Rain, rain and more rain

[Futtocks]

Trolling again eh?

Yes, someone is trolling.

[Saintslass]

Yes, someone is trolling.

Indeed they are.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Indeed they are.

 

Indeed.

[Futtocks]

There's been a run on snug-fitting caps recently.

[Saintslass]

Meanwhile, things are still disasterous in Cumbria.  About 100 bridges need examining for safety; power is still off in lots of homes; areas are still submerged; I heard on the news last night that McVittie's in Carlisle have 'closed indefinitely' which could mean the loss of 600 jobs in what is a profitable business; thousands of people are homeless just before Christmas and the Cumbrian Foundation's appeal has so far raised just over £300,000.  Do give a little if you can.

[Wolford6]

I wonder if the flood defence budget would have been cut if last year's instances had included the Thames.

[gingerjon]

I wonder if the flood defence budget would have been cut if last year's instances had included the Thames.

 

Thames floods at Marlow and Henley quite often.  The expensive houses are on stilts or have big old gardens before the river.

 

I presume that the barrage stops any other flooding.

[Kenilworth Tiger]

I wonder if the flood defence budget would have been cut if last year's instances had included the Thames.

You may jest - last year in Hook (Hampshire) the rain caused the footpath by the river Whitewater to be unpassable, sending my red setters and our dog walker to nearby Fleet in their Hunter wellies just to get daily exercise

[Saint Toppy]

Its just a sad fact that you can't defeat nature. Most of the new flood defences in Cumbria were designed to withstand a 1 in 200 year storm event. They're still gathering & analysing the data but it appears that this storm was more like a 1 in 400 or 500 year event.

Understandably people are angry that there's been more flooding but I dont think anyone can really be held accountable (Government, Environement Agency, local council etc.) because this was just one of nature's freak events. I can understand the anger if flood defences had failed, but they didn't, they were just defeated by nature.

Whats needed now is for everyone to come together and try to repair the damage and help get peoples lives back to normal as quickly as possible. Set aside the finger pointing and political points scoring.

[gingerjon]

Monbiot gives the government (and Tim Farron) a kicking

 

(I have no idea if he's right, incidentally, but it reads persuasively.)

[Saintslass]

Its just a sad fact that you can't defeat nature. Most of the new flood defences in Cumbria were designed to withstand a 1 in 200 year storm event. They're still gathering & analysing the data but it appears that this storm was more like a 1 in 400 or 500 year event.

Understandably people are angry that there's been more flooding but I dont think anyone can really be held accountable (Government, Environement Agency, local council etc.) because this was just one of nature's freak events. I can understand the anger if flood defences had failed, but they didn't, they were just defeated by nature.

Whats needed now is for everyone to come together and try to repair the damage and help get peoples lives back to normal as quickly as possible. Set aside the finger pointing and political points scoring.

Good post.

[tonyXIII]

Monbiot gives the government (and Tim Farron) a kicking

 

(I have no idea if he's right, incidentally, but it reads persuasively.)

 

It does, indeed. I do like the following sentence from the penultimate paragraph.

 

"We are drowning in ignorance; ignorance manufactured by an illiterate media and a hostile government."

 

I think it is more widely applicable than just the current flooding.

[GeordieSaint]

Monbiot gives the government (and Tim Farron) a kicking

 

(I have no idea if he's right, incidentally, but it reads persuasively.)

 

I mentioned earlier I live in those upland catchment areas and a keen advocate of rewilding the country; in my opinion Monibot is absolutely correct. We frequentely get heavy rainfall up on Alston Moor and it is mind-boggling to see how fast the flow of the Tyne (the source is 3 miles from the house) builds into a torrent. That water eventually spills out somewhere and it is always along the floodplains downstream where the flow velocity of the river is supposed to slow down; Corbridge I believe took the hit this weekend along the Tyne fed by both the overflow waters from the North and South Tyne rivers. These issues will be exactly the same in the Eden watershed on the opposite side of Cross Fell resulting in the issues in Carlise.

