Nigel's gravy train

[pjclarke]

And a specific example that is relevant to recent events:

As Richard North and Christopher Booker were the first to note, these floods were the result of deliberate policy created by environmental activists within the EU who put wildlife before humans. These EU green diktats - such as the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive - are the reason why, for example, the Environment Agency decided to abandon the longstanding practice of dredging the rivers in the Somerset Levels, thus allowing the area to flood.

Sorry, not a reality-based assertion (few of Mr Booker's are, once you examine them, this is the man who believes that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and poses a non-existent risk to human health).

Something like 2% of the water in a catchment is flowing down the river at any one time. Even if you managed to double that by dredging (which you wouldn't), you've still only got a flow of 4%. And you likely just move the problem downstream.

"The river channel is not large enough to contain extreme floods, even after dredging. Dredging of river channels does not prevent flooding during extreme river flows … The concept of dredging to prevent extreme flooding is equivalent to trying to squeeze the volume of water held by a floodplain within the volume of water held in the river channel. Since the floodplain volume is usually many times larger than the channel volume, the concept becomes a major engineering project and a major environmental change."

http://www.bidfordonavon-pc.gov.uk/p...edgingpres.pdf

Don't know much about the Dutch way, but I wager its more about sensible land and water management rather than dredging rivers.

[Mich the Tester]

Don't know much about the Dutch way, but I wager its more about sensible land and water management rather than dredging rivers.

Indeed, they set aside land for flooding, they set aside land to be planted with trees which absorb water (or keep old woodland in place), and they only build new residential areas after careful modelling of the effects on water management. They accept that you can't simply build bigger and bigger water defences because that's just making the bucket a bit bigger and eventually it still overflows, so they set aside areas that can be sacrificed i.e. flooded, to provide space for water.

[Platypus]

are the reason why, for example, the Environment Agency decided to abandon the longstanding practice of dredging the rivers in the Somerset Levels, thus allowing the area to flood.

Er, which idiots decided to build houses on historical flood plains? Not the EU.

Live on a flood plain, get flooded => you is an idiot, stop whining

[DodgyAgent]

Sorry, not a reality-based assertion (few of Mr Booker's are, once you examine them, this is the man who believes that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and poses a non-existent risk to human health).

Something like 2% of the water in a catchment is flowing down the river at any one time. Even if you managed to double that by dredging (which you wouldn't), you've still only got a flow of 4%. And you likely just move the problem downstream.



http://www.bidfordonavon-pc.gov.uk/p...edgingpres.pdf

Don't know much about the Dutch way, but I wager its more about sensible land and water management rather than dredging rivers.

Hi stooge, see you are using the tactic of rubbishing the messenger instead of arguing the point. What is wrong with dredging rivers? is that not where water drains away to the sea. What do you mean by "sensible land and water management"?

[Mich the Tester]

Hi stooge, see you are using the tactic of rubbishing the messenger instead of arguing the point. What is wrong with dredging rivers? is that not where water drains away to the sea. What do you mean by "sensible land and water management"?

Nothing is 'wrong' with dredging rivers, and it is one small part of managing water, and can also be necessary for creating shipping channels. However, as PJC has correctly pointed out, it has a very limited effect compared to planning your land use, keeping woodland in place, setting aside land to allow controlled flooding etcetera.

As for 'sensible water management', these people are the experts. They're pretty good at it, because otherwise about 16 million people over here would be drowning.

[MicrosoftBob]

Er, which idiots decided to build houses on historical flood plains? Not the EU.

Live on a flood plain, get flooded => you is an idiot, stop whining

And data on which areas get flooded historically is publically available if you choose to use it

[vetran]

And data on which areas get flooded historically is publically available if you choose to use it

we did! one house the wife liked was excluded.
We could probably buy it cheap now.

[Mich the Tester]

we did! one house the wife liked was excluded.
We could probably buy it cheap now.

Buy the land and stick a floating house on it.

[expat]

EU drops olive oil jug ban after public outcry - Telegraph

Basically this was laughed out of parliament in Britain, NL and Germany. I distinctly rememeber the Dutch prime minister literally describing this as ´stupid´ and saying it would not be enforced in NL whatever the EU parliament thinks; it was very quickly dumped. An object lesson in how to deal with 'EU diktats' you don't like.

Absolutely. I remember reading about the banana curvature regulations while I lived in France: it was a short and humorous news item there, nobody expected to throw out bananas that weren't straight enough. Only the UK took it seriously and frothed at the mouth about it.

[doodab]

Absolutely. I remember reading about the banana curvature regulations while I lived in France: it was a short and humorous news item there, nobody expected to throw out bananas that weren't straight enough. Only the UK took it seriously and frothed at the mouth about it.

Frothing is a very British thing. No doubt they will try to ban that shortly