Possible Tidal Surge 21st Dec

[Vaughan]

Thanks for that Colin, and a very Happy New Year to all residents and friends on the island.

Looks like a typical winter spring tide in Thorpe, from my memory.

By the way, what happened to Thorpe Council's great ideas for letting out that part of the Green in front of the church, as private moorings?  Don't seem to have had any takers?

[Islander]

2 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

By the way, what happened to Thorpe Council's great ideas for letting out that part of the Green in front of the church, as private moorings?  Don't seem to have had any takers?

Hi Vaughan, a very happy new year to you too.  No news regards private moorings. Maybe the legal side is a problem or just the usual snails pace of  parish councils ( sorry, town council ). River green seems to pop up at council meeting but nearly always after exclusion of the press and public. I wonder why. The plot thickens. Watch this space as they say.

regards

Colin and Ruth 

[Smoggy]

Harwich tide data shows a 0.78m negative surge with levels dropping below chart datum, hopefully that will help get some water drained from the whole of the broads system.

https://hha.co.uk/live-data/tide/

[Islander]

The northern rivers do not seem to be dropping very fast looking at Potter and Wroxham bridges. 
 

Colin 

[RegalSafari]

Well just moored up a potters before heading to Ranworth and flooded behind bungalows and about 6 inches of banking available on 24 hr mooring so lower I would say 

[ExSurveyor]

Very low high tide at Brundall today.

At high tide it was lower than a very low tide.

[BroadAmbition]

Northern side of things still higher than normal with water tide locked in due to the silted up lower Bure 

Griff

[floydraser]

For anyone seriously interested in this subject: on the reform FB page there are details of a public meeting at Hickling 2nd February with Duncan Baker MP.

[Bytheriver]

3 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Northern side of things still higher than normal with water tide locked in due to the silted up lower Bure 

Griff

Having looked at various EA Gauging Stations there is clearly  a mass evacuation of water with some extreme lows on the south but steady falls even on the north where there are vast expanses of broad having to exit via Potter & Wroxham

2 minutes ago, floydraser said:

For anyone seriously interested in this subject: on the reform FB page there are details of a public meeting at Hickling 2nd February with Duncan Baker MP.

I spotted that with some comments as to why BA is not on the invite list but its worth remembering it is EA that is responsible for dredging for drainage with BA only required to maintain sufficient depth for navigation ( The drag lines kept on standby in the 1970s were EA) - The MPs are the ones with the power to press for improved anti flooding measures from EA with funding from the Treasury - this was made clear at the autumn flooding conference in Ipswich. The point made is funding is on the back of residential properties protected not marshes & fields (IDBs do this but have to discharge into full rivers)! They are on the invite list

Interesting to see how much water has clearly escaped to sea this morning on the low tide especially in the South up as far as Brundall but even the north is on a lowering but steady trend hopefully doing some substantial scouring on the way?

[grendel]

clearly in the past the northern waters would have dropped just as fast as the southern ones are, so this clearly highlights the fact that something is slowing down the natural drainage from the northern side I do wonder about the depths on the lower Bure at low tide, its a shame as if it had been high season with the normal numbers of boats, then dozen of boats running aground would have bolstered the argument that it was due to a lack of dredging, but since we are in the winter season, not many will be travelling the lower bure.

boats running aground would have highlighted the lack of dredging by the Broads Authority (enough to maintain the navigation)

it would be interesting to note the speed of the ebb at Great Yarmouth.

this does however tend to point the finger away from the new bridge at Great Yarmouth as if that was holding the water back then the southern side would not have seen such low tides.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Bytheriver said:

( The drag lines kept on standby in the 1970s were EA)

Very interesting. So my silly question is :

If they saw the need to keep drag lines on stand by for drainage purposes in the 70s, why aren't they still there now and why aren't they dredging?

What is different between now and the 70s?  Apart from all the water lying trapped all over Potter Heigham and Wroxham, of course. . . . 

[Smoggy]

13 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

What is different between now and the 70s?

Because a regular maintenance dredging program doesn't get any one the kudos of an expensive flood protection scheme and no one gets their piccy taken and printed in the paper, these things are important you know....Far more important than just getting the job done in a way that prevents flooding and helps maintain navigation at the same time, you appear to have mistaken them for a useful government appointed body for the interests of a navigable water course.

