Flooding and Agenda 21 - what do you make of this?

[Anna B]

I was reading in the papers about the awful flooding on the Somerset Levels, and the local people's anger at the Environment Agency, the lack of dredging, and the downgrading of the National Rivers Authority etc.

Then I read this letter to the Newspaper (DM) regarding the floods on the Somerset Levels. -

 

"Flood victims who can't understand why the Environment Agency puts the requirements of a Coastal Nature Sanctuary before the protection of people's homes and livelihoods, should look up Agenda 21 on the Internet.

 

Under this Agenda, being followed internationally at the behest of the United Nations, The Environment agency is required by the UN Biodiversity Assessment 'to proritise the sustainable development of the non-human environment when it conflicts with sustaining the present levels of humanity which tend to be destructive of that environment.'

 

This assessment states baldly that the world can't go on maintaining a human population of 7 Billion (and rising) when the optimum population for full biodiversity would be 1 Billion.

 

You've probably never heard of Agenda 21 because those who are implementing it would prefer you to remain unaware of its plans for your future."

So of course I looked up Agenda 21 on the internet. Now I've never been one for all this 'New World Order' conspiracy stuff, and never knew where all this nonsense about reducing the population came from, but I was, shall we say, surprised by what I found.

 

What do other people think? Anybody care to comment?

[Mr Clowning]

No wonder they keep trying to price people out of owning an allotment.

[Nagel]

I don't know why people are surprised that the Somerset Levels flood. Even the name Somerset is derived from the Anglo-Saxon for Summer Settlement because it was uninhabitable during the winter due to flooding and only used for summer grazing.

 

Also if you watch the news reports carefully you notice that the really old buildings are on slightly higher ground and a lot less affected by flooding. They knew very well where to build back then.

 

Having said that, if the will is there then good flood defences can be built, ask the Dutch. The areas of Holland that are below sea level now have flood defences that reduce the risk of flooding down to once every 10,000 years which is an utterly amazing fact.

[tinfoilhat]

Somerset levels are a giant flood plain. It's been raining heavily since about November. It's going to flood. They can dredge it but with the amount of weather they've had it will still flood without joined up thinking. Getting rid of the woodland area haven't helped either - not sure the farmers will acknowledge that. The whole thing smacks of A level geography than new world order.

[Anna B]

According to another letter in DM from a worker in the flood defence / rivers division of the Environment Agency they have failed to heed local knowledge and have cut back on dredging and other measures which have kept this area safe since the middle ages. The conservation side of the business has gained more power and dredging has been cut back until now there is virtually none at all.

 

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2014 at 02:00 ----------

 

Somerset levels are a giant flood plain. It's been raining heavily since about November. It's going to flood. They can dredge it but with the amount of weather they've had it will still flood without joined up thinking. Getting rid of the woodland area haven't helped either - not sure the farmers will acknowledge that. The whole thing smacks of A level geography than new world order.

 

Have you looked up Agenda 21? I found it worrying.

[ronthenekred]

If it was the home counties under threat you could put money on this being sorted by now.

[butlers]

Its been exceptionally wet.

Met office say wettest Dec/Jan ever was 1929/30, and as of a couple of days back this year was only a couple of mm behind that.

To increase the capacity to cope with this means deepening the channel for20milez to the sea would cost hells money.

Been some good stuff in telegraph,and Monbiot in the guardian last few days.

[megalithic]

The Environment agency is required by the UN Biodiversity Assessment 'to proritise the sustainable development of the non-human environment when it conflicts with sustaining the present levels of humanity which tend to be destructive of that environment.'

 

Do you have a better plan ?

[tinfoilhat]

According to another letter in DM from a worker in the flood defence / rivers division of the Environment Agency they have failed to heed local knowledge and have cut back on dredging and other measures which have kept this area safe since the middle ages. The conservation side of the business has gained more power and dredging has been cut back until now there is virtually none at all.

 

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2014 at 02:00 ----------

 

 

Have you looked up Agenda 21? I found it worrying.

 

I think the key phrase is other measures. Dredging won't do it all, other measures might include change in farming practices and that will never do. And conservation side of the "business" is crucial, often for flood defences. But if you really want them to do a better job, give them more money.

[butlers]

Turns out there are less than 40 houses flooded.

What with sea level rise, the more intense rainfall events ae seem to be getting,the fact that the drained ,land shrinks and is below sea level, the Parrot river is already tidal for 27miles inland, deepen the channel it becomes more so. I think engineering the whole landscape even more would be unsustanable.

Can't find a referance yet, but the coast is also very prone to flooding, and I bet the bird sanctuary is actually allowing salt marsh to redevelop to take the force out of waves.