Flooding,The reality

Excellent read (y) I've been saying this for a long time that it is somewhat unfair to blame the government and the environment agency for the floods...and by Christ I've want to slap some of the hysterical people they've had on the news...there was one woman who hysterically saying how she had lost her children as they had to go live with their grandparents WTF?

The funniest one as we all know UK news love disasters was when the reporter stopped one guy and asked about his flooded house...his response was along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing) "who cares, I don't, its insured..I'm going to go on holidays for a few weeks" the news reported cut away quick obviously this guy was distressed enough :LOL:
 
Last edited:
labradoodler said:
I had noticed that SKY and the BBC were trying to stoke a few fires.
eddie
Click to expand...

This is an issue, stuff like this for the media inherently becomes politicalised and in that vain there is no unbiased media all of them have some political driver behind them :( when issues like this should only be about providing support
 
A good read and good replies in here.
As an example there's Welney Wash around here, road has been closed all year and there's water as far as you can see, it's allowed to naturally flood, no one builds near it and no one tries to stop it or divert it and as far as I know there are no flooded properties.
The media love the blame factor and revel in finding the worst place for their broadcast, pictures etc.
Mother Nature rules the world, us mere mortals must bow to her power.
 
Strange how the politicians only jumped in when the Thames flooded. It appears that the people in Glos and Somerset didn`t matter as much.

People up North have got used to this behaviour from our politicians and goverment.

Shame for the people who have had there houses flooded, but if you buy a house near a river or on a river flood plain, then that may happen and there is very little we can do to stop mother natures actions.
 
I have been saying this for ages its about slowing the water down.

The Japanese have done the correct thing years ago, massive amounts of storage under the city.

G-Cans_projects_Water.jpg



I doubt we would need it on such a scale but surface storage is do-able, more marsh lands and holding ponds.
 
How anybody can seriously blame the government cause its raining a lot is beyond me. I highly doubt anyone in government forced those people to move into these houses and these people should really do research into previous flooded areas before they buy the houses. The builders also should do a bit of homework about the land they've acquired to build on. I read a report that there was only around 10% of this country that was built on, whether that's correct I don't know, so there should be a hell of a lot left to pick from to build houses that are unlikely to be affected by flooding. If indeed it is true that dredging of all the rivers and canals in the affected areas wouldn't of helped then why are the government going to throw money at doing so at the first available moment. I wonder how they are going to tax everyone else to make the £100M they've promised to the people already flooded, maybe they should think about dropping foreign aid for a while and concentrate on getting this country better instead.
 
It is a very good point Rob, we keep on draining upland moorland and marshes, I might be wrong and this is just my opinion, but these areas of land act as sponges for rainfall, holding the water from flowing as speedily into the rivers. As we drain these tracts of land, generally to build houses on, then the water is not slowed down at all.

Plus the houses built on these areas, up here anyway, now have water ingress problems.
 
£4 billion for a scheme to prevent or delay the flooding seems cheap to me when you consider the cost of improving the train journey by 30mins into London with the HS2 scheme.
 
Also, does it really serve a purpose for politicians to go there... they probably get in the way and hamper the actual work!

What they should be doing is pushing the EU for money which we are entitled to, and to divert much of the foreign aid we give to helping those that need it here. I am sure India can do without additional rocket launches!
 
So it's basically the rain......? :D

What really annoys me about all this is the growth of the "instant expert". All of a sudden something they vaguely over heard in a pub from somebody who watched a 3 minute video on YouTube means that people know better than the scientists who study this.

I think it's clear the Environment Agency made some choices and with hindsight they would have made different ones (especially since their boss had to go into hospital just at the point another bloke from his own party called him incompetent on telly). But it doesn't mean there were any good choice to make.

£4 billion may seem cheap compared to HS2. Put per head of affected population in Somerset per incident it's actually quite a lot (latest guesses say the entire insurance bill including all the posh houses that are currently affected will be c £750M). It sounds harsh, but those are economic choices. That's why there's a barrier on the Thames and not on the Severn.

[BTW whilst we are all instant experts and talking about HS2 - I'm baffled that it's going to bring such economic prosperity to every place it touches. A proper business case might include a visit to East Kent where we have had HS1 for several years now. Ministers may like to know that we really aren't booming at all. Not even slightly.]
 