[Cheesey69]

or more scarily, is it worth it?

London's economy is worth trillions, Great Yarmouth, multi millions.

The Broads as we know them? 

Would the country as a whole and with all its problems, care? Think of coastal erosion.

The spin is, its climate change, its only returning the land to nature, only boaters effected and how many houses effected?

 

[Bytheriver]

1 hour ago, Smoggy said:

Because a regular maintenance dredging program doesn't get any one the kudos of an expensive flood protection scheme and no one gets their piccy taken and printed in the paper, these things are important you know....Far more important than just getting the job done in a way that prevents flooding and helps maintain navigation at the same time, you appear to have mistaken them for a useful government appointed body for the interests of a navigable water course.

They have only just finished carrying out a 20 year programme to keep water in the rivers ( presumably after extensive consultation- It has had unforeseen consequences ( or best solution as seen by the experts at the time)  hence Broadland Futures institutive now 6 years into working on next set of solutions ( see page 20 of the January 2024 Harnser if you wish to avoid accessing the EA website avoiding the host authority  https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0045/498888/BFI-Progress-Newsletter-Issue-13.pdf

 

[Vaughan]

14 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

They have only just finished carrying out a 20 year programme to keep water in the rivers ( presumably after extensive consultation- It has had unforeseen consequences ( or best solution as seen by the experts at the time) 

Sorry, but this, to me, explains exactly why the local population and Broads related businesses were so strongly against the idea of a flood barrier, "back in the 70s" and voted it out.

And sure enough, now what have we got?  The "unforeseen consequences" of a whole lot of experts and their extensive consultation.  Which I take to mean "working with collaborative partners".

"Kirk to Enterprise - one to beam up"!

 

[MY littleboat]

3 hours ago, grendel said:

clearly in the past the northern waters would have dropped just as fast as the southern ones are, so this clearly highlights the fact that something is slowing down the natural drainage from the northern side I do wonder about the depths on the lower Bure at low tide, its a shame as if it had been high season with the normal numbers of boats, then dozen of boats running aground would have bolstered the argument that it was due to a lack of dredging, but since we are in the winter season, not many will be travelling the lower bure.

boats running aground would have highlighted the lack of dredging by the Broads Authority (enough to maintain the navigation)

it would be interesting to note the speed of the ebb at Great Yarmouth.

this does however tend to point the finger away from the new bridge at Great Yarmouth as if that was holding the water back then the southern side would not have seen such low tides.

I think it is far more complicated than anyone could dream up - flow dynamics are extremely complicated as faster flowing liquid in one pipe can force liquid uphill in another, (I only know this from aircraft hydraulics and know bog all about complex tidal systems, however, the Southern River emptying (beyond expected datum) is as significant as the abnormally high tides. The new bridge at yarmouth still has a wider span availability than the area at Haven Bridge, likely to be a silting nightmare for Peel in the future, but if it adds 1% to the problem, that may be on top of many 1% here and there, dredging, building, removal of natural flood planes, EA automated drainage devices, water company outflows - they all have a very small percentage effect but until someone actually starts understanding the whole system again, we are looking at log term problems.

Oddly though, the old timers of the Broads knew all too well how to manage them, and, as I have mentioned before, there are just so many companies, agencies and authorities with fingers in the pie, it is very easy for one to either blame another, or have such complicated systems of working, that reacting to problems or understanding them will never be resolved.

[Smoggy]

1 hour ago, MY littleboat said:

we are looking at log term problems.

You mean sewage outfalls?

[Vaughan]

I have just remembered another factor, which may well be having its effect on the high water in the rivers.

Wherever you look in Norfolk these days, they are building yet another vast dormitory housing estate, or out of town retail park.  Including what they call the "growth triangle" which will quite soon fill in the whole area between Norwich, Acle and Wroxham.  But what does all this building actually mean?  Thousands of acres of tarmac or stone flagging, so that rainwater which used to irrigate what used to be farming countryside, now runs off into the drains and into the river system.

