Flooding

[Dave225]

Just to throw in tuppence worth. On our local news tonight it was reported that Dumfries and Galloway Council have asked Westminster for some money towards the floods they had recently. As they have said Cameron has been quoted as saying 'money is no object' so they would like a share as they had a pretty bad experience costing £1 million so far to sort. it was also reported that over the year north of the border we have spent £45 million on flood prevention, but recognise more is required. This means that although we have had bad floods such as in Galloway, in general they are fewer and recover more quickly. We do not come under the EA but SEPA.

 

I guess the English will be complaining that we get more money for flood prevention than they do, when it just comes out of the total budget.

[Guest Peter James]

He was descriped by Lord Sugar as 'Another Pointless Politician'

But at last, a useful occupation has been found for Eric Pickles as the new Thames flood barrier;

[CliveH]

Thanks Peter for putting me RIGHT off my breakfast!

 

Interesting article from Booker over the weekend

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/flooding/10655005/The-flooding-of-the-Somerset-Levels-was-deliberately-engineered.html

 

Booker presents some damning evidence that has now come to light not just that the floods covering 65 square miles of the Somerset Levels could have been prevented but they were deliberately engineered by the Labour Government in 2009, knowingly and regardless of the property and human rights of the thousands of people whose homes and livelihoods would be affected.

 

Furthermore that wildly misleading Met Office forecast in November where the Met Office predicted a long DRY Winter !!!!!!! - led the Environment Agency to take a step which has made the flooding infinitely more disastrous than it need have been, turning what could have been a minor, short-lived inconvenience into a major disaster for the people of Somerset.

 

Ouch!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2014-02-24 9:14 AM

 

Thanks Peter for putting me RIGHT off my breakfast!

 

Interesting article from Booker over the weekend

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/flooding/10655005/The-flooding-of-the-Somerset-Levels-was-deliberately-engineered.html

 

Booker presents some damning evidence that has now come to light not just that the floods covering 65 square miles of the Somerset Levels could have been prevented but they were deliberately engineered by the Labour Government in 2009, knowingly and regardless of the property and human rights of the thousands of people whose homes and livelihoods would be affected.

 

Furthermore that wildly misleading Met Office forecast in November where the Met Office predicted a long DRY Winter !!!!!!! - led the Environment Agency to take a step which has made the flooding infinitely more disastrous than it need have been, turning what could have been a minor, short-lived inconvenience into a major disaster for the people of Somerset.

 

Ouch!!!!!!!!!

 

Anyone interested in delving further into this might like to follow this link to Richard North's blog, which Booker credits as his source. http://tinyurl.com/qb634n3 In fact, Booker credits North as his co-author, although I think this does North a considerable dis-service, as it is clearly Notth who has done all the spade work, leaving Booker to skim off what he wanted.

 

North's blog is an excellent and impressive piece of work in which he provides links to his sources, so one can read them one's self. It should be said that North is a confirmed right wing Eurosceptic, and the bias lent by that political perspective is clearly identifiable in the conclusions he reaches. Having read the blog, and many of the linked documents, my main conclusions are that his investigation is excellent, but that his analysis has been flawed by that bias. His evident desire is to find one of two favourite hooks upon which to hang his case.

 

Hook 1 is the EU.

 

Hook 2 is anything that, politically, does not coincide with his right wing views.

 

He cites mainly two EU directives, dating from as far back as 2007, as being at the root of decisions on management of the Somerset Levels. Neither address, directly, the Levels, both being broad policy documents.

 

One is aimed at ensuring the conservation of valuable plant and animal habitats by designating them as such, and putting in place measures to ensure their preservation. Much as the UK has done for years with its SSSIs, most, if not all of which, have been included within the European scheme.

 

The other is concerned with the management and maintenence of water in general, in terms of quality, flood management, availability, use, treatment, protection from pollution and over-exploitation etc.

 

Neither document, directly or indirectly, advocates anything that could remotely be taken to mean that flooding of the Somerset Levels (or any other area, similar or otherwise), was a policy objective. Both seek to conserve what exists, to protect it from future damage, and to rectify degradation where it has occurred.

 

Numerous other documents are also cited, all of which, when examined, follow similar reasoning: that all decisions should be made with adequate regard to existing land uses, inhabitants, local economies, cultural practices, etc etc. All motherhood and apple pie. In short, they do as policy documents should do, set direction, with the proviso that common sense be applied to their implementation. If the common sense appears to have gone AWOL, one needs to look much closer to home. My reading is that both are fundamantally sound policies, with sensible objectives, that were very badly skewed somewhere during implementation, or later during their management.

 

The EA bought some land on the levels with the intention of managing it as a wetland. This proposal did not extend to managing the whole of the Levels as wetland. The policy for its management seems to have been framed around a document produced by English Nature that was cited by Clive via a link on the "Wot. NO Grones on Zummerzet Levels" string, from which I copied the following paragraph:

 

"Uncontrolled and prolonged deep floods can harm both property and agricultural interests, and bring little benefit to nature conservation. However, extensive areas of shallow or splash flooding during winter and early spring are essential in supporting large flocks of overwintering waterfowl, a thriving population of breeding waders and the wetland interest of the inland Moors. The greatest challenge of this floodplain wetland is how to strike a balance between natural processes, the protection of property and the water levels required to sustain our internationally important wetland wildlife."

 

So, once again the objective was a balance, not wholesale inundation, with a clear appreciation of the harm prolonged, deep, flooding would cause.

 

Having trawled around the entrails of this disaster for far too long already, I am gaining two impressions.

 

First, that commonsense policies aimed at preserving so far as possible the Levels in their traditional form, while protecting the wildlife sites, were either hijacked to pursue a more fundamentalist environmental agenda, or were progressively starved of the funds necessary for their proper continuance.

 

Second, that all such policies were abruptly curtailed in order to save money following the 2010 elections.

 

I'm a bit sceptical of the hijack theory, and more inclined to the theory of underfunding due to either, but more probably both, causes. Somerset County council had a policy for the levels (as cited in North's blog), and most councils have had their budgets squeezed since 2010. I'm therefore suspicious that the combined effects of the post 2010 squeeze, hitting both the county and the EA - and doubtless other involved parties in receipt of public money - have combined in an un-coordinated way to leave the Levels ill-prepared for the biblical torrent that descended upon it.

 

Having said all that, and based on the evidence from the floods elsewhere, I am convinced that whatever amount of dredging, construction of sluices or pumping stations, might have been implemented, given the severity of the storms and the exceptionally high prevailing tides, the Levels would still have flooded long and deep. Perhaps not for quite so long, perhaps not quite so deep, but still with much the same consequences for those who live and work there.

 

Booker/North also made reference to the Met Office long range forecast for November. What the forecast actually said in its summary was:

 

"SUMMARY - PRECIPITATION:

Confidence in the forecast for precipitation across the UK over the next three months is relatively low. For the December-January-February period as a whole there is a slight signal for below-average precipitation.

The probability that UK precipitation for December-January-February will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 25% and the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 15% (the 1981-2010 probability for each of these categories is 20%)."

 

Anyone who bothered to read that, and then used it as a basis for future plans within the forecast period, needs a sharp lesson on probabilities. Surely, anyone with a grain of sense would say first, treat with great scepticism, and second, make sure to get next months three month forecast as well, just to see if the view is maintained. Remember that valuable old addage, "plan for the worst and hope for the best"?

 

But, beyond all of that, why are so many people looking for scapegoats if their own decisions are beyond question? What are they seeking to defend, and why? Interesting? You bet!