.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
batrabill
-
Posts
724 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by batrabill
-
-
Quote
One suggestion made by BRAG is that the mean low water level - the average height recorded - was miscalculated.
This seems to be the core of the argument, and is easily checked.
-
1
-
-
-
3 hours ago, dom said:
'd strongly recommend that you don't express that sentiment amongst your wife's parishioners. Or in neighbouring Potter or Horning for that matter. With raw sewage polluting streets and river levels threatening the beleaguered pub and boat hire industries, it's a fairly crass and insensitive statement to make and Norfolk natives can be fairly unforgiving.
Not sure why you need to be so aggressive. There are silver linings in most things. My garden is currently a vast quagmire and our mooring is underwater. We “Norfolk natives” are perhaps able to have a more nuanced view than you suggest. Having clarity about what is wrong and who can actually do anything about it is really valuable. For donkeys years it has been all John Packmans fault. A bit of grown-up reality is a good thing.
I suspect the EA have been rather pleased that BA have caught the flack for everything that has gone wrong for decadesIf there is to be any serious attempt to reduce flooding in the future it will be EA that will lead.
The drainage board have already announced they plan (by 2025?) to replace most of the pumping stations around us.
If the creaking sewage system is to be improved it will be Anglian Water.
So that’s where the pressure needs to be exerted. We will see what the modelling the EA does this year tells them. If Duncan Baker continues the pressure there may be movement.
-
Perhaps there’s a silver lining in the current flooding. A little understanding of the reality.
It’s starting to appear that the BA are not responsible for all evil throughout history.
BTW I thought the guy from the EA wasn’t smug at all, he seemed to be the only one who really knew what he was talking about. We should all worry about his “1953” point.
It’s hard to get your point across when much of the audience have already decided the flooding is because the BA haven’t dredged enough between Stokeby and Yarmouth-
1
-
-
From The Broads Society
Latest rainfall and river flow summary from the Environment Agency paints a astonishing picture of how wet the UK is.
Over here in the East of England we have received over 220% of the "normal" rainfall for February with a week still to go.
That's an EXTRA 10 tonnes of water per acre per day that our drains, rivers and pumps have had to cope with.
Read the full report here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d7657b87005a001a80f85b/Rainfall_and_river_flow_summary_14_February_to_20_February_2024.pdf
#broadssociety #wetwinter #broadsflooding
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
So, Ive sat through it.
I offer a summary for those that haven't got 3 hours
Feel free to argue if you were there or have listened
1. This years flooding is very largely due to unusually high rainfall and higher tides though October - Jan
2. Herring Bridge - there is no evidence that it has been a significant factor
3. We recently missed a massive surge event where there was huge surge which coincided with low tide - if it had coincided with high tide it would have caused a "1953-type" event. Yikes!
4 Things WILL get worse due to Climate Change
5 The Bure is adequately dredged. John Packman says that the most significant pinch point is the bridges just past the yacht station.
6 The sewage systems of several places cannot cope with the flooding that we have now and WILL come, and I didn't hear anyone say there is a plan to deal with that.
7 There seemed very little planning for a worse future, but there is a study being done this year which will model ways of speeding up the outflow from the Bure.
8 Every time the idea of just dredging the Bure deeper was raised everyone from the agencies looked really uncomfortable. The EA say that the amount of dredging to make a difference is huge.They keep pointing out that tides work in both directions, and they always say that the salt incursion problem could be made worse. Killing a lot of fish is plainly a possible consequence.
-
1
-
1
-
-
For those who haven't seen this
From Duncan Baker - they're live-streaming the meeting.
For those who havent got Facebook, there's lots of parking.
LIVESTREAM DETAILS - PUBLIC MEETING ON FLOODING
Tomorrow’s public meeting on flooding will be livestreamed to my Facebook. So if you want to keep up with what's going on from the comfort of your home you can.
