Flood Planning

[ZimbiIV]

No matter what you spend, no matter what you do, no matter what you blame, no matter who you blame.

Wind and water will always win.

Mrs Hume my old geography teacher always said. Circa 1970

paul

 

[Vaughan]

13 hours ago, marshman said:

I am trying to think of a Broad which has become unnavigable through neglect - I am sure others know better than me and will put me right.

Try starting with Sutton Broad.

When my parents hired a boat for 2 weeks in 1946, they had to literally cut their way into places such as Womack and Rockland, which had all become overgrown through neglect during the war.  Surlingham and Rockland Broads were made navigable again by funds from Blakes.

[grendel]

tragically, a lot of people think they can control or mitigate nature, King Cnut tried it (actually he was demonstrating to those that served him that nature ignores even kings) and a lot of those in power should take note.

whatever is done will only be a losing battle against nature, if you do manage to solve a problem at one location, it will only move it elsewhere, nature will always win.

a lot of the issues though are caused by the attempts to subvert nature, the problem gets  moved.

rather than trying to prevent nature doing what it does best, the authorities should be concentrating on helping those people who need help- relocating or whatever,.

down here on the south coast, a whole lighthouse was jacked up and moved 20m inland due to the cliffs crumbling.

[Hylander]

Was that the Belle Tout Lighthouse?    I remember this when I lived in Kent.

[grendel]

Just now, Hylander said:

Was that the Belle Tout Lighthouse?    I remember this when I lived in Kent.

yes, that was the one

 

[Chelsea14Ian]

45 minutes ago, grendel said:

tragically, a lot of people think they can control or mitigate nature, King Cnut tried it (actually he was demonstrating to those that served him that nature ignores even kings) and a lot of those in power should take note.

whatever is done will only be a losing battle against nature, if you do manage to solve a problem at one location, it will only move it elsewhere, nature will always win.

a lot of the issues though are caused by the attempts to subvert nature, the problem gets  moved.

rather than trying to prevent nature doing what it does best, the authorities should be concentrating on helping those people who need help- relocating or whatever,.

down here on the south coast, a whole lighthouse was jacked up and moved 20m inland due to the cliffs crumbling.

Agree in part,buy to do nothing  is nothing. At least  to do something  is something. To do something  is what people  in Hemsby  and many places elsewhere  is what that want.

[Hylander]

Just a thought !!    Had anyone lost a Wellie Boot?

[floydraser]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

down here on the south coast, a whole lighthouse was jacked up and moved 20m inland due to the cliffs crumbling.

Haven't they also spent a couple of fortunes down in Suffolk? I thought they did it once then a flood overtopped it, so they did it again. I can't remember it clearly but I think it was around the time I bought my first boat from Andy Seedhouse in 2015. 

[Bikertov]

The trouble with all flood defence schemes, is that all they can do is try and prevent the water going to a certain place. It can't make the water disappear.

So guess what - the water just goes somewhere else instead

The real and only question is, can you divert it away to somewhere else, where it causes less problems.

[Smoggy]

The soft nature of the land around there means it will always be undercut eventually, remember we did used to be connected to france at one point.

Land is not permanent, it changes all the time.

[Ray]

Although nothing is permanent it is possible to make long lasting differences and protection.... The real problem is money, the bigger the project the greater the cost, all remedial measures are costed against financial benefit to assets. People are not considered assets. This is essentially why hold the line was changed to managed retreat. The first responsibility of government (all of them, whatever their beliefs, everywhere) is the safety and welfare of it's citizens.

Governments don't have money, it is taxpayers money is a true mitigation but good government can prioritise beyond political expediency, if they have the will.

Please don't consider this as a political post, the above applies to all parties and all countries.

[grendel]

not every time  does the work succeed, for example the new container and ferry ort at ramsgate was supposed to help the erosion, well it stopped erosion west of the harbour but a sandbar has now moved a mile from the east and sits smack in the harbour entrance, half blocking it at low tide

[ChrisB]

38 minutes ago, Ray said:

Although nothing is permanent it is possible to make long lasting differences and protection.... The real problem is money, the bigger the project the greater the cost, all remedial measures are costed against financial benefit to assets. People are not considered assets. This is essentially why hold the line was changed to managed retreat. The first responsibility of government (all of them, whatever their beliefs, everywhere) is the safety and welfare of it's citizens.

Governments don't have money, it is taxpayers money is a true mitigation but good government can prioritise beyond political expediency, if they have the will.

Please don't consider this as a political post, the above applies to all parties and all countries.

Exactly:-

So if we take Hemsby as an example. The cost of protection has risen to £20m. And will not go ahead.

