Flooding in Somerset

[Halo Stickman]

Nice to see so many people ignoring my post about the EA whilst looking to slag them off...

 

I'm not saying they're perfect, but unless you actually work there or work closely with them, I think it's a bit unfair for some people to make such judgements.

 

Minty, I have been involved in environmental conservation - albeit at a voluntary level and never for the EA – long enough to know that there are plenty of well-intentioned, hardworking people involved in that field, and that there is a desperate shortage of funding. They often have to make difficult compromises to satisfy conflicting criteria.

 

Satisfying conflicting criteria was the problem the EA faced when they took control of the drainage on the Somerset Levels. For years there had been a battle between the local conservation agencies, who wanted more flooding on the levels, and the farmers, who, in the main, wanted more drainage. The drainage authorities, in place prior to the EA, had strived to reach a compromise that suited all parties, and for many years the Levels had been managed successfully.

 

When the EA took over they seemed to take a policy decision skewed very heavily towards meeting the wishes of the conservation agencies, i.e. more flooding, less drainage, no dredging. As I mentioned in my previous post, there were a lot of local voices expressing concern that this policy would lead to disastrous consequences. But the EA chose to ignore these concerns, and I can even remember one of their people causing upset by making a glib comment about wishing to see all of the pumping stations blown up! Great for wildlife, perhaps, but not so good for the 120,000 people who live and work there. And the irony now is that the present flooding is good for neither.

 

So, whilst I’m always happy to acknowledge the hard work of people employed by the EA and similar organisations, I feel that, in the case of the Somerset Levels flooding, they definitely need, at the very least, to review some of their previous policy decisions! They really should have given more credence to the concerns of people who had lived and worked successfully on the Levels for many generations.

[bristolsaint29]

I lived in the levels for a few years and still live nearby, what they are suffering is horrendous, as said the majority of people down there (excluding bridgwater a very odd place) are hard working families.

 

The British Red Cross is in there delivering food to cut off areas, areas which have been cut off for a month. The EA are trying they have put in huge amounts of pumps to try to release the volume of water but it is a large area to clear.

 

The impact on the local economy is huge, the impact on the transport infrastructure is huge. This should have been dealt with quicker and more efficiently and yes the rivers should have been maintained better. Issue with that is the EA are having there budgets cut and resources reduced.

[bristolsaint29]

Minty, I have been involved in environmental conservation - albeit at a voluntary level and never for the EA – long enough to know that there are plenty of well-intentioned, hardworking people involved in that field, and that there is a desperate shortage of funding. They often have to make difficult compromises to satisfy conflicting criteria.

 

Satisfying conflicting criteria was the problem the EA faced when they took control of the drainage on the Somerset Levels. For years there had been a battle between the local conservation agencies, who wanted more flooding on the levels, and the farmers, who, in the main, wanted more drainage. The drainage authorities, in place prior to the EA, had strived to reach a compromise that suited all parties, and for many years the Levels had been managed successfully.

 

When the EA took over they seemed to take a policy decision skewed very heavily towards meeting the wishes of the conservation agencies, i.e. more flooding, less drainage, no dredging. As I mentioned in my previous post, there were a lot of local voices expressing concern that this policy would lead to disastrous consequences. But the EA chose to ignore these concerns, and I can even remember one of their people causing upset by making a glib comment about wishing to see all of the pumping stations blown up! Great for wildlife, perhaps, but not so good for the 120,000 people who live and work there. And the irony now is that the present flooding is good for neither.

 

So, whilst I’m always happy to acknowledge the hard work of people employed by the EA and similar organisations, I feel that, in the case of the Somerset Levels flooding, they definitely need, at the very least, to review some of their previous policy decisions! They really should have given more credence to the concerns of people who had lived and worked successfully on the Levels for many generations.

 

 

Very well put

[Minty]

That's more like it Halo - I'm all for qualified comments like that, it was more the sweeping statements that bug me.

 

I should also say that I don't know the specifics of the Somerset levels and what you've written sounds absolutely reasonable. From what my wife tells me there is a lot more to these decisions than simply conservation vs needs of farmers etc, and often the problem is how it is consulted on and communicated. On top of that, obviously each region has separate management and can deal with these things in different ways sometimes, depending on other local priorities.

[Halo Stickman]

That's more like it Halo - I'm all for qualified comments like that, it was more the sweeping statements that bug me.

 

I should also say that I don't know the specifics of the Somerset levels and what you've written sounds absolutely reasonable. From what my wife tells me there is a lot more to these decisions than simply conservation vs needs of farmers etc, and often the problem is how it is consulted on and communicated. On top of that, obviously each region has separate management and can deal with these things in different ways sometimes, depending on other local priorities.

 

Glad to oblige, Minty.