Recently, all new planning permission in Norfolk was halted, because of this very problem.  Unfortunately, it now seems to have been allowed again.

[MY littleboat]

Very interesting article in the EADT

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23982189.suffolk-farmers-face-another-critical-year-change/?ref=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR0q0oLStOXBTEj-zdSl2b940Uiz5VHkUMwPQ_BKjYIbk9IVM8WkY094O54

'the CLA regularly raised flooding resilience issues with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency - and the adverse effects on farmers, he said.

"We believe it is wrong that landowners don’t receive compensation when the Environment Agency effectively floods their fields to protect downstream houses and villages, despite the harm to their crops and livelihoods.

"When farmers do attempt to implement flood prevention techniques, they face lengthy authorisation delays and costs, creating a lose-lose situation."

[MY littleboat]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I have just remembered another factor, which may well be having its effect on the high water in the rivers.

Wherever you look in Norfolk these days, they are building yet another vast dormitory housing estate, or out of town retail park.  Including what they call the "growth triangle" which will quite soon fill in the whole area between Norwich, Acle and Wroxham.  But what does all this building actually mean?  Thousands of acres of tarmac or stone flagging, so that rainwater which used to irrigate what used to be farming countryside, now runs off into the drains and into the river system.

Recently, all new planning permission in Norfolk was halted, because of this very problem.  Unfortunately, it now seems to have been allowed again.

Most notably because Gove struck out the requirement for developers to ensure there were effective planning and financial mechanisms to prevent polluting run-off, and repealed the water pollution rules, stating this was the single biggest holdup to future development in sensitive areas which was needed - instead the cost would be met by governmental systems and policy 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/29/repeal-of-water-pollution-rules-wont-solve-englands-housing-crisis-say-developers

[Smoggy]

Would those flooded fields be the marshes and flood plains that were pumped out for the farmers in the first place?

[Bytheriver]

8 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Would those flooded fields be the marshes and flood plains that were pumped out for the farmers in the first place?

I see the Internal Drainage Board (s) are on the attendee list - I suspect they try to keep a low profile?

[Vaughan]

29 minutes ago, MY littleboat said:

"We believe it is wrong that landowners don’t receive compensation when the Environment Agency effectively floods their fields to protect downstream houses and villages, despite the harm to their crops and livelihoods.

"When farmers do attempt to implement flood prevention techniques, they face lengthy authorisation delays and costs, creating a lose-lose situation."

 

24 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Would those flooded fields be the marshes and flood plains that were pumped out for the farmers in the first place?

 

14 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

I see the Internal Drainage Board (s) are on the attendee list - I suspect they try to keep a low profile?

 Excuse me if I group your three posts into one reply!

I have always, on the forum, referred to the re-claimed lowlands in the lower reaches of the Broads as grazing meadows.

The whole point here, is that re-claimed wet grassland used for cattle grazing is not badly affected by occasional brackish water flooding.  You can get the cattle back on the fields very soon after and the grass will not suffer much. The Norfolk Broads area has traditionally been given over to dairy and beef cattle produce.

Ah, but!  The farmers began to find they weren't making money out of dairy any more and so they wanted to grow arable crops.  But the problem here is that salt water flooding will ruin "arable" land for about 3 to 5 years afterwards.  So the farmers deliberately lobbied parliament to have the EA (or whatever name it was, then) to have the river banks built up to protect their fields.  As they have largely gone back back now, to dairy cattle rather than arable, especially around the Bure, there should be no reason why the EA cannot make gaps in these flood banks to re-create the traditional grazing meadows, which can flood during surge tides.

The Dutch taught us how to do this when they reclaimed the whole area hundreds of years ago.  But now we have agencies, authorities, alliances, committees and assorted experts, who are all convinced that they know better. 

 

 

[rightsaidfred]

Totally agree with Vaughans post, added to which many of us have often said about the folly of building on flood plains, we now have a major political figure proposing building on even more green belt, you could be forgiven for wondering what planet they are living on given the amount of flooding nationwide over recent years.

Fred

[Bytheriver]

Try this for some weekend reading

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/about-us/how-we-work/strategy/broads-plan-2022/theme-a-responding-to-climate-change-and-flood-risk