There is no link, simply come onto my Facebook page at 18:45 pm just before the meeting starts and you will see the video appear.
My team will be monitoring the comments of the livestream so they can pass on questions to the panel, so if you watch from home you can still contribute.
The livestream will then be saved to my Facebook and can be played back. My team will also be taking minutes of the meeting so you can catch up after the event if you miss anything.
As a word of warning, we are expecting a huge turnout. We have a hard cap on 150 spaces so I urge you to please only attend personally if you've been affected or have a positive contribution to make.
We have several car parks being utilised, including the Barn for disabled and less able people, the Methodist Church, the Windsurf, and the Pleasure Boat. My team, laid out in the picture attached, will be on hand to help everyone on the night.
We look forward to an informative and productive meeting.
-
1
-
-
Bucket, the meeting on Friday at Hickling may shed some light on this.
There must be within EA the data on average river heights at all locations - so someone must know the answer to the question if the rise is everywhere or more in the Northern Broads.
Re the Bure Hump. The shallows at Stokesby have been there for a long long time. I think there is a hard bottom, so it's not a sediment problem, so I don't think anyone is claiming that is the Bure Hump, or that it has changed in recent times.
On a recent thread I posted the depth maps for Yarmouth to Stokesb, from EA and there wasn't a specific area where it was shallower - ie in that data there was no visible hump, other than some shallowing at Stokesby. Recently the problem has been described by those who think there is a Bure hump as something along the lines of " a shallowing from Stokesby to Yarmouth" this is due to lack of dredging in some eyes.
Frustratingly, there must be people in the EA and Ba who have the data.
I think when a BA hydrologist did come on here some years ago he didn't support the Bure Hump theory. Cant find his contribution. I think he pointed out that shallows stop the incoming tide and specifically salt incursion. So dredging the Stokesby - Yarmouth stretch may have other consequences....
One thing I am absolutely certain of, that river systems are complex and simple solutions are hard to find.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, grendel said:
Ah, I see- so what they are saying is that the river system can no longer be relied upon to remove the water from their catchment areas and that regular dredging is required to improve the outflow of this water.
at least that is what the quote from the article above seems to indicate to me.
That does seem to be the case. However, it is because the fundamentals have changed. Weather and tide.
-
-
Frankly, you (you know who you are and not just Mr pseudo-scientific), deserved that.
You take ideas from people you like without any examination. Show me where you have scrutinised the Bure Hump?
But someone you don’t know posts real observations, not conclusions, and you behave like cult members having their faith questioned.
Shame on you.
-
-
I think the original FB poster would like to respond - he has some "pseudo-scientific" data.
-
If it wasn’t for those pesky boaters!
You’ve rumbled him. It’s obviously John Packman laying a false trail!
-
Original Post is a reply to a piece on the bridge on The Broads Society page.
-
2
-
-
Saw this today on FB. Not definitive proof, but carries more weight with me than what I read in the Daily Mail.
Reproduced with permission
On January 6th, I visited Great Yarmouth to observe the new bridge and make a report on the demasting stations. Using the advanced sonar imaging equipment on my offshore boat, we were able to capture detailed images of the area beneath all three Great Yarmouth Bridges during the ebb tide. With my experience in offshore navigation, shipwreck diving and sonar imaging for fishing and diving, I have a deep understanding of how tidal flows interact with obstacles and its effect on bottom structure.
The findings were quite revealing. Under the Breydon Bridge, the water surface showed distinct creasing near the supports, and the riverbed was eroded to depths of 2 to 3 meters deeper than the surrounding areas. The East section displayed a 1-2 meter scour with a more even bottom.
The Haven Bridge, however, presented a different picture. There was a significant crease on the water surface with an accelerated flow between the supports, and a turbulent current that affected the boat's handling when off throttle. The scouring here was about 3-3.5 meters deep with a noticeably uneven riverbed.