 

Rory Stewart is my local MP and I'll be writing to him this weekend. Whilst he is a very good local MP and actively engaged in helping the local communities, he is absolutely wrong on this matter. There is no balance between the needs of people and the environment in any of the upland watershed areas with grouse shooting and sheep farming dominating the environment and thinking. Whilst a few streams have had trees planted on the Moor recently, it is a token effort in my opinion and many no doubt used for economic gain, not the protection of the rivers and the lowland areas. Other than the Greens in our area, no political party understands the wider implications of land management practices in upland areas and are solely focussed on economic gain. If these events in Cumbria aren't a wake up call for the establishment and all political parties, then it is a major dereliction of duty and shows as a country how pathetic we are at understanding the implications of our actions.

 

On a final note, Monibot explains in the video I linked about how across Europe, upland areas have a higher density of tree coverage. In the UK, it is the opposite way around (we have the second lowest ratio with only Ireland being worse) with the lowland areas having more trees than the upland areas. It is no wonder Carlisle, Shrewsbury, Taunton etc flood and flood regularly. Climate change will only make this worse... it is about time there was a major rethink from all political parties about land management practices in upland areas otherwise events like this weekend will increase.

[Derwent]

The bottom line is that the flood defences in places like Carlisle, Cockermouth and Keswick all stood up to levels of water higher than had ever previously been seen. You can't plan for every eventuality and under ordinary circumstances the flood defences would have done their job perfectly adequately. These levels of water were unprecedented and unfortunately they overtopped the defences. But as is the norm these days everybody looks for somebody to blame for everything that goes wrong, when in fact it was a freak occurrence outside of anybody's control.

[Griff9of13]

If this is due to the effects of climate change what is now considered to be unprecedented levels of water may well become the new norm. In that case it may be that we expect more from the government and the Environment Agency. That means not just higher and higher flood defences but also considering the measures discussed in the posts above and future building policy in areas liable to flooding. 

[shaun mc]

Monbiot was to get rid of all sheep grazing, farming and therefore much of Tourism by re-wilding. There's 50,000 to 60,000 jobs in Tourism and the tourists won't come to look at trees.

Tough decisions to make, but more should be investigated into whether removing the trees is allowing water to flow quicker and is impacting on flooding and what can be done to re-forest in a way that does not impact on farming and Tourism.

[GeordieSaint]

The bottom line is that the flood defences in places like Carlisle, Cockermouth and Keswick all stood up to levels of water higher than had ever previously been seen. You can't plan for every eventuality and under ordinary circumstances the flood defences would have done their job perfectly adequately. These levels of water were unprecedented and unfortunately they overtopped the defences. But as is the norm these days everybody looks for somebody to blame for everything that goes wrong, when in fact it was a freak occurrence outside of anybody's control.

 

Absolutely true but there are other ways of attempting to mitigate the causes rather than simply building bigger defences which at some point will be defeated by a catastrophic event. We tend to look downstream rather than the root causes (other than it p*****g it down) upstream.

 

Monbiot was to get rid of all sheep grazing, farming and therefore much of Tourism by re-wilding. There's 50,000 to 60,000 jobs in Tourism and the tourists won't come to look at trees.

Tough decisions to make, but more should be investigated into whether removing the trees is allowing water to flow quicker and is impacting on flooding and what can be done to re-forest in a way that does not impact on farming and Tourism.

 

Not completely; he advocates more sustainable management practices that develop a balance between the human and natural environments. There are places in Snowdonia and Scotland where these practices are being implemented and benefits to both environments are being identified. These are only small scale projects (Ennerdale in the Lakes is another) and only research will identify long term benefits as you suggest.

 

From a personal point of view, shedloads of trees will entice a great abundance of wildlife return (the hills are pretty desolate of wildlife) which will attract tourism in their own right. Replanting of trees sustainably so farmers can continue to work the land wouldn't effect tourism either in my opinion and from my viewpoint, make some of those breathtaking Lakeland views better and more diverse. Clearly just my point of you and the NFA hold a very different viewpoint.