 

Yes, your wife is probably right about the EA's choice being a little more nuanced than simply farmers v conservationists, but I think that was the nub of the situation.

 

At worse, a generalisation rather than a sweeping statement?

[buctootim]

Minty, I have been involved in environmental conservation - albeit at a voluntary level and never for the EA – long enough to know that there are plenty of well-intentioned, hardworking people involved in that field, and that there is a desperate shortage of funding. They often have to make difficult compromises to satisfy conflicting criteria.

 

Satisfying conflicting criteria was the problem the EA faced when they took control of the drainage on the Somerset Levels. For years there had been a battle between the local conservation agencies, who wanted more flooding on the levels, and the farmers, who, in the main, wanted more drainage. The drainage authorities, in place prior to the EA, had strived to reach a compromise that suited all parties, and for many years the Levels had been managed successfully.

 

When the EA took over they seemed to take a policy decision skewed very heavily towards meeting the wishes of the conservation agencies, i.e. more flooding, less drainage, no dredging. As I mentioned in my previous post, there were a lot of local voices expressing concern that this policy would lead to disastrous consequences. But the EA chose to ignore these concerns, and I can even remember one of their people causing upset by making a glib comment about wishing to see all of the pumping stations blown up! Great for wildlife, perhaps, but not so good for the 120,000 people who live and work there. And the irony now is that the present flooding is good for neither.

 

So, whilst I’m always happy to acknowledge the hard work of people employed by the EA and similar organisations, I feel that, in the case of the Somerset Levels flooding, they definitely need, at the very least, to review some of their previous policy decisions! They really should have given more credence to the concerns of people who had lived and worked successfully on the Levels for many generations.

 

No-one is minimising the suffering of those who have been affected by flooding. Its a devastating thing to happen and the urge to 'do domething' and 'blame someone' is always strong at those moments. Its not a good time to make policy.

 

Simply digging drainage ditches or increasing the carrying capacity of rivers has no value if the water has nowhere to go. And the reason it has nowhere to go is because much of the levels is just above sea level or below. Water flows only very slowly on very slight downhill slopes and not at all uphill. Building hard sea defences only exacerbates the problem of rainfall flooding because whilst its reduces the likelihood of storm surge or tidal flooding it raises river levels and creates in effect, a swimming pool (with the other sides of the pool being higher ground surrounding the levels). Even creating emergency pumping stations wont work unless you have somewhere to pump it to - and you cant pump it into the rivers because they are so slow flowing because the fall is so small (exacerbated by the downstream storm and tidal sluices).

 

There are only two real options 1. create some massive massive pumping stations connected to a pipeline around the size of the channel tunnel dug through the levels all the way to the sea for multi billion pounds. The government is never going to write the cheque for that and anyway there'd be local action groups about spoiling the view 2. Create natural wetlands which are lower than the surrounding fields which provide sinks for flood water to flow to, but that involves the loss of some farmland. There''d be outcry about lefty greenies ruining rural business.

 

The third option is the one the politicians will take and all the residents will like ( until next time) - which is to wring hands, blame the Environment Agency, promise some pointless but feel good dredging and ditch clearing - then walk away hoping floods wont be back anytime soon.

Edited 31 January, 2014 by buctootim

[bridge too far]

I don't pretend to understand the whys and hows of the Somerset levels at all. I do feel very sorry for people who have been so badly affected for four weeks FFS!

 

What I do understand is that the EA has had, and will continue to have, its budget slashed.

 

What I don't understand is why on earth it has taken four weeks (and countless COBRA meetings) to elapse for the government to do anything.

[aintforever]

The only people to blame are those who bought houses on flood plains, and mother nature. It's not hard to check where rivers are likely to flood.

[Halo Stickman]

No-one is minimising the suffering of those who have been affected by flooding. Its a devastating thing to happen and the urge to 'do domething' and 'blame someone' is always strong at those moments. Its not a good time to make policy.

 

Simply digging drainage ditches or increasing the carrying capacity of rivers has no value if the water has nowhere to go. And the reason it has nowhere to go is because much of the levels is just above sea level or below. Water flows only very slowly on very slight downhill slopes and not at all uphill. Building hard sea defences only exacerbates the problem of rainfall flooding because whilst its reduces the likelihood of storm surge or tidal flooding it raises river levels and creates in effect, a swimming pool (with the other sides of the pool being higher ground surrounding the levels). Even creating emergency pumping stations wont work unless you have somewhere to pump it to - and you cant pump it into the rivers because they are so slow flowing because the fall is so small (exacerbated by the downstream storm and tidal sluices).

 

There are only two real options 1. create some massive massive pumping stations connected to a pipeline around the size of the channel tunnel dug through the levels all the way to the sea for multi billion pounds. The government is never going to write the cheque for that and anyway there'd be local action groups about spoiling the view 2. Create natural wetlands which are lower than the surrounding fields which provide sinks for flood water to flow to, but that involves the loss of some farmland. There''d be outcry about lefty greenies ruining rural business.

