Cumbria flooding

[Nutella33]

Maybe they can pick up the bill then...

Who, the EA? So the government? Nice of you to say. I presume you won't mind your tax helping the north out then.

no just pointing out that blaming the Tories is stupid and misplaced

It is a failure of successive governments. This means no party can escape blame. Your arguments are dismissive, inaccurate and ridiculously biased, against an imagined "attack". You sound like a DM reader.

you've also seen that despite this increase in spending lots of people have been negatively affected by flooding

Covered in previous post.

but still carry on blaming the Tories because it rained a lot

A poor, inaccurate, defensive monologue that shows you're either incapable of accepting other information or partisan enough that you are unwilling to.

 

[Nutella33]

I've quoted you figures directly from DEFRA, you're linking to an article from nearly two years ago disputing the source of some funds related to some statement made by the PM

fact is from DEFRA's own figures central government funding for flood and coastal erosion was higher in the past 5 years than it was in the 5 years prior to that

The article covers the time period.of your statistics, and makes clear that funding for FCERM is not the same as flood defence money.

 

[dowie]

Covered in previous post.

not really - even your allegation from that article that flood defence spending only increased due to other non-govt sources it is still an increase...

A poor, inaccurate, defensive monologue that shows your are either incapable of accepting other information or partisan enough that you are unwilling to.

you've not provided any alternative figures, you've merely linked to a two year old newspaper article

just to reiterate - the figures I've posted are up to date and directly from govt

February 2015: Following consultation with the UK Statistics Authority, this document has
been updated to become an Official Statistic. This document is not a National Statistic.
These statistics have been produced to the high professional standards set out in the
Code of Practice for Official Statistics, which sets out eight principles including meeting
user needs, impartiality and objectivity, integrity, sound methods and assured quality,
frankness and accessibility.

 

[dowie]

The article covers the time period.of your statistics, and makes clear that funding for FCERM is not the same as flood defence money.

The figures I linked to were just the central govt spending actually

yes there are other sources of funding for flood defences too, they make a smaller portion of the budget but there are the Environment agency's local levy and their partnership scheme... and if you look at the actual figures they're pretty consistent too

 

[Nutella33]

not really - even your allegation from that article that flood defence spending only increased due to other non-govt sources it is still an increase...



you've not provided any alternative figures, you've merely linked to a two year old newspaper article

just to reiterate - the figures I've posted are up to date and directly from govt

Here you go. Parliament report.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05755/SN05755.pdf

Chapter 2.

Central Government spending on flood defence in 2010-11 was cut soon after the Coalition
Government was formed. Spending was reduced in year by £30 million or 5%.
9 In the 2010
Comprehensive Spending Review (2011-12 to 2014-15), a total of £2.17 billion in central
government funding was provided for flood and coastal defence. This represented “a six percent fall in central government funding”.10 The Committee on Climate Change calculated that
this represented a real term cut of around 20% compared to the previous spending period.

Or table 1, showing the drop of 200million.

The additional money in packages is response from flooding that already happened, repair of damage done, not expenditure on flood defences.

This is also true of maintenance of defences, which dropped over 15% if you want to keep reading the report

The figures I linked to were just the central govt spending actually

yes there are other sources of funding for flood defences too, they make a smaller portion of the budget but there are the Environment agency's local levy and their partnership scheme... and if you look at the actual figures they're pretty consistent too

The total figure you are giving counts all of the additional sources to the budget already, as the report already states if you had read more than the graph you liked.

There is a reason you are quoting a stat that isn't a "national stat". It's because it doesn't conform to their clarity standards, as my previous link has already mentioned.

 

[Spook187]

You can talk about whatever budgets were spent, the fact of the matter is 95% of the flood defences didn't work up here, i was very very lucky my part did not flood, another nights rain and i am most certain my home would have been destroyed.

They need to go back to the drawing board and tackle the problem head on with the source of our flooding deep in the Cumbria hills.

 

[Fuzz]

Sounds to me like a good solution would be a series of small dams on all the tributaries leading to the main rivers that are bursting, so that it holds the water back long enough that it can drain properly from the main river.

Dredging everything, as everyone keeps banging on about isn't going to help in the slightest unless what is dredged HOLDS the water up in the hills.
Dredging it so it gets to the main river faster is going to amplify the problem, not cure it.

There was a thing on countryfile only the other week with teams of people digging culverts... WHY...
Let the damn ground soak it up, not channel it straight to a bloody watercourse!!

 

[ajf]

No it was because they were worried about electrical failure due to the flooding and they didn't want it to break in the 'Closed' position, so they opened the barrier...

Ah, right!
I am sure that makes sense, somewhere.....