[JohnM]

A 1 in 100 year event does not mean that such a downpour will only occur every 100 years. Can't be arsed to explain the maths behind it. Look it up for yourselves.

Noble sentiment Gj suggesting some 500 Environment employees to act as human sandbags.

[Saint Toppy]

I mentioned earlier I live in those upland catchment areas and a keen advocate of rewilding the country; in my opinion Monibot is absolutely correct. We frequentely get heavy rainfall up on Alston Moor and it is mind-boggling to see how fast the flow of the Tyne (the source is 3 miles from the house) builds into a torrent. That water eventually spills out somewhere and it is always along the floodplains downstream where the flow velocity of the river is supposed to slow down; Corbridge I believe took the hit this weekend along the Tyne fed by both the overflow waters from the North and South Tyne rivers. These issues will be exactly the same in the Eden watershed on the opposite side of Cross Fell resulting in the issues in Carlise.

 

Rory Stewart is my local MP and I'll be writing to him this weekend. Whilst he is a very good local MP and actively engaged in helping the local communities, he is absolutely wrong on this matter. There is no balance between the needs of people and the environment in any of the upland watershed areas with grouse shooting and sheep farming dominating the environment and thinking. Whilst a few streams have had trees planted on the Moor recently, it is a token effort in my opinion and many no doubt used for economic gain, not the protection of the rivers and the lowland areas. Other than the Greens in our area, no political party understands the wider implications of land management practices in upland areas and are solely focussed on economic gain. If these events in Cumbria aren't a wake up call for the establishment and all political parties, then it is a major dereliction of duty and shows as a country how pathetic we are at understanding the implications of our actions.

 

On a final note, Monibot explains in the video I linked about how across Europe, upland areas have a higher density of tree coverage. In the UK, it is the opposite way around (we have the second lowest ratio with only Ireland being worse) with the lowland areas having more trees than the upland areas. It is no wonder Carlisle, Shrewsbury, Taunton etc flood and flood regularly. Climate change will only make this worse... it is about time there was a major rethink from all political parties about land management practices in upland areas otherwise events like this weekend will increase.

Its time to take a much broader apporach to fllod risk management then we currently do as so far we're only delivering token gestures and building reactive defences.

Land management does indeed play a part in all this and needs to be looked at. At a local level, years ago most farmers fields had drainage ditches running round the edges but as the CAP changes took effect along with other changes to farming subsidies then farmers filled in all their ditches to create more land for planting. Now all the water that used to drain from fields flows straight onto the nearest road and into the drains (then direct into the nearest stream) instead of being held in the ditches and filtering slowly into the subsoil. 

Its only in the last decade that its become a legal requirement for all new developments & other construction projects to build in water attenuation as they're not permitted to increase the rate of flow into existing streams. This only does so much though as the water is still stored up meaning there is a longer period of flow so river levels never get time to drop before the next heavy rainfall.

These extreem weather events are going to start occuring more frequently so now is the time to start rethinking our whole approach.

[WearyRhino]

There was an interesting point made on one of the TV news shows last night, that when flood defences prove inadequate and are breached they then become the problem and they contain the flood water exactly where it is not wanted.  Moreover, I wonder what coordination is done amongst the EA and local government to measure the knock on effects of one flood defence on another location downstream i.e what effect do defences in York have on Selby, Goole and ultimately Hull?

[chuffer]

A 1 in 100 year event does not mean that such a downpour will only occur every 100 years. Can't be arsed to explain the maths behind it. Look it up for yourselves.

Noble sentiment Gj suggesting some 500 Environment employees to act as human sandbags.

 

From wiki:

 

A one-hundred-year flood is a flood event that has a 1% probability of occurring in any given year. The 100-year flood is also referred to as the 1% flood, since its annual exceedance probability is 1%

 

A common misunderstanding exists that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4% chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period. 