This seems to have been caused by a freak weather event, the heaviest rain in a couple of months for more than 200 years? I don't think the state can reasonably be expected to spend billions on protection when the probability of occurrence for this risk is extremely low. Having said that, they do have a gift for spending a lot of the taxpayer's money in questionable ways. I've never lived in England, and I don't know any more about the HS2 project than what I've read, but it does seem to be following a familiar path for state and local government projects. These seem to develop a momentum of their own, it becomes increasingly difficult to ask searching questions about their real cost and necessity, and they eventually reach critical mass. At this point, it becomes impossible to cancel it and admit that it wasn't such a good idea after all, because a great deal of money has already been spent, undertakings given and too many zealots will be embarrassed. Edinburgh's tram project is another example.
 
I've heard, don't know if it's true, that Britain is a bit of a rainy sort of place.

I've also heard about something called flood plains.

Can't help feeling I've missed something.
 
you can't really blame the govt for the flooding per se - but you can blame them for the p*** poor EA response, which is directly related to the govt making EA officers who deal with flooding redundant as part of austerity.

Mr Cameron also doesn't help himself by saying that money is no object, then limiting grants to affected house holders to £5k each - yes of course I understand that money is not infinite and there has to be a limit , but if that's the case don't say stupid stuff about money being no object.

also the govt spokesman who claimed that Chertsey is the worst affected area in the uk because around 500 houses are facing flooding must have been smoking something funny - I take it he doesn't think either Somerset or Worcester are in the uk ? - or perhaps he's basically a b*****d.

so no they aren't to blame because its rained a lot - but they do have only themselves to blame for coming across as a bunch of clueless morons who couldn't defend a Turkish brothel let alone do anything worthwhile inside it. (this isn't a party political post Bellendicus politiciani seems to manifest in a range of hues from blue to red without a significant change in intelligence or capability.)
 
simon ess said:
I've heard, don't know if it's true, that Britain is a bit of a rainy sort of place.

I've also heard about something called flood plains.

Can't help feeling I've missed something.
Click to expand...


Flood plains don't exist anymore , they've be redesignated as prime building land in a bid to stimulate the economy - this was about as an intelligent a move as nelson declaring "lady Hamilton is a virgin, cut off my arm and poke out my eye if I'm wrong" but hey what do you expect , common sense ???

as a general rule of thumb its not a great idea to buy a house in any development with road names like watermead way and mill close
 
fracster said:
It is a very good point Rob, we keep on draining upland moorland and marshes, I might be wrong and this is just my opinion, but these areas of land act as sponges for rainfall, holding the water from flowing as speedily into the rivers. As we drain these tracts of land, generally to build houses on, then the water is not slowed down at all..
Click to expand...

I'm afraid this suddenly trendy idea of blocking up streams to pre-waterlog land is a complete red herring so far as preventing flooding is concerned.
How anyone can think waterlogged land is going to hold more water defies logic.
If you lower the water table by draining an area, it can soak up water until it is waterlogged - then it just runs off.
Putting logs in streams seems like an excellent way to ensure masses of debris go downstream and block up any bridges along teh way.
The small area which might conceivably retain a bit more water alongside an upland stream is ridiculously small compared to the amount flowing down anyway.

In some locations a large balancing reservoir might help especially in summer flash flood events.
When it rains day after day like now they will just fill up and stay full, almost no help at all but very costly.

The correct way to minimise flooding problems is:
a) Don't build on areas which flood!
b) Maintain watercourses properly to maximise flow rates, and keep the water table lower so land can soak up water rather than almost immediately reach capacity.
c) Consider bold new drainage projects such as storm channels, to take peak flows away more directly.
 
big soft moose said:
also the govt spokesman who claimed that Chertsey is the worst affected area in the uk because around 500 houses are facing flooding must have been smoking something funny - I take it he doesn't think either Somerset or Worcester are in the uk ? - or perhaps he's basically a b*****d.
Click to expand...

chris954 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/UK-flooding-put-in-context
Click to expand...

BBC Weather man said:
But it is worth putting the current flood in context, and as distressing as it is to be flooded, the number of properties affected in the south of the UK is tiny compared to other floods in previous years.

For example, up until this weekend the total number of properties affected by floodwater in Somerset in the last few weeks is 40.
Click to expand...

While I cannot prove this claim, perhaps Somerset is in the UK though :-?

He does also continue

But during the coastal surge in early December last year, 688 properties were flooded along the Yorkshire coast alone, and according to the Environment Agency, flood defences protected 66,000 properties in the Yorkshire and Humber area at that time.

Since last week, between 800 and 900 properties have flooded in the UK, primarily in southern Britain.
Click to expand...
 
He's talking out of his fundamental orifice - there are far more properties than that affected by flooding in somerset there are more than 40 properties in west moors alone and the whole village was told to evacuate (about 30 households refused)- and that's not counting all the indirectly affected properties like those that are cut off, those without power, those where businesses can't operate because people can't get to them or staff can't get in, people who are having to make 30 mile detours to get to work or to get kids to school etc, farmers who can't access their land, livestock deaths and so and so forth.