 

The third option is the one the politicians will take and all the residents will like ( until next time) - which is to wring hands, blame the Environment Agency, promise some pointless but feel good dredging and ditch clearing - then walk away hoping floods wont be back anytime soon.

 

First, there are plenty of people minimising the suffering of flood victims – some of them on this thread.

 

Second, the Levels have existed largely in their present state for hundreds of years without the floods we are seeing today. The fall of the rivers has not changed over the centuries; the rivers have been allowed to silt up. Drainage ditches do not need to be dug; they are already there; they are maintained by the farmers, but are useless when the rivers they discharge into have been allowed to silt up

 

Third, natural wetlands below the level of the surrounding fields have been, and are being, created all the time – when the peat has been extracted down to the clay level, the land is taken over by the conservation agencies, planted with reeds etc and turned into wetland nature reserves.

 

Fourth, Friday night is my go out and get p issed night. Yippee!

[buctootim]

the Levels have existed largely in their present state for hundreds of years without the floods we are seeing today. )

 

Sorry Halo but your post is just wrong. The area has always flooded regularly, its a flood plain which floods. Every planning document or historical document you care to get will tell you that. When you get double normal rainfall on a flood plain it will flood badly. When you build houses on as flood plain they will be flooded. However the current floods are nowhere near the biggest floods of the past 100 years. In 1919 floods covered five times the current area. In 1947 floods were abnormally bad. Here are some pictures from 1968, again much worse than now, 7 people dead. In 1981 over 1,000 homes were flooded (60 currently). More flooding in 2008.

 

A lot of the news currently is about Keynsham. Watch this and tell me which is worst. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7499533.stm

 

This the White Hart in Keynsham in 1968. Its pretty similar to the 1947 images, 2008 images and the current images (now called the Lock Keeper)

 

 

 

and after. Bit more violent than today huh?

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/r/Chew_Stoke_Floods_-_10_July_1968.pdf

 

 

 

This is 2008

Edited 31 January, 2014 by buctootim

[moonraker]

Keynsham is not in the Somerset Levels, it is on the River Avon which does not flow through the levels.

[buctootim]

Keynsham is not in the Somerset Levels, it is on the River Avon which does not flow through the levels.

 

This is the Somerset floods thread and Keynsham is in Somerset. It is also the focus of much of the media coverage - hence the comparative pictures. Towns and people get more photographs and are uploaded more than wet fields in the levels hence the choice of pictures. If Keynsham were flooded repeatedly and the levels weren't you would have a point. As the levels are also flooded and have been repeatedly for 100s of years and in the same years, not so much.

Edited 31 January, 2014 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

I watched QT last night and something confused me. All guests blamed man made climate change and that's why we need to cut emmisons blah blah blah. But some came out with this " made your bed better lie in it" line, live on flood plains, get flooded , get over it. They don't seem to realise you can't have it both ways. If man has made the flooding worse, then people should be compensated. You can't call it an act of god on one hand and man made climate change on the other.

[Saint George]

Sorry Halo but your post is just wrong. The area has always flooded regularly, its a flood plain which floods. Every planning document or historical document you care to get will tell you that. When you get double normal rainfall on a flood plain it will flood badly. When you build houses on as flood plain they will be flooded. However the current floods are nowhere near the biggest floods of the past 100 years. In 1919 floods covered five times the current area. In 1947 floods were abnormally bad. Here are some pictures from 1968, again much worse than now, 7 people dead. In 1981 over 1,000 homes were flooded (60 currently). More flooding in 2008.

 

A lot of the news currently is about Keynsham. Watch this and tell me which is worst. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7499533.stm

 

This the White Hart in Keynsham in 1968. Its pretty similar to the 1947 images, 2008 images and the current images (now called the Lock Keeper)

 

 

 

and after. Bit more violent than today huh?

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/r/Chew_Stoke_Floods_-_10_July_1968.pdf

 

 

 

This is 2008

 

So are you saying the floods have nothing to do with Man Made Global Warming like the Guardian had reported?......hmmm...interesting

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/26/somerset-climate-change-uk

[buctootim]

I watched QT last night and something confused me. All guests blamed man made climate change and that's why we need to cut emmisons blah blah blah. But some came out with this " made your bed better lie in it" line, live on flood plains, get flooded , get over it. They don't seem to realise you can't have it both ways. If man has made the flooding worse, then people should be compensated. You can't call it an act of god on one hand and man made climate change on the other.