[WearyRhino]

From wiki:

 

A one-hundred-year flood is a flood event that has a 1% probability of occurring in any given year. The 100-year flood is also referred to as the 1% flood, since its annual exceedance probability is 1%

 

A common misunderstanding exists that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4% chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period. 

 

There was a programme on BBC4 on probability last night.

[Saintslass]

There was an interesting point made on one of the TV news shows last night, that when flood defences prove inadequate and are breached they then become the problem and they contain the flood water exactly where it is not wanted.  Moreover, I wonder what coordination is done amongst the EA and local government to measure the knock on effects of one flood defence on another location downstream i.e what effect do defences in York have on Selby, Goole and ultimately Hull?

That was the problem in Cockermouth.  The River Cocker caused a torrential flood in 2005 and so flood defences were built on the Cocker, including a self-closing gate (first of its kind in the UK apparently).  Those flood defences worked and the Cocker did not flood.  The problem was that the excess water was pushed along into the Derwent, which didn't have the same degree of flood defence in place, and so Cockermouth once again was flooded, only this time by the Derwent.

[Saintslass]

Its time to take a much broader apporach to fllod risk management then we currently do as so far we're only delivering token gestures and building reactive defences.

Land management does indeed play a part in all this and needs to be looked at. At a local level, years ago most farmers fields had drainage ditches running round the edges but as the CAP changes took effect along with other changes to farming subsidies then farmers filled in all their ditches to create more land for planting. Now all the water that used to drain from fields flows straight onto the nearest road and into the drains (then direct into the nearest stream) instead of being held in the ditches and filtering slowly into the subsoil. 

Its only in the last decade that its become a legal requirement for all new developments & other construction projects to build in water attenuation as they're not permitted to increase the rate of flow into existing streams. This only does so much though as the water is still stored up meaning there is a longer period of flow so river levels never get time to drop before the next heavy rainfall.

These extreem weather events are going to start occuring more frequently so now is the time to start rethinking our whole approach.

I think different approaches need to be applied to different circumstances, which is probably an obvious statement to make.  Cumbria is clearly very different from the Somerset Levels for example.  I also think it is right to take into account the varying needs that exist in Cumbria.  Part of the beauty of the Lake District, for example, are the barren fells and wooded villages.  To bring reforestation in to any great degree may undermine the tourist industry which is vitally important to a very rural area.  Then there are the needs of the hill farmers which are also valid because farming is of course a hugely important part of the Cumbrian economy.  Finally, of course, there are the needs of the population which of course benefit from the tourist industry and hill farming but also need to be kept safe from the tragedy of large scale flooding.  Cumbria is probably unique in England for its diverse needs and demands and I don't envy the government in trying to get its collective head around how to stop what may well be regular rainfall events from detroying homes and businesses in the future while managing to retain both the functional element of the fells and their innate beauty.

[GeordieSaint]

Part of the beauty of the Lake District, for example, are the barren fells and wooded villages.  To bring reforestation in to any great degree may undermine the tourist industry which is vitally important to a very rural area.  Then there are the needs of the hill farmers which are also valid because farming is of course a hugely important part of the Cumbrian economy. 

 

I don't buy that argument highlighted in bold. You absolutely need to balance the needs of the local farming community with the environment. However, having travelled quite extensively to mountainous areas across the world including the Canadian Rockies, High Tatras in Poland, and the Pyrenees, you could reforest vast arrears of the Lakes and North Pennines (also in Cumbria) and not particularly effect tourism as the high fells would still be accessible and barren on the tops whilst attracting a muich larger array of wildlife to the reforested areas. This wildlife, especially if you reintroduced former native species like Lynx and birds of prey, would be an attraction and in my experience, places like Thornthwhaite and Grizedale Forests are some of the most popular locations in the Lakes. The key is the balance between the needs of the local communities from an economic point of you and the environment; at the moment it is incredibly out of balance.