crazy

[sidthelamp]

I might be wrong here, but doesn't dredging just move the problem a bit further downstream, so that the downstream towns and cities get flooded instead of open countryside.

Maybe what we need to do is remind ourselves what "flood plain" actually means.

dredging has always meant in the uk to remove the sediment, ,traditionally you remove it to the side of the bank increasing the height of the bank, not anymore because of the above eu directive and other directives,gravel ,sand rock removed from a river is classed as toxic waste, under the same rules as mining overburden , as i said in my previous post, the time frame, that is allowed to remove sediment in a emergency, would not be enough time to grant a licence let alone organise the lorrys needed to take away the sediment, the whole directive is loaded against any remedial work on rivers,certainly in a emergency.

which brings me to your second point, flood plains,there has not been flood plains were the rivers are overflowing for centuries because man has decided to live there, there is plenty of evidence through the directive that because of its inaction its ultimate goal is again to establish these flood plains,with total disregard for people who live in these areas, again the evidence is clear for this,, what i think will happen is first the properties will become uninsurable,which will lead to a drastic devaluation of the properties , making them unsaleable , the next step would be compulsory purchase ,flatten them and return the area into flood plains, this is certainly a real scenario in some places, of course york and similar would survive, taking the above into account and the hell bent eu directives as a whole in the environment, turning the uk and europe into a living post glacial landscape is not beyond the imagination ,

[countryfeedback87]

Yep, our whole estate which is just over 2 years old was all built on flood plains. I do think the flood defences should be built / upgraded before housing developments

[tony41]

Yep, our whole estate which is just over 2 years old was all built on flood plains. I do think the flood defences should be built / upgraded before housing developments

Far easier not to build on a flood plain. It seems that with the increase in extreme rainfall amounts eventually any defence would be overtopped.

[westlondoncarparts]

As I wrote before, the EU Directive allows for exemptions for exceptional reasons such as flooding risk.

It is misleading to try to present the EU as being responsible for flooding in the UK because of the Directive.

Where, for example, did the text of the Directive prevent the dredging of the Somerset Flats which contributed to the level of flooding there last winter?

The purpose of the Directive is to try to prevent further degradation of the water environments through human activity and where possible to restore to as close as natural condition as many of those that have been degraded by the humans. It recognises that there will be situations where that will not be possible.



(32) There may be grounds for exemptions from the requirement to prevent further deterioration or to achieve good status under specific conditions, if the failure is the result of unforeseen or exceptional circumstances, in particular floods and droughts, or, for reasons of overriding public interest, of new modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater, provided that all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the body of water.


3. Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified, when:
(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:
(i) the wider environment;
(ii) navigation, including port facilities, or recreation;
(iii) activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-water supply, power generation or irrigation;
(iv) water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, or
(v) other equally important sustainable human development activities;
(b) the beneficial objectives served by the artificial or modified characteristics of the water body cannot, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option.

[MPS16]

......It is misleading to try to present the EU as being responsible for ......

........The destruction of Western Civilisation

The bedrock of which is the Nation State.

[sidthelamp]

As I wrote before, the EU Directive allows for exemptions for exceptional reasons such as flooding risk.

It is misleading to try to present the EU as being responsible for flooding in the UK because of the Directive.

Where, for example, did the text of the Directive prevent the dredging of the Somerset Flats which contributed to the level of flooding there last winter?

The purpose of the Directive is to try to prevent further degradation of the water environments through human activity and where possible to restore to as close as natural condition as many of those that have been degraded by the humans. It recognises that there will be situations where that will not be possible.



(32) There may be grounds for exemptions from the requirement to prevent further deterioration or to achieve good status under specific conditions, if the failure is the result of unforeseen or exceptional circumstances, in particular floods and droughts, or, for reasons of overriding public interest, of new modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater, provided that all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the body of water.


3. Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified, when:
(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:
(i) the wider environment;
(ii) navigation, including port facilities, or recreation;
(iii) activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-water supply, power generation or irrigation;
(iv) water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, or
(v) other equally important sustainable human development activities;
(b) the beneficial objectives served by the artificial or modified characteristics of the water body cannot, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option.

you can not dredge before the event , the above you quoted is about protecting the body of water in the first instance, the people it effects,are much further down the pipe line, farmers and landowners are outlawed from dredging rivers that protect there own land and there fore protect others

[PetBazaar]

you can not dredge before the event , the above you quoted is about protecting the body of water in the first instance, the people it effects,are much further down the pipe line, farmers and landowners are outlawed from dredging rivers that protect there own land and there fore protect others

A farmer dredging only protects the farmer. It just shifts the problem downstream. It merely increases the rate of flow in that area, so whenever the river eventually reaches some sort of bottleneck, be it a tight bend or a bridge or a section of canalised river in a city, it floods there instead.

We need to be able to slow the rate of flow and reduce erosion in the upstream sections of the rivers. That might mean replanting trees to prevent the soil eroding and silting up channels downstream, or reducing flow in drainage ditches to reduce the amount of water being drained from the hills straight into rivers. Creating "leaky dams" to slow the rivers themselves, or just allowing unpopulated flood plains to be inundated during exceptional rainfall allowing the water to be held until levels drop. That's the only way to prevent the towns and cities downstream from being flooded.

The choice really boils down to protecting the towns and cities, or protecting the farmers. I doubt we can do both.

[sidthelamp]

A farmer dredging only protects the farmer. It just shifts the problem downstream. It merely increases the rate of flow in that area, so whenever the river eventually reaches some sort of bottleneck, be it a tight bend or a bridge or a section of canalised river in a city, it floods there instead.

We need to be able to slow the rate of flow and reduce erosion in the upstream sections of the rivers. That might mean replanting trees to prevent the soil eroding and silting up channels downstream, or reducing flow in drainage ditches to reduce the amount of water being drained from the hills straight into rivers. Creating "leaky dams" to slow the rivers themselves, or just allowing unpopulated flood plains to be inundated during exceptional rainfall allowing the water to be held until levels drop. That's the only way to prevent the towns and cities downstream from being flooded.

The choice really boils down to protecting the towns and cities, or protecting the farmers. I doubt we can do both.

the choice as you put it has been made in recent times when farmers were allowed to stop there land being flooded and taking away tons of soil that was deposited further down stream, so the farmers played a important part in stoping erosion in the first place, a little like what you just advocated in the uplands, the rivers authority in conjunction with land owners used to dredge the rivers downstream to stop towns being flooded,this stopped via the eu in fact the rivers authority was replaced by the self funding environment agency , which does not dredge rivers , because the mandate of the ea is self funding they dont have the funding from goverment to apply adequate river defences anymore,

[tony41]

the choice as you put it has been made in recent times when farmers were allowed to stop there land being flooded and taking away tons of soil that was deposited further down stream, so the farmers played a important part in stoping erosion in the first place, a little like what you just advocated in the uplands, the rivers authority in conjunction with land owners used to dredge the rivers downstream to stop towns being flooded,this stopped via the eu in fact the rivers authority was replaced by the self funding environment agency , which does not dredge rivers , because the mandate of the ea is self funding they dont have the funding from goverment to apply adequate river defences anymore,

From your last sentence it appears that the reason why rivers are not dredged is lack of funding from the Government not anything from the EU.

[sidthelamp]

From your last sentence it appears that the reason why rivers are not dredged is lack of funding from the Government not anything from the EU.

no i said river defences not dredging the goverment withdrew money from river defences , were as dredging is a river defence its outlawed so they cant withdraw what there not allowed to fund, its pretty clear river defences have not encluded dredging sinse the late 90s were talking in a modern sense its a shame you cant make the distinction, i will try to make my posts more simple for your sake from now on.