I'm not so familiar with the Worcester situation, but with 8 streets closed due to flooding their must bre a significant number of people effected, and an impact on the local economy.

But hey they aren't in or near London so who cares - its only a crisis when it starts to affect the chattering classes in places like maidenhead and windsor
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did notice that "money is no object" once it started to happen towards London. Funny that...
 
big soft moose said:
He's talking out of his fundamental orifice - there are far more properties than that affected by flooding in somerset there are more than 40 properties in west moors alone and the whole village was told to evacuate (about 30 households refused)
Click to expand...

I'll bow to your local knowledge, but that figure is also quoted by New Civil Engineer magazine.

NCE said:
It is unlikely to have escaped anyone’s notice but Somerset Levels suffered extensive flooding of around 65km2 of land and 40 properties.
Click to expand...

It seems the same number quoted widely in the press is usually attributed to the Environment Agency.

Environment Agency, 27th January

Environment Agency said:
The flooding on the Somerset Levels is the result of prolonged and persistent rainfall, with the area seeing more than twice the average rainfall for this time of year. Up to 40 properties and 65 square kilometres of land have unfortunately flooded.
Click to expand...

I assume you're talking about Northmoor Green/Moorland, not West Moors, which the Bridgewater Mercury cites as containing 80 properties, of which the residents of 30 homes initially refused to evacuate (I gather it's down to 15, now)?

Anyhow, the Western Daily Press put the figure for flooded properties on the Somerset Levels at about 100 in a story dated yesterday. This is probably also sourced from the Environment Agency, on 11 February.

The BBC yesterday put the number of properties flooded in Worcester at 100.

Quoted by the BBC, Surrey Police put those flooded by the Thames in Surrey at about 1,000. I would expect the numbers in Berkshire and Middlesex to be of a similar order of magnitude - I have seen figures of about 140 homes in Wraysbury alone. EA Severe Warnings suggest several thousand other homes are also at risk in the area.

Note that these are all numbers of properties that have actually been flooded.

big soft moose said:
But hey they aren't in or near London so who cares - its only a crisis when it starts to affect the chattering classes in places like maidenhead and windsor
Click to expand...

Windsor? I think call-me-Dave's more concerned about the flood threat to the other side of the bridge at Eton.
 
4wd said:
I'm afraid this suddenly trendy idea of blocking up streams to pre-waterlog land is a complete red herring so far as preventing flooding is concerned.
How anyone can think waterlogged land is going to hold more water defies logic.
If you lower the water table by draining an area, it can soak up water until it is waterlogged - then it just runs off.
Putting logs in streams seems like an excellent way to ensure masses of debris go downstream and block up any bridges along teh way.
The small area which might conceivably retain a bit more water alongside an upland stream is ridiculously small compared to the amount flowing down anyway.

In some locations a large balancing reservoir might help especially in summer flash flood events.
When it rains day after day like now they will just fill up and stay full, almost no help at all but very costly.

The correct way to minimise flooding problems is:
a) Don't build on areas which flood!
b) Maintain watercourses properly to maximise flow rates, and keep the water table lower so land can soak up water rather than almost immediately reach capacity.
c) Consider bold new drainage projects such as storm channels, to take peak flows away more directly.
Click to expand...
You make some good and valid points, I would disagree with you on the draining of moorland though.

Living where you live, you must have walked the moors in wet weather, it is like walking on a wets sponge. If we continue to drain that land, the water is not being held.Like I said earlier, I may be wrong.

The building of balancing resovoirs could also help with the imminent water shortage.
 
The moors here have very little gripping, it's mainly used on blanket bogs in the Pennines which are much wetter than our heathery moors.
The same thing applies though, if you keep the peat completely saturated for longer, it can't soak up more and more rain.
When it rains it doesn't immediately rush into any drainage channels - the ground soaks it up provided it is not already saturated.
It's more likely to rush straight off a bog area because that's already 'full'.

I don't see how many ways I need to explain the same basic idea.
It's very difficult when the BBC and Guardian etc have taken to parroting this suddenly trendy 'soft' flood prevention concept as a wonderful new idea (that costs less than proper defences).
They are even quoting an initiative at Pickering called 'slow the flow' or something as if it was a big success - but work only just started on that so they can hardly uphold it as a workable solution.
They are blocking natural moorland streams with straw bales and logs, which IMO are likely to wash downstream causing blockages and sudden flood flows where none would have occurred before.
 