 

Warmer air carries more moisture than cooler air so rain storms may be heavier and warmer weather can generate more energy in storms - but the effects are marginal. Climate change hasnt caused flooding in Somerset. If you look at the picture of Glastonbury in the post above the most obvious thing is that all the old houses are built up on the higher ground. We seem to have forgotten the reason for that.

Edited 31 January, 2014 by buctootim

[Horley CTFC Saint]

The fenland described in those links is quite different from the Somerset Levels, both in scale (3,700 hectares as opposed to 650 square kilometres) and in soil type (alkali as opposed to acidic), so a comparison on the relevant impact to residents and on associated flora and fauna is not valid, in my opinion. The Somerset Levels are already serving as a huge drainage sink to the surrounding areas.

Gie I Burtle?

[Saint George]

Warmer air carries more moisture than cooler air so rain storms may be heavier and warmer weather can generate more energy in storms - but the effects are marginal. Climate change hasnt caused flooding in Somerset. If you look at the picture of Glastonbury in the post above the most obvious thing is that all the old houses are built up on the higher ground. We seem to have forgotten the reason for that.

 

But the Guardian said it has...So they got that wrong?

[buctootim]

But the Guardian said it has...So they got that wrong?

 

No they were bang on. They said "the marshy land may become one of the first parts of the UK to face effects of global warming". Because its a broadsheet they dont normally need to emphasise words like that for its readers - but Im happy to help out.

[moonraker]

This is the Somerset floods thread and Keynsham is in Somerset. It is also the focus of much of the media coverage - hence the comparative pictures. Towns and people get more photographs and are uploaded more than wet fields in the levels hence the choice of pictures. If Keynsham were flooded repeatedly and the levels weren't you would have a point. As the levels are also flooded and have been repeatedly for 100s of years and in the same years, not so much.

 

Keynsham is in BANES and the thread is about the problems in the levels not the flooding in Keynsham.

[View From The Top]

Whilst I have sympathy on an individual level with all those affected part of me does think that you should kinda expect flooding on a natural flood plain.

[Halo Stickman]

Sorry Halo but your post is just wrong. The area has always flooded regularly, its a flood plain which floods. Every planning document or historical document you care to get will tell you that. When you get double normal rainfall on a flood plain it will flood badly. When you build houses on as flood plain they will be flooded. However the current floods are nowhere near the biggest floods of the past 100 years. In 1919 floods covered five times the current area. In 1947 floods were abnormally bad. Here are some pictures from 1968, again much worse than now, 7 people dead. In 1981 over 1,000 homes were flooded (60 currently). More flooding in 2008.

 

A lot of the news currently is about Keynsham. Watch this and tell me which is worst. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7499533.stm

 

This the White Hart in Keynsham in 1968. Its pretty similar to the 1947 images, 2008 images and the current images (now called the Lock Keeper)

 

 

 

and after. Bit more violent than today huh?

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/r/Chew_Stoke_Floods_-_10_July_1968.pdf

 

 

 

This is 2008

 

Tim, the 1919 flood was caused by seawater breaching sea defences, the 1947 flood occurred across the entire nation, and the 1981 flood was the result of a severe storm hitting the North Somerset coast, resulting in breached sea defences from Clevedon to Porlock.

 

As moonraker has already pointed out, Keynsham, featured in your 1968 photos, is in BANES (Bath and North East Somerset), and before the creation of BANES it was in the county of Avon.

 

The only photo in that montage featuring the Somerset Levels is the last one, which was taken from Wearyall Hill and looks north towards Glastonbury Tor. I have plenty of similar photos in my albums, taken during the 8 years that I lived in Glastonbury – those fields flood virtually every winter. Nobody is complaining about that type of flooding; indeed, farmers welcome the silt they deposit on the pasture land.

 

The current floods in the Somerset Levels are quite different.

[Halo Stickman]

Gie I Burtle?

 

I've spent many a happy hour in the Burtle Inn, is it still there, Horley?

[buctootim]

Tim, the 1919 flood was caused by seawater breaching sea defences, the 1947 flood occurred across the entire nation, and the 1981 flood was the result of a severe storm hitting the North Somerset coast, resulting in breached sea defences from Clevedon to Porlock.

 

As moonraker has already pointed out, Keynsham, featured in your 1968 photos, is in BANES (Bath and North East Somerset), and before the creation of BANES it was in the county of Avon.

 

The only photo in that montage featuring the Somerset Levels is the last one, which was taken from Wearyall Hill and looks north towards Glastonbury Tor. I have plenty of similar photos in my albums, taken during the 8 years that I lived in Glastonbury – those fields flood virtually every winter. Nobody is complaining about that type of flooding; indeed, farmers welcome the silt they deposit on the pasture land.

 

The current floods in the Somerset Levels are quite different.