Near the Haven Bridge seaward side, the riverbed was smooth, a condition that persisted up to the Herring Bridge. At Herring Bridge, the water surface was calm, the tide noticeably slower, and the riverbed flat and uniform at about 20 feet in depth.
Based solely on these observations, the Haven Bridge seems to be the primary bottleneck in river flow, not the Herring Bridge. This could indicate that the issues attributed to the Herring Bridge might be a misdirection. Feel free to post your own observations of how the bridge is interacting with the river channel, of course. You are also aware that Oct-Dec the Broads Catchment received 175% of average rainfall. At the same time the North Sea tides have on average been 36% higher since October, reducing a tiny river gradient even further. Keep reposting these unsubstantiated claims really gets in the way of the conversations that are being have trying to help people in the same place as yourself (if indeed YOU are still underwater).
-
7
-
1
-
-
This is like the good old days! In a moment Jenny Morgan will pop up to say John Packman is satan!
-
2
-
-
It’s a good question. The main reason is that it is frequently said that if the Broads were to become a full National Park then boating would be banned/reduced. Hence a comparison with the other National Park where there is a substantial amount of boating.
The incredibly obvious point being that there is lots of boating in the Lake District.
-
1
-
-
The visitor numbers dropped in 2022. 18 million visitors over a boom year in 2021 of 19 million. With an estimated revenue of £2.1 billion.
Its hardly dying is it?
-
1
-
-
Jokes are always better when they’re scrutinised.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Vaughan said:
You say "don't they want them to be protected? This is a fair question and I hope you have found some answers by reading back over this thread, as I have just done this morning.
Apart from the legal arguments, I have always had a priority reason why I don't want a national park and I quote from the first page of this thread :
The Sandford Principle talks of the conservation of natural beauty. Dartmoor, for instance, is pretty well exactly the same today as it has been for hundreds of millions of years since the last ice age, so it can really be considered as natural. All the maintenance it needs is the local farmers grazing sheep on the uplands or coppicing the woodlands and natural forest for firewood and timber.
I suggest that the "national park" function has more to do with controlling the public and providing all the car parks and signage, than actually maintaining the "park" itself. The Broads stands out on the list above, as the only one that is not natural. It is a lowland basin that was artificially drained and re-claimed from the peat bogs hundreds of years ago. Since then, it has had to be maintained by Man, as he has seen fit.
So the real question, for me, about preservation and conservation (as per Sandford) is this :
At what point in its evolution over the centuries, do you want to "stop the clock" and preserve it? It is not natural beauty, so you can take your choice. Clearly the RSPB as a major landowner, would like it to go back to the 1600s, as a wetland marsh. Others would yearn for the 1800s, in the heyday of the trading wherries. I would rather see the navigations as they were in the 50s, than just what little is left now. The farming landowners of course, would prefer thousands of acres of oilseed rape.
I don't see much evidence that the BA can answer this question or have even seriously addressed it, so I don't think that a national park structure would be any help at all.
I don’t think your point that the Broads are different from other National Parks is correct. I don’t believe there are any “natural” habitats in Britain. Parts of the highlands probably come closest. But all landscapes are man-influenced. Dartmoor, like pretty much the rest of Britain was wooded at one time. We, humans, cut down the trees.
Since all landscapes are human-created, every area has to decide what is the form of ‘naturalness’ they currently support.
You are absolutely correct that the BA has to mediate between different, and competing interests. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the 50s were the best time, but also many things have changed considerably since those days. -
4 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:
Back to the original question the Broads do not fit the general conception of a National Park and as they have their own remit encompassed in the Broads Act and receive their own DEFRA grant they do not need or require any rebranding as a NP.
Another £1 to Alladin
The Bure Hump
in Broads Chat
Posted
It’s absolutely true they are going to do more dredging in the Somerset levels.
But they also plan to put in new pumping stations, and, build a tidal barrier at a cost of £220 million pounds.
The idea that a bit more dredging in the Bure will end flooding is simply wrong.