What is the point in blocking the moorland streams? The water will back up behind it and suddenly gush over when there is enough pressure, that would cause even more problems I would imagine.

I see what you mean about the moors, makes sense when you explain it as you have done,thanks.
 
How many of these rivers are flooding due to lack of dredging and proper management anyway?

There was that stat bandied about the thames barrier been used so many more times recently but nowhere has anyone mentioned whether the criteria for upping the barrier had remained consistent or whether the thames has still been dredged as regularly and properly as before.
 
fracster said:
What is the point in blocking the moorland streams? The water will back up behind it and suddenly gush over when there is enough pressure, that would cause even more problems I would imagine.

I see what you mean about the moors, makes sense when you explain it as you have done,thanks.
Click to expand...
I believe that the thought process is that by blocking the streams you can saturate the higher land (further upstream) which doesn't normally flood, therefore less water ends up on the flood plains.
 
Or more realistically, insurance companies. Which means those of us on high ground.

On a more serious note, I'm getting tired of hearing what the Environment Agency coulda woulda shoulda done to stop these floods. Basic crisis management: we're here now. Fix the immediate symptoms and leave preventing next time until tomorrow. All this arguing and finger pointing in the media doesn't really help people who have lost a living room and gained an indoor swimming pool.
 
Musicman said:
I'll bow to your local knowledge, but that figure is also quoted by New Civil Engineer magazine.
.
Click to expand...

The crux lies in what is meant by 'affected by the flooding' - in their usual love of spin the govt, civil service and various quangos only describe your household as being affected by the flooding if the house is inundated to the point that its no longer liveable - thats where they get the 40 properties in somerset figure from.

However away from spin city most people would accept that if you have to evacuate your property and sleep in a church hall then you've been affected, if you lose your livelihood then you've been affected, if your a farmer and a large ammount of your stock is killed or crops ruined then you've been affected, if you've got 4 inches of water in your lounge and your carpets, books, tv etc are borked then you've been affected , if you are in financial dificulties because of the increased cost of getting to work or not being able to then you've been affected - and so forth

So the actual figure of households affected by the flooding in somerset is considerably more than the 40 households who (as at the date of that figure) will need to make significant insurance claims and find temporary acomodation.

Also that 40 figure is from before last weekend, there have been two storms since then with another one due tommorow

And having some self satisfied tosser from westminster telling you that you've not been affected because your house is still liveable , just adds insult to injury. ( Hell if you've been called out during the night 3 nights running to deal with storm /flood damage then your quality of life has been affected - although to be fair I'm in Devon
 
JonathanRyan said:
All this arguing and finger pointing in the media doesn't really help people who have lost a living room and gained an indoor swimming pool.
Click to expand...

But hey they can rest assured that money is no object in dealing with the crisis - so long as it doesnt ammount to more than 5k per household and you claim yours before the money runs out (which is exactly what i'd assume the phrase 'money no object' meant ...not)
 
You have to question the wisdom of parking somewhere called Flood Lane. Of course you could stand next to me while I take this photo getting mighty annoyed with your wife on the other end of the phone. 'Cause that will help

DSCF5674.jpg
 
Last edited:
The real problem there is an inability to drive - I'm driving through water deeper than that nearly every day at the moment, and not always in a 4x4 - my basic rule of thumb is if its deeper than the wheels then its time to worry - if water starts coming in through the various holes into the footwell then you need to get a shift on.

halfway up the wheels your only problem will be starting the car if the exhaust is under water - down here in the southwest a lot of us have right angle addaptors that go on the exhaust to prove a few in ches more clearance for that situation.

Also of course down here there are a lot of folk with 4x4s who'd stop and tow you out as a matter of course (Ive helped about 15 drivers so far when in the work 4x4 - not all of them prretty girls , although they are inthe majority ... i wouldn't like to speculate on whether this is because pretty girls have greater driving difficulty or because i don't stop as readilly for grumpy old men ;) )
 
2 foot is a lot though -halfway up the wheels is about 8 inches, the main problem isnt floating in those conditions , its either stalling and being unable to restart because the exhaust is under water (or in some cases stalling and a temp vacuum sucking water up the exhaust) or driving too fast so you build up a bow wave and water splashes over the air intake and gets sucked into the engine that way or splashes on the electrics causing a short circuit. (or you crash because its being sprayed all over the screen and you can't see where you are going)

other issues include driving off the road into the river because you can't see where the edge is, being pushed sideways by water flow, and loosing traction because theres too much crap on the road

However the biggest single issue is blind panic , OMG i'm in 6 inches of water ohh they didnt cover this in my driving lessons holy cow what do i do - thud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top