 

My last post on the subject because we're going round in circles. So for the purposes of this thread:

 

1. Tidal floods dont count

2. Storm surges dont count

3. Floods which happen every year don't count

4. National floods dont count

5. Floods in places in Bath and North East Somerset council area don't count

6. Unless there are documented pictures of flooded areas in the levels which are provably not part of the usual annual floods, they don't count.

 

Its easy to throw out red herrings. The facts remain:

 

1. The levels are a flood plain at, below or near sea level

2. The levels flood every year, have done for hundreds of years and and when there is heavy rain they flood badly.

3. Water drains very slowly from the levels because of their low elevation and predominantly clay soil.

4. Hard sea defences and numerous weirs and sluices to protect against ingress of seawater during storms raises the levels of rivers and reduces their fall and flowrate, thereby making rainfall flooding worse.

5. Dredging the rivers will make almost no difference because the carrying capacity is determined primarily by the speed of flow and the speed of flow is reduced by 4 above and by the large number of meanders in the rivers (twisty bendy course). Have you not noticed the banks are artificially built up in many places in order to give height (and therefore drop) to water which would otherwise be almost stagnant?

6. The only significant way to speed up flowrate without removing the weirs is to canalise the rivers even more than they are already - ie straight lines and artificial built up hard banks all the way to the sea, remove any trees cover and probably fence the banks to keep cattle from trampling banks and silting the river.

Edited 1 February, 2014 by buctootim

[Horley CTFC Saint]

I've spent many a happy hour in the Burtle Inn, is it still there, Horley?

Yep only been there the once myself but it was definitely still there three or four years back - a number of my ancestors managed the pub back in the 19th century so I had to visit it really if only to check for ghosts

[Halo Stickman]

My last post on the subject because we're going round in circles. So for the purposes of this thread:

 

5. Dredging the rivers will make almost no difference because the carrying capacity is determined primarily by the speed of flow and the speed of flow is reduced by 4 above and by the large number of meanders in the rivers (twisty bendy course). Have you not noticed the banks are artificially built up in many places in order to give height (and therefore drop) to water which would otherwise be almost stagnant?

 

Ever decreasing circles, eh Tim?

 

Yep, I have noticed the raised banks – goodness knows I’ve walked along enough of them! By the way, they were created from the silt dredged from the river bed – that was, of course, back in the days when the rivers were actually dredged!

 

Seriously though, I, too, have said all I really want to say on this thread; I’m happy to agree to disagree with you on this particular subject – it’s been an interesting discussion.

 

Finally, Tim, I’ve been meaning to thank you for your post in reply to my thread entitled ‘summer beach holiday recommendations’. Mrs Stickman and I visited Menorca, and found the island and its beaches etc. exactly as you described them in your text and accompanying photo. Cheers mate.

[bristolsaint29]

This is the Somerset floods thread and Keynsham is in Somerset. It is also the focus of much of the media coverage - hence the comparative pictures. Towns and people get more photographs and are uploaded more than wet fields in the levels hence the choice of pictures. If Keynsham were flooded repeatedly and the levels weren't you would have a point. As the levels are also flooded and have been repeatedly for 100s of years and in the same years, not so much.

 

Dont be a plank,

 

Keynsham is in a completely different floodplain to the levels, Keynsham floods at least 2-3 times a year, how do I know this because I live 2 miles from there. Keynsham sits on the river Avon and is also dictated by the tidal Avon in Bristol where it flows into the Bristol Channel in Avonmouth. Does this mean we can use my parents back door as they live in Somerset and they have had a repeated flood through there back door and have had to have it replaced.

[bristolsaint29]

Ever decreasing circles, eh Tim?

 

Yep, I have noticed the raised banks – goodness knows I’ve walked along enough of them! By the way, they were created from the silt dredged from the river bed – that was, of course, back in the days when the rivers were actually dredged!

 

Seriously though, I, too, have said all I really want to say on this thread; I’m happy to agree to disagree with you on this particular subject – it’s been an interesting discussion.

 

Finally, Tim, I’ve been meaning to thank you for your post in reply to my thread entitled ‘summer beach holiday recommendations’. Mrs Stickman and I visited Menorca, and found the island and its beaches etc. exactly as you described them in your text and accompanying photo. Cheers mate.

 

Where did you go? Am off to Santo Tomas in the summer.

[Minty]

Just out of interest, has there been much investigation into the condition of the upper catchment areas around the Somerset levels... i.e. the fields and hills that the water runs off of before it reaches the levels below? I don't know the area, as I said before, but if there are a lot of mono-cultures being grown and fields that are all-but-devoid of nutrients, then run off will be much quicker and contribute to the problems lower down.

 

This is exactly why I said earlier about dredging not being the be-all and end-all, and just a small part of the overall strategy required. Dredging is far less effective if upper catchment areas are in a poor state and the dredged areas will only fill up more quickly with the silt from those fields higher up if they don't maintain their integrity.

