his field. What do you think of that?

Return the favour and track a 13 tonner next door?

 

[ollie989898]

The Internal Drainage Boards are funded by the inhabitants of the catchment, many of whom are farmers. Lots of farmers on the board of the IDB I used to live within too. They have to provide value for money and answer to the rate payers not government unlike the EA.

I had a client that was involved in one of the schemes in Somerset. Neither he nor his fellows had anything good to say about the EA locally and viewed them as nothing but a collection of busy-bodies who did nothing but hold up their work. I don't know why EA don't give up playing dredgers and just let the drainage boards do it.

 

[Colt12]

Ha!! Could do, but don't get mad, get even ... ;-)

 

[J 1177]

My neighbour to the right of my field decided that to prevent his field suffering rain run-off from my field (I get the same run-off from my neighbours field at the left side of me, and so-on ...), he would plough a line around the perimeter of 'my field' - that's right 'my field'. Said neighbour frequently comes in, acting the 'big man' and digging those plough ditches even deeper, yet he doesn't have one single ditch in his field. What do you think of that?

If a neighbour did that to me (they wouldn't as iv got good neighbours) I'd put my plough through his bloody front lawn