The storage requirement needed now does already have a substantial contingency built in. When you work out the calculation you are supposed to allow for the amount of rainwater that you haven’t managed to exclude from the system, and dairy washings, etc. Then you have to have enough storage (is it 4 months outside of NVZ areas?) for far longer than the ‘closed’ period when you aren’t allowed to spread any.
Of course, it could be argued that the contingency needs to be extended, or spreading regulations tightened further, but it should be remembered that this is an almost unprecedented prolonged wet spell, even for Wales (local rainfall figures are used in the capacity requirement).
Just last winter, was very different indeed, for example. Which is the norm to base these contingency plans? Last winter +50%, or this one +50%?
Neil
With due respect, I am sitting questioning myself as to why you wish to continue to drag me back into this debate when we both know we will never see eye to eye on the root cause, and it is a subject very emotive to others that then brings with it name calling etc.
You know my take is that the elephant in the closet is still that the management system employed / current design of this set up is seriously flawed imho, as can clearly be seen by now having a major potential issue on the horizon if the sh!t hits the fan due to more rain and nowhere to go - and noone can justify any possitive reason to accept that.
I truly hope it doesn't happen, but it would definitely be interesting to see what would happen with views if the unfortunate were to happen and this were to end as another environmental disaster simply due to not having enough storage or a better more robust contingency..
YMMV, its life.