[Halo Stickman]

Where did you go? Am off to Santo Tomas in the summer.

 

Santo Tomas – that’s where we went! Stayed at the Sol Menorca Hotel – great hotel, adults-only, fantastic buffet, spotlessly clean, right on the beach, and, if you’re into bird-watching, there was even a hoopoe flying around the gardens and swimming pool.

 

The Santo Tomas complex is aimed at couples or families and wouldn’t suit clubbers looking for a wild time! However, it’s got all the usual facilities you might need – shops, small supermarkets, bars and even a small nightclub; and, if you’ve going with children, there are plenty of play areas etc. But the best thing about the complex was that you only need to stroll about a quarter of a mile along the coast to discover beautiful deserted sandy beaches backed by wildflower meadows and pine woodlands.

 

The only downside was that we went in May last year, and the weather was unseasonably chilly, and the seas were quite choppy. Apparently, however, the seas in that area are usually really good for snorkelling. Also, if you’re not going to hire a car, or don’t fancy booking excursions etc, Santo Tomas is well served by buses; a return bus fare to Ciutadella, at one end of the Island, or to Mao, at the other end, are only about 3.5 euros each. And, it’s only a 2 hour flight from Bristol or Exeter.

 

We enjoyed it so much we are seriously considering going back there again this summer – going on holiday to the same place twice is something we’ve never done before!

 

Hope you have a great holiday bristolsaint29.

[TUS]

My, you really are mightily slow. Sainsburys and Wetherspoons buying Heineken brewed in the Netherlands is not the same as stating all Heineken is brewed in the Netherlands.Its not a difficult concept, Im surprised you struggle with it.

 

Why dont you contact this woman, a former conservative party candidate? She first witnessed it and it was concerned about the impact on the image of shooting. It was her who asked me to do as site visit and raise it with David Miliband when he was environment minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Lampard]

 

I used to have two people on ignore for being supercilious yet spectacularly wrong twonks. I need to apologise to Alpine because all things are relative.

 

 

I googled the Heineken thing, purely out of interest, and this was one of the first results:

 

http://www.thebeertutor.co.uk/foreign-2/

 

"Heineken UK is part of Heineken International, based in the Netherlands, with three breweries in Britain. Although these breweries produce several beers with foreign origins, all the Heineken-branded beer sold in Britain comes from the group’s brewery at Zoeterwoudein, south of Amsterdam."

 

Not laying claim to one website being more right than another - but it does highlight that there is an argument to be had. Although it seems the argument has been well & truly done here ha ;-)

[Halo Stickman]

Just out of interest, has there been much investigation into the condition of the upper catchment areas around the Somerset levels... i.e. the fields and hills that the water runs off of before it reaches the levels below? I don't know the area, as I said before, but if there are a lot of mono-cultures being grown and fields that are all-but-devoid of nutrients, then run off will be much quicker and contribute to the problems lower down.

 

This is exactly why I said earlier about dredging not being the be-all and end-all, and just a small part of the overall strategy required. Dredging is far less effective if upper catchment areas are in a poor state and the dredged areas will only fill up more quickly with the silt from those fields higher up if they don't maintain their integrity.

 

Minty, you’ve raised an interesting question, and one that I would need to spend quite a lot of time on in order to fully do it justice – and I’m afraid I haven’t got much spare time at the moment.

 

But, essentially, the Somerset Levels is a 650 square kilometre basin flanked by the Mendips to the north, the Dorset Heights to the east and the Blackdown and Quantock Hills to the south, with the Polden Hills cutting through the middle of this basin, roughly from west to east. Water flows from these hills, via the Levels, westwards to eventually discharge into the Bristol Channel.

 

I think that it’s fair to say that dairy-farming and sheep-grazing predominate over arable farming in these areas. The Levels themselves have been formed over thousands of years and comprise of a complex and fairly unusual underlying soil type, which is one of the reasons the Levels contain over 30 Sites of Special Scientific Interests.

 

‘The Natural History of the Somerset Levels’ by Bernard Storer is an interesting read for anyone who wishes to learn more about the ecology etc of the area.

[moonraker]

To add a little more on the subject wrt to Military Assistance to Civil Authorities (MACA). The EA has taken a lot of stick but it is Local Authorities who have to call in, and pay for, Military Assistance in these situations. Has anybody asked the local council why this wasn’t done when the RM at Taunton with BV's are right on the doorstep? Also Cameron did not mention who will pay for the Military Assistance he so kindly offered! Bet it wont be central government.

[bristolsaint29]

Santo Tomas – that’s where we went! Stayed at the Sol Menorca Hotel – great hotel, adults-only, fantastic buffet, spotlessly clean, right on the beach, and, if you’re into bird-watching, there was even a hoopoe flying around the gardens and swimming pool.

