Dredge the Rivers ffs!!!!!!

[finetonive]

We need to go back to dredging rivers REGULARLY.

Those poor people.

Plomino
Both the Foss and the Ouse have IDBs
www.ada.org.uk/idb_members_yorkshire.html

PinkSparkly
Borough and County Councils have each had their budgets cut by around 38%
there is a lot less money coming out of Westminster
and yet the costs of adult social care are rising inexorably

I understand that Ta1kinPeece and I know money has to come from somewhere (I might be looking for help for my Mum soon so I understand the elderly care part), but when the leader of the council earns more than the Prime Minister and is in line for a huge bonus then you do wonder where the priorities lie.

It's looking as though the borough council has been involved in a huge cover up as well, so hopefully heads will roll there very soon.

Could the existence of Fatbergs on the sewer system be exacerbating the matter. I've seen photis of these and they must be slowing the process of drainage from the streets

highly unlikely
they are mostly found in the gigantic sewers in big cities

noddingoff unfortunately it is not photoshopped it is just off the A59 near Whalley/Billington which flooded on Boxing Day.

Sillybilly

It is the Environment Agency that produces the flood maps. However, planning rules are very strict about flooding and planners use the EA maps - it is nothing to do with the local council designating which areas are flood plains or not. I'm guessing that the areas people think are flood plains aren't actually at all but I could be wrong.

That's the kind of sophistry I meant. EA provides a map. Flood risk assessment fall on the developer www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-for-planning-applications and a council/planners will not put the permanent tag 'flood plain' on any areas 1, 2 or 3 in order to prevent development. They can always choose to allow a developer to 'manage' the risk.

So in Tewkesbury, for example, there are 3 very large developments on land that always floods, year in, year out, are/were Zone 1, flood every year to a lesser or greater extent. They all have flood defences, have been built on natural or built ground that is scant inches above the 'agreed' high water mark. They even have flood management built in a couple, to prevent the water that would have flooded that ground going elsewhere... but it just happens further downstream... as shown on the national news last night!

Your faith in planners is touching, sadly, as many people round here are only too aware, it is misplaced!

Well, planners only follow the rules ime. If applications are breaking the rules to a greater or lesser extent (and being refused by planners) it goes (on the behest of the applicant) to the Area planning committee which is made up of local councilors. The councilors can agree something if the arguments seem good enough eg someone building something that will bring jobs to the area even though not ideally situated. Or a giant Tesco is passed as they will allot certain land for social housing etc etc.

Not really the planners to blame. Perhaps more the system.

I thought it just kept getting passed up on appeal til central govt okayed it?

This article explains things pretty clearly www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/flooding-public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes?CMP=share_btn_tw

PP mentioned grants for tree planting? Friend gets them in England. Don't know how they are classified but they are available.

This is from last year:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/flooding-public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes

But is still worth a read. AFAIK tree planting grants are available, but they are few and a drop in the ocean compared to the money received for clearing land. I also read (I think) that the tree coverage planted has to be pretty minimal if you still want to receive your farming subsidies. For any significant impact on flooding there will need to be pretty significant rewilding of upland areas.

Grants are available in Scotland (not sure if it's all areas) for tree planting - but it comes from a charity, The woodland Trust. They give money towards the supply of trees and protectors etc, the planting has to be paid for by the landowner.

Why can't we pipe all the excess water to refill the depleted groundwater reservoirs in southern and eastern England?

I dunno, I keep wondering if there isn't a missed opportunity staring us in the face. It isn't a problem of distance; other countries pump water much larger distances. Catchments are too awkward, maybe??

"Why can't we pipe all the excess water to refill the depleted groundwater reservoirs in southern and eastern England?"

a) because it's impossible to predict where the next floods will be, with sufficient certainty to commit to the vast cost (cash and disruption) for laying the pipes.
b) precipitation makes a bigger difference to groundwater levels than anything else.

c) there are very few areas with groundwater levels below normal at present - only four monitoring site in the SE were below average, and only one of those was notably low, in November according to the most recent monthly update

The data I've seen about water tables in southern-eastern England shows a long-term big decline (over decades). Any so-called average must be absurdly set.

Not sure about a) unpredictable either, we keep hearing which rivers have the most frequent history of flooding (e.g. 3x in last 10 yrs, etc) We know which catchments are most soggy and which northern reservoirs most likely to be full, not hard to ID them.

b) true, only because of current strategy. Could infrastructure be built to deliberately recharge the big aquifers, like under Notts which is conveniently close to Yorkshire. If we can rechannel & divert rivers, pumping the water around awkward hills isn't seeming so impossible.

The data I've seen about water tables in southern-eastern England shows a long-term big decline (over decades)
Link please

I can't find anything in public domain, which is annoying. It was part of a (1 million pounds?) DoE funded project 17 yrs ago. But irrefutable trend was sharp decline. Considered sustainable enough in medium term.

If someone can find data to show the water tables of SE Britain have hardly changed since 1930/50, then fair enough.

trout
The water table in the south of England flucuates A LOT
two winters ago it was above ground for six months in Hambledon.

The Winterbournes have been flowing well right into spring
The Kennet Stream is doing fine
The Thames, Avon, Itchen, Test and Rother are all flowing just fine.

Yes, the London artesian basin has been emptied but that was an aquifer, not the water table

sorry if I have science wrong, It was well depths perhaps, a very steady long decline.

Do you have a link?

www.gov.uk/government/collections/water-situation-reports-for-england#latest-water-situation-report-for-england
Lots and lots of data showing that the reservoirs and rivers are just fine - FOR NOW.

I live not far from a huge one - I watch the water level fluctuate by up to 2 metres in a matter of weeks

The UK does not have much aquifer abstraction any more as that was used up decades and decades ago

This flood was not only foretold – it was publicly subsidised - a view from monbiot

gu.com/p/4fddb?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Watershed management was part of my degree 30 years ago

Climate change is having an effect

Planting trees will improve peak flow problems and suck up carbon by the tonne

Grouse moors should be designated leisure rather than agriculture

Ego such a body does not exist. I work for the a Environment Agency (in Yorkshire) we have many powers, and few responsibilities; there are also the IDBs and Local Authorities. Contrary to popular belief, we do work together and try and reconcile our different remits, but with increasingly limited funding and resources in each organisation, we don't ways get what we want.