Edit. Sorry just noticed the other comments about potential strain on pumps. i guess maybe the thought was that if the pumps failed, wherever they are, would lead to more flooding, than opening the gates?

 

[dowie]

decrease in real terms over 5 years.... if you ignore the additional funding after the previous winter floods of 2013/2014...

 

[dowie]

You can talk about whatever budgets were spent, the fact of the matter is 95% of the flood defences didn't work up here, i was very very lucky my part did not flood, another nights rain and i am most certain my home would have been destroyed.

well yes - that goes back to the other point... even if they'd spent X% more then it still wouldn't have likely made much difference in the case of these floods

 

[Nutella33]

decrease in real terms over 5 years.... if you ignore the additional funding after the previous winter floods of 2013/2014...

I put that in my post and that's in the report. That money was for repair works for housing and business and reimbursement to homeowners. It had nothing to do with increasing maintenance funding or building flood projects.

well yes - that goes back to the other point... even if they'd spent X% more then it still wouldn't have likely made much difference in the case of these floods

I've already answered this. Your only reply was "but don't blame the Tories" despite 1. Me saying it is a none partisan issue that has effected the region for decades, 2. I vote Tory. It doesn't mean that they should be unaccountable on the decisions they have made. It doesn't absolve labour or anyone else of the issue.

There was a thing on countryfile only the other week with teams of people digging culverts... WHY...
Let the damn ground soak it up, not channel it straight to a bloody watercourse!!

The EA dug culverts along the Ouse at York a few years back. I like your ideas but don't they rely on, Having the ground soak it up? Which is the issue largely in the first place?

 

[Caged]

well yes - that goes back to the other point... even if they'd spent X% more then it still wouldn't have likely made much difference in the case of these floods

And you draw this conclusion based on what?

 

[dowie]

And you draw this conclusion based on what?

based on the scale of the floods - the fact is that budgets haven't been drastically slashed as supposedly indicated earlier by some Guardian article citing whole department budgets - in terms of actual spending on flood defence a difference of a few percent when taking into account inflation, ignoring additional spending etc.. is rather trivial

 

[Randomface74]

Ugh, this thread went downhill..

 

[Caged]

based on the scale of the floods - the fact is that budgets haven't been drastically slashed as supposedly indicated earlier by some Guardian article citing whole department budgets - in terms of actual spending on flood defence a difference of a few percent when taking into account inflation, ignoring additional spending etc.. is rather trivial

I'm reasonably sure the projects that were put on hold as a result of budget cuts would have been well positioned to do some good in the areas they ended up not existing in.

All it's meant is that more money will need to be spent compensating people for their losses and putting things back together again. If flood defences prove to be ineffective then that's an argument for investigating why they failed, not an argument to support not bothering with them at all.

 

[Dup]

If it's going to rain enough to raise the rivers 5 metres or so, flood defences are only going to go so far.

This was a freak event. Not seen flooding in Whalley like this nor have any residents much older than I. We've had brief encounters of standing water for a moment at best and none that has damaged property.

Looks like we're set for another onslaught Tuesday and Wednesday. Let's just hope it comes to nothing.

The river is back to usual levels in Whalley today, the effect really seen around the viaduct. Amazing the difference from day one to today.

Before:

After:

 

[Caged]

I'd love to see that on a timelapse

 

[Fuzz]

The EA dug culverts along the Ouse at York a few years back. I like your ideas but don't they rely on, Having the ground soak it up? Which is the issue largely in the first place?

There is obviously more to it than that, like the ground in the hills being made barren by agriculture rather than letting the vegetation grow and do some of that ever so needed "soaking" and slowy releasing the water to the rivers.
If we insist on digging culverts to channel the water "somewhere" WE need to be the "slow release" mechanism by way of dams and dykes that meter the amount of water released..
THEN we can dredge the main river properly so that it can flush / flow away it's contents at a safe rate..
The whole system of what we are doing, from the plants in the ground, the ditches by the fields, the pipes and ducting we create, to the places we are putting housing, ALL needs a complete rethink.

 

[Rroff]

Looks like we're set for another onslaught Tuesday and Wednesday. Let's just hope it comes to nothing.

Isn't looking too bad - though coming down on already saturated ground it could rise quickly - some substantial rain mid morning Wednesday but charts are still showing it moving over fairly quickly so shouldn't build up in any one area.

Potentially another big band of rain passing through Sunday though but too far ahead to be certain how that will turn out.

 

[Richand]

Just build a great old dyke straight through the middle of Kendal and out to the Mersey and the same the other side, levee straight from Halifax to the Humber.

I jest...kinda!