UK flooding again

[Margarita Ma]

The pumps failed due to lack of power as the NEDL substation on Skeldergate failed. As a result the Foss barrier had to be raised which meant that the pump house was inundated, and then there was further damage from the riverwater pouring in which needed repair. Parts have been supplied to fix that problem, some coming in by Chinook, and the power station has been sealed and is being routed around. The reason I know this is I've been ferrying NEDL about in my landrover as part of the civil contingencies that are in place for such events.

 

---------- Post added 29-12-2015 at 10:41 ----------

 

 

York does, if you go in the Kings arms you can see the flood record painted on the wall.

 

Leeds flooding would have been prevented by the defences that were planned, and then cancelled.

 

I notice that the Somerset Levels, all good blue heartlands got shedloads of cash and personal attention to solve the problem for forty - yes just forty houses that were flooded.

 

If that money had been spent on Leeds and the villages up the Calder, then we wouldn't have had 2000 homes flooded out.

 

Yorks 500 nice twee middle class houses are photogenic and get all the news, but there were twice that in Leeds alone got flooded. But they are mainly Asians so they are not deserving of sympathy as far as the BBC are concerned...

Or maybe they did not invite the Tv cameras into their homes to survey the damage. It is surprising what being proactive can do.

 

---------- Post added 01-01-2016 at 00:38 ----------

 

But that is preceisly the greenies approach. They dont care about solutions they just want you to stop whatever it is they object to.

 

You can't reason with them - how do you reason with people who consider lying to be perfectly acceptable and moral? Greenpeace have that as a campaign tactic - thats why Shell had to tow the Brent Spar and dismantle instead of dumping it. Greenpeace knowingly and over a period of years simply lied until they got what they wanted.

 

Same with nuclear energy. They know it's greener than fossil fuels, but the aim is to lie and deny that, simple because it's not what they want.

It may be greener for now, but will it turn us all green in the end? Lol.

Seriously we are already a nuclear dumping ground and the government wants to have even more nuclear read[=ctors than we already have surrounding the British isles. They are even roping in the Chinese to finance and run the latest planned Nuc-station. What will happen in the future is not their concern but what will our children and grandchildren have to face when we are gone. I did not make sacrifices to have my inheritors gain a nuclear fuel dump.

 

---------- Post added 01-01-2016 at 00:47 ----------

 

I've had enough of this nonsense.

 

The water directive by the EU deals with maintaining waterways, ensuring a good fresh water supply for the future and NOT using them as dumping grounds for chemical waste. Nowhere does it state you can not maintain waterways.

 

Since that directive came into force properly the following things have happened in Sheffield and surrounding areas:

 

The Sheffield Floods 2007 - not attributable to 'dredging rivers' but plain and simple stupid water management. Read all about it in this report: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/292924/geho1107bnmi-e-e.pdf - especially 4.2.7 is a corker, it explains why dredging rivers is happening less and less and it does not mention the EU or the directive at any point. Turns out dredging rivers was a waste of time and money, this has been known for years by the way, the EA publicly stated numerous times that the only reason they dredge certain rivers now is for public perception.

 

In the meantime that horrible directive that comes from that horrible EU is having a massive impact on the water quality of our rivers:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/leaping-salmon-seen-in-rotherham

 

But carry on blaming the EU, as I have said before, it is so much easier than actually taking responsibility.

 

Legislation is mostly worded in such a way as to allow interpretation in numerous ways. So when one set of criteria is applied we get one effect and when another is applied we get another effect. Ever noticed the way the law is applied in courts and its effects on sentences handed out to different sets of strat in society. I dare say that the "research" on dredging can be used in the same way. When it becomes cost effective again it will be used again.

[unbeliever]

You know you are spinning a story that doesn't make sense. But let me reiterate the facts concerning the directive and what you are arguing: You argue that the EU forbids/makes it very difficult to dredge rivers. You claim the EU has a direct influence on EA policy. You think not dredging rivers is a direct attributant to regional flooding. You do not believe that man has an influence on the changing weather patterns.

 

As I have shown, repeatedly, the EU does not forbid/make difficult the dredging of rivers. The EU has no direct influence on EA policy, the implementation of any EU directive is completely up to the national government. Dredging rivers does not prevent the type of flooding that has hit the UK in the past ten years, it is due to flash-flooding and poorly managed water. I don't care whether man has an influence on weather patterns or not, there is NO denying that weather patterns are changing. It is time to adapt or die. At the moment Britain is dying.

 

You've not shown anything to counter the documentary evidence I've provided that the EU directive is interpreted by the EA, the UK government as a whole and other governments as making if effectively illegal to dredge natural rivers.

Vaguely worded international law is hard to follow, but I've provided links to documents with relatively readable interpretations, which back up my position.