 

The Santo Tomas complex is aimed at couples or families and wouldn’t suit clubbers looking for a wild time! However, it’s got all the usual facilities you might need – shops, small supermarkets, bars and even a small nightclub; and, if you’ve going with children, there are plenty of play areas etc. But the best thing about the complex was that you only need to stroll about a quarter of a mile along the coast to discover beautiful deserted sandy beaches backed by wildflower meadows and pine woodlands.

 

The only downside was that we went in May last year, and the weather was unseasonably chilly, and the seas were quite choppy. Apparently, however, the seas in that area are usually really good for snorkelling. Also, if you’re not going to hire a car, or don’t fancy booking excursions etc, Santo Tomas is well served by buses; a return bus fare to Ciutadella, at one end of the Island, or to Mao, at the other end, are only about 3.5 euros each. And, it’s only a 2 hour flight from Bristol or Exeter.

 

We enjoyed it so much we are seriously considering going back there again this summer – going on holiday to the same place twice is something we’ve never done before!

 

Hope you have a great holiday bristolsaint29.

 

2nd time for us we stayed at the Victoria Playas last time but are staying in the Maestag apartments but using the Sol Menorca for the all inclusive aspect, have 2 small kids so perfect for us as we can have a 2 bed apartment.

[Batman]

So, the EA don't have the money to protect both town and country.

 

I suspect we have the money to protect another nations towns and country sides from flooding

[Whitey Grandad]

So, the EA don't have the money to protect both town and country.

 

I suspect we have the money to protect another nations towns and country sides from flooding

 

Indeed. All that foreign aid and we can't even protect our own countryside.

[Mr_Red]

A point about the Environment Agency.

 

They are often blamed in situations like this, usually by those completely ignorant to the amount of work they do actually do, not to mention their involvement in other areas. For example, the planning applications they comment on, time and again, to recommend developments don't take place in flood plains or river valleys for exactly these reasons... and their recommendations are often ignored by council planning committees because supposedly the need for jobs and economic development is placed as a higher priority by so many local authorities.

 

Meanwhile, their budgets are being slashed by central government disproportionately to other departments, despite pledges that they would be the 'greenest government ever' (ha), because of austerity and because we apparently need to focus what funds we do have reigniting economic growth... well, a fat lot of good those rural business grants will do to businesses who are flooded because the EA budget has been slashed and everyone ignores their advice when it doesn't suit them.

 

Like or not, the environment will continue to change and need managing, no matter what the economic situation. And the EA needs funding as a result... it is vastly underrated as a government agency, and of course that is only noticed when stuff like this happens, by which point it's too late.

 

And just to qualify all that, my wife used to work for the EA and knows many people still in it.

 

A good post Minty.

 

It's a heartless man who doesn't feel sorry for the people evacuated from their homes, but the flak the EA are getting is unjustified. To suggest dredging would have made much of a difference is simply stupid. Seems that dredging is going to happen now anyway thanks to politicians, even though a lot of leading engineers/hydrologists etc in the field say it will have a limited effect.

 

What doesn't seem to make it into the news are the people who were flooded on the east coast during Christmas (mandelas passing trumped that news story in many cases). About 10 times the number of properties flooded compared to Somerset. Are these people going to be happy that money that could have been used to protect them, may now be heading to save fewer properties elsewhere? In the cold light of day you have to make decisions. Spend £1m to save 10 houses in one community, or 100 in another? Politics should have nothing to do with it.

[Batman]

[OldNick]

What a sad quote. What aid can we give to flood victims, if you pump it out it just comes back. I should know as I was pumping thousands of gallons of water for days. It has nowhere to go. You just pump it around and around.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

 

You do realise that giving money to people in Somerset/Surrey right now does nothing? He has also said compensation will be given and people will be helped when it is needed. What an odd quote?

[bristolsaint29]

What a sad quote. What aid can we give to flood victims, if you pump it out it just comes back. I should know as I was pumping thousands of gallons of water for days. It has nowhere to go. You just pump it around and around.

 

I can validate this, they are currently pumping into the Parrott and Huntspill and breaching again downstream, now looking at Kings Sedgemoore relief channel

[Badger]

Interesting that now the Thames has flooded, its a national disaster and both the efforts and attention are geared up a little more.

[bridge too far]

Interesting that now the Thames has flooded, its a national disaster and both the efforts and attention are geared up a little more.

 

Possibly because it has the potential to cause significantly more damage, given the number of people likely to be affected - many more so than in Somerset.

[derry]

I can't help thinking that if the rivers were fully dredged and the ditches cleared that there would be lower water levels than now. Rivers 60% silted and I believe a law restricting what can be done to ditches must surely have resulted in higher water levels.

