Why is Britain flooded while Holland isn't?

[Ticktock]

The fact I just read in the news puts a little perspective on things.

Think about how long we've had rain, and that we've had more rain in the south than recorded since 1766.
Then compare that to the point that since December about 5800 homes have been flooded, whereas 6 years ago 55,000 homes were flooded.

To me, that says that flood defences put in place have done pretty well. It's just that no-one expected just how bad the weather would be, and for how long.

[AtW]

You would have thought the fact that somewhere or other ends up under water every year might have given them a hint that the current arrangements weren't up to snuff.

Why bother planning when money is "no object" if it comes to floods?

[scooterscot]

I don't know if it's been mentioned in previous posts. I understood the Dutch were dependent on trees (and other plant life) that allow absorption of water into the ground up to sixty? times greater than a grass covered surface.

We've been chopping down our trees on flood planes faster than Saruman.

I'm certain I've seen a story on this recently, where the trees exist on the flood planes there's no surface water to be seen.

[Mich the Tester]

I don't know if it's been mentioned in previous posts. I understood the Dutch were dependent on trees (and other plant life) that allow absorption of water into the ground up to sixty? times greater than a grass covered surface.

We've been chopping down our trees on flood planes faster than Saruman.

I'm certain I've seen a story on this recently, where the trees exist on the flood planes there's no surface water to be seen.

You're right and it's an issue that keeps water engineers busy here; in the last 20 years a lot of trees have been cut down to accomodate new business and residential developments. It hasn't led to serious problem yet, and trees are being planted in unused agricultural land, but perhaps we've been saved by the end of the building boom.

[Mich the Tester]

The fact I just read in the news puts a little perspective on things.

Think about how long we've had rain, and that we've had more rain in the south than recorded since 1766.
Then compare that to the point that since December about 5800 homes have been flooded, whereas 6 years ago 55,000 homes were flooded.

To me, that says that flood defences put in place have done pretty well. It's just that no-one expected just how bad the weather would be, and for how long.

On the face of it that looks like an improvement. But remember, building lots of homes and businesses in a flood plain can be very expensive if you want to do it right.

[petergriffin]

The governments (this one, the previous and the next one) are only interested in keeping the housing bubble alive, so never mind where you build as long as it is houses, houses, houses.

Will the government change their course of actions after this flood is over? No!

Will the peasants understand that the housing bubble and artificially low interest rates are a scam? No!

So let's keep the ball rolling, baby!

[lukemg]

I am shocked - by the sheer stupidity being spewed onto this thread by supposedly smart people.
This is the usual witch-hunt to find someone to blame for every f***ing thing that happens.
No, we don't spend billions on every possible place for a flood because we have a s**tload of other demands for the money and we still spend more than UK earns.
So, the money is targetted at what will save the most stuff but recent events will still expose certain areas, short of building concrete flood channels as seen on 'Grease' !
Please try to see the bigger picture people....

[Mich the Tester]

I am shocked - by the sheer stupidity being spewed onto this thread by supposedly smart people.
This is the usual witch-hunt to find someone to blame for every f***ing thing that happens.
No, we don't spend billions on every possible place for a flood because we have a s**tload of other demands for the money and we still spend more than UK earns.
So, the money is targetted at what will save the most stuff but recent events will still expose certain areas, short of building concrete flood channels as seen on 'Grease' !
Please try to see the bigger picture people....

I see the bigger picture, but I also see that people's homes are being jeopardised. There are choices to be made, including whether to continue building in flood plains if you aren't prepared to spend the money to defend against floods. I'd say build less in those areas or be prepared to face this kind of thing.

[Flashman]

Some countries spend huge amounts of money developing WMD's.

However we all know the most dangerous weapon in the world is in fact a British civil servant armed with an EU Directive.

River Thames wasn't dredged in case a rare mollusc was disturbed | Mail Online

The Army has been called in, hundreds of families have been forced to evacuate their homes, and small businesses are wondering if they’ll ever be able to reopen.

But it’s not bad news for all the inhabitants of the Thames Valley. The river’s population of Depressed River Mussels is safe.

As residents faced an uncertain future, it emerged the Environment Agency rejected calls to dredge the flood-hit lower reaches of the Thames because of the presence of the endangered mollusc

[MicrosoftBob]

Some countries spend huge amounts of money developing WMD's.

However we all know the most dangerous weapon in the world is in fact a British civil servant armed with an EU Directive.

River Thames wasn't dredged in case a rare mollusc was disturbed | Mail Online

Can't be a Wail headline, where's the mention of whether it was a foreign mollusc or not