 

I'm not always right, and if there is evidence to counter that which I've linked to, I'm all ears. I am distrustful of the EU, and it's not impossible that my observer bias is influencing me, but there are so many documents and articles out there on the EU WFD and how it affects management of natural waterways.

[dutch]

You've not shown anything to counter the documentary evidence I've provided that the EU directive is interpreted by the EA, the UK government as a whole and other governments as making if effectively illegal to dredge natural rivers.

Vaguely worded international law is hard to follow, but I've provided links to documents with relatively readable interpretations, which back up my position.

 

I'm not always right, and if there is evidence to counter that which I've linked to, I'm all ears. I am distrustful of the EU, and it's not impossible that my observer bias is influencing me, but there are so many documents and articles out there on the EU WFD and how it affects management of natural waterways.

 

I really did everything to stop the flood said the homeowner. What is the evidence said the insurer. Here I got ten sandbags to prove it said the homeowner.

 

Evidence is useless when things get out of hand, it only works when something stays in control.

What we really need is the powers of bruce almighty so we can control the weather, rain, sunshine to our needs. Don't think that is going to happen no matter how many documents, articles, evidence you come up with.

[Harrystottle]

But that is preceisly the greenies approach. They dont care about solutions they just want you to stop whatever it is they object to.

 

Bullseye. They make a list of what they don't like and then start looking for reasons to ban it, whether those reasons make any sense or not.

[tzijlstra]

You've not shown anything to counter the documentary evidence I've provided that the EU directive is interpreted by the EA, the UK government as a whole and other governments as making if effectively illegal to dredge natural rivers.

Vaguely worded international law is hard to follow, but I've provided links to documents with relatively readable interpretations, which back up my position.

 

I'm not always right, and if there is evidence to counter that which I've linked to, I'm all ears. I am distrustful of the EU, and it's not impossible that my observer bias is influencing me, but there are so many documents and articles out there on the EU WFD and how it affects management of natural waterways.

 

If the Directive, which was in force for several years before the Sheffield Floods, was responsible for the fact that rivers weren't dredged, don't you think it would have at least got a cursory mention in the EA report on that event? It didn't, because it isn't what that directive is about.

 

You misinterpret the directive not because you are distrustful of the EU, you should always be distrustful of government, you misinterpret it because you don't understand it.

 

I will also repeat, once more, that the Dutch do dredge their rivers, all the time, not to prevent flooding but because the Dutch have a program to improve the water quality... partly due to that same EU directive.

 

I have friends and family employed as dredgers, elected as officials onto the water-management boards, I have lived on and near the water for years, my parents are currently converting a canal into a houseboat marina, my best friend in the Netherlands is a pilot in Rotterdam, currently mostly employed on a project directing traffic around the Schelde works.

 

I know what I am talking about. Blaming the EU (directive) for these floods is silly. What do you make of that bridge in Tadcaster being washed away and the local authority immediately going: "Oh, we've known for years it was in a bad state..." Start bashing your local/national government instead of deflecting to the EU.

[dutch]

Maybe it is time to build some big flash flood channels like the Los Angeles river

[El Cid]

Maybe it is time to build some big flash flood channels like the Los Angeles river

 

Spot on, not sure we have the land, should be a study.

 

UK weather: Why the recent devastating floods will become the new normal.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-weather-why-the-recent-devastating-floods-will-become-the-new-normal-a6793291.html

[Alan Else]

perhaps we need to direct the foreign aid budget and the budget for asylum seekers to our own problems with flooding?? why should our citizens year after year have to put up with this?? at the moment its a sticking plaster to cover huge wounds.

 

Brilliant post, love it.

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2016 at 18:24 ----------

 

I think helping to immunise babies from killer diseases is more important than preventing a relative handful of people from having to redecorate their first front rooms.

 

And you're gullible enough to think that most of the overseas aid actually reaches those it is intended for.

People who support overseas aid should ask for evidence where last years aid went to.

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2016 at 18:26 ----------

 

Do they put up with it year after year? Really?

As global warming increases the climate becomes wetter. There has been more flooding in recent years and it will get worse.

[El Cid]

Originally Posted by Dubaidani13 View Post

perhaps we need to direct the foreign aid budget and the budget for asylum seekers to our own problems with flooding?? why should our citizens year after year have to put up with this?? at the moment its a sticking plaster to cover huge wounds.

 

Brilliant post, love it.

 

Some people seem to think that its just a problem of floods that happen every so often because they live close to a river; and its just the risk they take, or they could get insured.

[Eric Arthur]

And you're gullible enough to think that most of the overseas aid actually reaches those it is intended for.

People who support overseas aid should ask for evidence where last years aid went to.

 

You seem to be all clued up, please show us the evidence and the numbers on where last year's aid went.