[Miscellaneous]

Act of God implies no one knows why it happens or what the risk is. In most of these cases that isn’t true, the understanding is there but not used.

Not at all @johnm An act of God is primarily referred to as such due to our inability to do anything to prevent the occurrence. Knowing why it happens is irrelevant.

[johnm]

Act of God implies no one knows why it happens or what the risk is. In most of these cases that isn’t true, the understanding is there but not used.

Not at all @johnm An act of God is primarily referred to as such due to our inability to do anything to prevent the occurrence. Knowing why it happens is irrelevant.

I’m content to add that factor but would suggest inability to anything reasonable and then we have a sensible definition I think

[eltonioni]

@eltonioni I’m not suggesting that the whole problem can be solved, merely that we ought to be taking a coherent approach to mitigation and adaptation. Some problems like Mountain Ash are being created when the knowledge to stop that happening is there and that is frankly unacceptable.

Other problems are beyond technical or economic solution and there’s a spectrum in between those two scenarios and the line should drawn from a sensible analytical perspective that can be justified to reassonable folk.

You have some solution suggestions that aren't already happening?

[Miscellaneous]

Act of God implies no one knows why it happens or what the risk is. In most of these cases that isn’t true, the understanding is there but not used.

Not at all @johnm An act of God is primarily referred to as such due to our inability to do anything to prevent the occurrence. Knowing why it happens is irrelevant.

I’m content to add that factor but would suggest inability to anything reasonable and then we have a sensible definition I think

I disagree adding anything to you understanding of the phrase can reach an acceptable definition. Your stated understanding is simply wrong.

[Paul_Sengupta]

I'm on the top of a hill at 1000' AGL and even we have been paddling.

Must be some impressive stilts you have! And if the water's that high, I think it would need more than flood defences.

[mick w]

I'm on the top of a hill at 1000' AGL and even we have been paddling.

Must be some impressive stilts you have! And if the water's that high, I think it would need more than flood defences.

I think he meant ASL Paul

[eltonioni]

Head in the clouds even when feet are on the ground.

[Miscellaneous]

I think we overlook that flood plains themselves are natures way of dealing with flood water, they are natural and are not going to go away. To stop a natural flood plain from flooding is essentially messing with nature. Seems to me the most sensible thing to do is to guide nature by encouraging flooding in areas we designate for the purpose and, importantly, that are naturally suitable to act as a safety valve. To fight nature in this way is futile.

[Paul_Sengupta]

It's been persistently raining here in South Wales this morning. Persisting down.

[PaulB]

It's been persistently raining here in South Wales this morning. Persisting down.

Welsh persistence has now infected the English Midlands

[johnm]

You have some solution suggestions that aren't already happening?

Yes, look at river systems and stop all building on flood plains unless the flood plain capacity is properly replaced

Consider river control systems analogous to those built for the Thames.

Make sure drainage systems are properly maintained, ditches cleared dykes dredged etc....call it “Somerset level syndrome” to sort of illustrate the point.

The holding pond idea from some new developments should be retrofitted in areas where the idiocy of mixed drainage systems was implemented in the 1970s I think.... it should also be compulsory in all new developments so that surface water never sees a sewer.

I’m sure there are others but i’m not a hydrologist

[VRB_20kt]

There are some permanent resolutions..

One is not to permit development of flood plains - which means opening other green areas for development

Creating leaky dams upstream would help a lot but is hugely expensive both in capital and ongoing cost terms. Plus you need to lose more green areas

You can build a low resistance (think fat, round straight pipe) to the sea... Which is expensive, ecologically dubious and probably of limited effect.


In other words, whatever you choose, there's a substantial economic and ecological impact. Unless we depopulate, there is going to be a very real bill to pay in financial, emotional and ecological terms.

[eltonioni]

You have some solution suggestions that aren't already happening?

Yes, look at river systems and stop all building on flood plains unless the flood plain capacity is properly replaced

Consider river control systems analogous to those built for the Thames.

Make sure drainage systems are properly maintained, ditches cleared dykes dredged etc....call it “Somerset level syndrome” to sort of illustrate the point.

The holding pond idea from some new developments should be retrofitted in areas where the idiocy of mixed drainage systems was implemented in the 1970s I think.... it should also be compulsory in all new developments so that surface water never sees a sewer.

I’m sure there are others but i’m not a hydrologist

We're already doing all that. I was hoping for a new and impactful idea which wasn't basically don't build on floodplains, ie the blue parts of the above map covering thousands of square miles of the country. ^^

There is a case to be made for better local maintenance as it seems to be patchy and retrospective after the event. Sheffield hasn't yet flooded as disastrously as 2007 because new flood alleviation works sends the water downstream to Rotherham and Doncaster now. This is just balloon squeezing.

I'm not saying that we can't improve things by tinkering around the edges, I'm saying that we can't stop these unusual flood events happening somewhere, sometime, to someone.

The Met Office are still issuing severe wind / rain warnings and flood alerts up to next Monday and I don't know where people think this water is going to go no matter how much money is spent. The only viable solution to prevent flooding property is to move people, their homes and businesses permanently and that's not going to happen because people would rather put up with flooding than demolish Tewkesbury, York and most of London.

You can build a low resistance (think fat, round straight pipe) to the sea... Which is expensive, ecologically dubious and probably of limited effect.

This one isn't viable and would cause more problems. Much / most flooding occurs when outfall pipes into rivers / estuaries / sea are covered by the rising river / flood / tide. As soon as the outfall is reached water in the pipe stops flowing and it backs up, eventually making those manhole fountains in the roads (and toilets). When the whole system is full (drains, rivers, etc) the water just distributes itself outside the system and floods whatever is there.

In other words, whatever you choose, there's a substantial economic and ecological impact. Unless we depopulate, there is going to be a very real bill to pay in financial, emotional and ecological terms.

Yup.

[johnm]

Medieval Tewkesbury almost never floods, the medieval buildings in our village, manor and mill house, get surrounded but don’t flood..........@eltonioni we aren’t already doing all that consistently and we are certainly building on flood plains without mitigation and in the Cotswolds it’s bordering on scandal where planning conditions are not enforced against the big builders of little boxes made of ticky tacky.

[eltonioni]

@johnm logically you seem to be calling for a population cull and you're plain wrong about "building on floodplains without mitigation" as I've explained in some detail earlier. Put down that Daily Mail John.


Tewkesbury - the medieval bit.