Back from the coast is the new "Dunes" development. There are various types of brand new homes there for £200K and less.

So if Municipal Yarmouth had £20m spare they could buy 100 new homes! Probably a better investment for public money and the residents of Hemsby in need.

 

[Chelsea14Ian]

If only.Dont think that will happen. GYBC are supposed  to be taking to people at Hemsby  today.Don't think there put there hands in there pockets. If on the other hand,the press are there There make all sorts of promises. 

[dom]

The fundamental issue with planned neglect is the risk of a major catastrophic event. Sooner or later, erosion is likely to result in a sudden and unexpected event, which carries significant risk of fatalities. If that happens, the cost will very rapidly make £20m look like pocket change. Given the scale of fatalities in '53, local authorities ought to be more than aware of this.

[grendel]

19 minutes ago, dom said:

The fundamental issue with planned neglect is the risk of a major catastrophic event. Sooner or later, erosion is likely to result in a sudden and unexpected event, which carries significant risk of fatalities. If that happens, the cost will very rapidly make £20m look like pocket change. Given the scale of fatalities in '53, local authorities ought to be more than aware of this.

you mean like the 1953 and 1912 floods?

[dom]

1953 in particular, as I've heard first hand from family members who experienced it, but yes. Been a while since I've been to Hemsby, but from what I can remember, there's not a lot of margin to the north of the currently affected area before you start to see a major risk of influx in a severe storm or tidal event. I presume justification for the works at Sea Palling was along similar lines, despite its fairly small permanent population.

[Chelsea14Ian]

If you are at the Lifeboat  shed looking to the left.About 30 yards,from the shed is where the sea could overlap.My short time here,everytime I'm there large parts have been lost 

[dom]

10 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

If you are at the Lifeboat  shed looking to the left.About 30 yards,from the shed is where the sea could overlap.My short time here,everytime I'm there large parts have been lost 

That's exactly where I was thinking. The big concern for me would that water would then channel in behind the dunes, rapidly overwhelming a lot of housing.

[kpnut]

4 hours ago, Bikertov said:

The real and only question is, can you divert it away to somewhere else, where it causes less problems.

Well, yes, does anywhere spring to mind? Like the flood marshes of the Broads perhaps?

But when that happens, we’re all in a frenzy about the Broads area having too much water. 

[Bikertov]

17 minutes ago, kpnut said:

Well, yes, does anywhere spring to mind? Like the flood marshes of the Broads perhaps?

But when that happens, we’re all in a frenzy about the Broads area having too much water. 

The only 2 obvious places would be a) down the river and out to sea, or b) onto flood plains and marshes.

Option a) needs a good achievable flow rate of the river system, and silting up of a river will not facilitate that so easily, and b) needs the acceptance that those flood areas will be covered in water for a while

Yes, I am stating the bleedin' obvious, but surely that is the reality of the situation ?

[dom]

16 minutes ago, kpnut said:

Well, yes, does anywhere spring to mind? Like the flood marshes of the Broads perhaps?

There's a national issue with water supply in summer. Depending on whether it's fresh or saline, the clever thing would be to divert it elsewhere for storage. The Great Ouse at Denver gets sent down to a couple of reservoirs in Essex, via a pumping station at Kennett, near Newmarket.

[Bikertov]

1 minute ago, dom said:

There's a national issue with water supply in summer. Depending on whether it's fresh or saline, the clever thing would be to divert it elsewhere for storage. The Great Ouse at Denver gets sent down to a couple of reservoirs in Essex, via a pumping station at Kennett, near Newmarket.

Good point - my posts only referred to getting the water away, but of course storage followed by treatment and onward distribution is a great idea

[marshman]

What you may have missed in the "out to sea" issue, is what happens if you "release" the Broadland water into an incoming tide at GY and then the possibility exists that water overtops at GY? They have only recently raised the walls within the Harbour to prevent such an event, which would probably kill a lot of people - although it inconveniences a few, the flooding in Broadland on the marshes has less direct effect on lives - although to be fair Griff is finding it harder!!

Of course there could well be some damage to property but generally if its inconveniencing people rather than killing them, and the marshes are doing what is intended. Having said that another 15mm or so today won't help!

[Bikertov]

13 minutes ago, marshman said:

What you may have missed in the "out to sea" issue, is what happens if you "release" the Broadland water into an incoming tide at GY and then the possibility exists that water overtops at GY?

I guess I was making very simplistic "in principle" suggestions without any expertise or a full understanding, and without taking into account the sort of point you raised

But fundamentally, what other options are there (including Dom's good suggestion of storage/treatment) ?