 

The lady that made the remark about blowing up the pumping stations, the same Baroness Young that was head of the RSPB before becoming head of the EA. Small wonder the conservationist view prevailed. As for the lack of money, enough for £32m on a bird sanctuary. For me people come first. Well now its going to cost a damn sight more than it ever would if it had been managed correctly. Give the levels their own drainage authority as per the Norfolk Broads.

 

Incidentally a builder in Moorland built his own defences. Initially stopped until he got permission otherwise would be 2 ft higher. Then needed a permit to bring in 30 ton loads of fill, eight weeks required say the EA. Eventually common sense prevailed and permit was issued (probably the publicity).

 

It's all very well having authorities for all sorts of things but putting failed politicians and place men at the top instead of specialists causes this sort of mess.

Edited 10 February, 2014 by derry

[Verbal]

As this well-argued blog from Oxford economics professor, Simon Wren-Lewis, says, this could be Cameron's Katrina.

 

300 flood defence schemes in England left unbuilt due to austerity cuts; a government rendered complacent because so many of its political supporters believe that climate change is a mirage; and floods are one issue where the government can't take the easy option of blaming the recipients of state funding.

 

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/are-uk-floods-camerons-katrina.html

[Halo Stickman]

In order to avoid the endless debate as to whether or not climate change is actually happening; and, if it is, whether or not it’s man-made, I reckon it might be better, for the time being at least, to just accept the fact that we have wet years. Perhaps then at least we could all agree on one thing, namely, that forsaking flood defences is likely to lead to an inevitable conclusion: flooding.

 

Here is a Met Office link for precipitation in England and Wales from 1766 to 2013. I’ve reproduced the wettest 20 years below. They could denote climate change; they could denote the randomness of natural events – right now, it matters not one jot to people waist-deep in water.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/ranked_seasonal/HadEWP_ranked_ssn.dat

 

HadEWP ranked seasonal precipitation - 1766 to 2013

 

20 wettest years (wettest first)

 

1. 1872

2. 1768

3. 2012

4. 2000

5. 1852

6. 1960

7. 1903

8. 1882

9. 1877

10. 1848

11. 2002

12. 1792

13. 1789

14. 1782

15. 1927

16. 1912

17. 1951

18. 1954

19. 1794

20. 2008

Edited 11 February, 2014 by Halo Stickman

[ecuk268]

Possibly because it has the potential to cause significantly more damage, given the number of people likely to be affected - many more so than in Somerset.

 

Probably more Tory voters too.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Probably more Tory voters too.

 

It's a more expensive area, so very probably.

[Smirking_Saint]

Nice to see so many people ignoring my post about the EA whilst looking to slag them off...

 

I'm not saying they're perfect, but unless you actually work there or work closely with them, I think it's a bit unfair for some people to make such judgements.

 

Most people slagging off the EA stems from the government sowing the seed in the media to essentially make them a scapegoat. Politically in situations such as this they find someone to blame who isnt themselves and essentially publically blane them in order to divert attention and make people think that from a government level they are doing something.

 

First it was the electric companies and now the EA

 

I work for Southern Electric, missed my entire christmas (and most of Jan/Feb) and can hand on heart say Im not entirely sure what more over this period we could have done, the weather has just been unrelenting.

 

But, government being the government point fingers in order to appease the masses but in reality it achieves absolutely nothing.

[badgerx16]

There was a chap on R4 yesterday evening who said that each pound intended to be spent on flood defences had to be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, and that if it couldn't generate over £8 of "benefit" then the Treasury blocked the funding.

[Whitey Grandad]

In order to avoid the endless debate as to whether or not climate change is actually happening; and, if it is, whether or not it’s man-made, I reckon it might be better, for the time being at least, to just accept the fact that we have wet years. Perhaps then at least we could all agree on one thing, namely, that forsaking flood defences is likely to lead to an inevitable conclusion: flooding.

 

Here is a Met Office link for precipitation in England and Wales from 1766 to 2013. I’ve reproduced the wettest 20 years below. They could denote climate change; they could denote the randomness of natural events – right now, it matters not one jot to people waist-deep in water.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/ranked_seasonal/HadEWP_ranked_ssn.dat

 

HadEWP ranked seasonal precipitation - 1766 to 2013

 

20 wettest years (wettest first)

 

1. 1872

2. 1768

3. 2012

4. 2000

5. 1852

6. 1960

7. 1903

8. 1882

9. 1877

10. 1848

11. 2002

12. 1792

13. 1789

14. 1782

15. 1927

16. 1912

17. 1951

18. 1954

19. 1794

20. 2008

 

Very interesting. Of course, these are national figures and it makes a big difference if it were all to be dumped on Carlisle, say, rather than London. I seem to remember that 1967/1968 was a very floody year?