Petition calls for dredging of River Ouse to ease York’s flood problems

Chris Cook, left, and Shaun Binns, landlord of the Lowther Pub in York, after the River Ouse burst its banks

A postman goes the extra mile to make his deliveries in York as water threatens some riverside properties in the city. Picture: Ian Hinchliffe

Published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

FRUSTRATED residents and business owners are pleading with the authorities to dredge the River Ouse in York to help ease city centre flooding.

Householder Chris Cook has sent a petition of 40 signatures to the Environment Agency, City of York Council, and MP Hugh Bayley, asking for measures to stop the waters threatening their properties every time wet weather hits.

Mr Cook, who has lived in Tower Place and South Esplanade for many years, said he and his neighbours felt for those affected by the severe flooding in the south west of England.

The petition has been backed by Shaun Binns, landlord of The Lowther pub in King’s Staith, which is once again temporarily closed because of the rising river levels in York.

As reported in The Press yesterday, Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, issued an unreserved apology to those affected in the Somerset Levels.

Mr Pickles admitted the Government has made a “mistake” in not dredging rivers to prevent flooding but blamed the Environment Agency for providing poor advice.

Like those rivers in the south west, the Ouse has not been dredged for many years and Mr Cook said he and his neighbours had seen a marked increase in flooding.

He said: “We were all badly affected by the floods in 2000 and 2012 – some of us had more than a metre of water in our properties.

“I don’t think any buildings have been flooded this year, but every time it rains the water comes up over the footpaths and the Tower Gardens.”

The flooded paths mean access is cut off and many businesses are losing out heavily every time the river rises, he said.

Mr Cook said: “We feel this area of York is not receiving the attention it deserves.

“We are frustrated that City of York Council raises money by borrowing to reinvigorate King’s Square and Exhibition Square to beautify them for the tourists, but can’t do anything for residents here.”

He wants the Environment Agency to urgently review its policies about dredging, and would like to see temporary flood barriers used to protect the area.

The Environment Agency responded to the calls by saying its efforts were currently focused on areas where severe flood warnings were in place and there was a danger to life.

Coun Dave Merrett said City of York Council would like to see more Government funds going to the Environment Agency.

He said: “York has had its fair share of flooding in recent years and is well-equipped to deal with incidents like this.

"We are committed to working with all partners in helping to prevent flooding in York and while we would welcome the introduction of improved flood defences near King’s Staith, this would be a joint partnership approach with the Environment Agency.

"However, at this current time the Environment Agency are right to prioritise all their resources to protect people and property suffering from extreme periods of weather and threat to life.”

Comments (86)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:12am Tue 11 Feb 14

zombardo says...

Guess what? If you live by a river it will occasionally under certain circumstances come into your property. Surely this is obvious to those who choose to buy these places? Should the council pay for your house/business to be put on stilts too?
Guess what? If you live by a river it will occasionally under certain circumstances come into your property. Surely this is obvious to those who choose to buy these places? Should the council pay for your house/business to be put on stilts too? zombardo
  • Score: 28

10:13am Tue 11 Feb 14

Pedro says...

The river used to be dredged on a regular basis. Used to stop and watch it in my youth. The City seemed to flood just as often though. I suppose all some people have to hang on to is this "magic bullet."
The river used to be dredged on a regular basis. Used to stop and watch it in my youth. The City seemed to flood just as often though. I suppose all some people have to hang on to is this "magic bullet." Pedro
  • Score: 61

10:15am Tue 11 Feb 14

sheps lad says...

Can not understand why flood gates are not fitted at Tower Gardens instead of sandbagging to prevent flooding of Tower St. Would surely be cost effective in the long run?
Can not understand why flood gates are not fitted at Tower Gardens instead of sandbagging to prevent flooding of Tower St. Would surely be cost effective in the long run? sheps lad
  • Score: 39

10:25am Tue 11 Feb 14

whitehorse says...

Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?
Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse? whitehorse
  • Score: 36

10:26am Tue 11 Feb 14

roskoboskovic says...

you will have noticed that this morning ,on bbc news the spotlight has shifted from the south-west to the thames valley.you can now virtually guarantee that cameron will produce millions of pounds for flood prevention.he won t let the heartland of tory support suffer persistent flooding.these blokes in york have a right to complain because they do seem to have been abandoned because flood barriers such as those near the bottom of marygate are very effective.
you will have noticed that this morning ,on bbc news the spotlight has shifted from the south-west to the thames valley.you can now virtually guarantee that cameron will produce millions of pounds for flood prevention.he won t let the heartland of tory support suffer persistent flooding.these blokes in york have a right to complain because they do seem to have been abandoned because flood barriers such as those near the bottom of marygate are very effective. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 51

10:27am Tue 11 Feb 14

Brabus says...

I've lived close to the rived for 40+ years and can't see that the base level has altered by more than a handful of cms over all those years (though I stand to be corrected as mine is only a visual check)

Whilst not being a flooding 'expert' I'd have expected that the more water is held within flood defences upstream of York the higher/faster the water will become though those undefended areas
I've lived close to the rived for 40+ years and can't see that the base level has altered by more than a handful of cms over all those years (though I stand to be corrected as mine is only a visual check) Whilst not being a flooding 'expert' I'd have expected that the more water is held within flood defences upstream of York the higher/faster the water will become though those undefended areas Brabus
  • Score: 38

10:32am Tue 11 Feb 14

The Great Buda says...

Pedro wrote:
The river used to be dredged on a regular basis. Used to stop and watch it in my youth. The City seemed to flood just as often though. I suppose all some people have to hang on to is this "magic bullet."
Quite right.

Dredging is fast becoming the Emperors new clothes. It may increase the through flow slightly, but if people think it will stop flooding then I'll have what their smoking please.
[quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: The river used to be dredged on a regular basis. Used to stop and watch it in my youth. The City seemed to flood just as often though. I suppose all some people have to hang on to is this "magic bullet."[/p][/quote]Quite right. Dredging is fast becoming the Emperors new clothes. It may increase the through flow slightly, but if people think it will stop flooding then I'll have what their smoking please. The Great Buda
  • Score: 58

10:33am Tue 11 Feb 14

again says...

whitehorse wrote:
Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?
Recently they said the river had a depth of 6 metres through York. It was quite high, but even so that is deep for a river the size of the Ouse.

I suspect that the call for dredging is based on anecdotal reasoning rather than real evidence that it would help.

I await proof to the contrary.
[quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?[/p][/quote]Recently they said the river had a depth of 6 metres through York. It was quite high, but even so that is deep for a river the size of the Ouse. I suspect that the call for dredging is based on anecdotal reasoning rather than real evidence that it would help. I await proof to the contrary. again
  • Score: 34

10:39am Tue 11 Feb 14

yorkshirelad says...

While I can understand the concerns of people living near rivers, latching onto dredging as a solution is simply not credible. The nonsense spouted by Eric Pickles last weekend was a pure attempt to grab votes.

Ignore the simplistic solutions...look here to see what this group of eminent people in the field have to say...(in short, dredging is not the answer).

http://www.scienceme
diacentre.org/expert
-reaction-to-somerse
t-flooding/

Longer term solutions are needed, the current problems are not the 'fault' of any agency or the government. We must follow the scientific consensus on climate change rather than barmy conspiracy theorists... i.e. it's serious, man-made and likely to be already contributing to extreme weather events.

Pickles' nonsense on dredging was some of the worst politics I have seen in many years...not least because its giving people false hope.
While I can understand the concerns of people living near rivers, latching onto dredging as a solution is simply not credible. The nonsense spouted by Eric Pickles last weekend was a pure attempt to grab votes. Ignore the simplistic solutions...look here to see what this group of eminent people in the field have to say...(in short, dredging is not the answer). http://www.scienceme diacentre.org/expert -reaction-to-somerse t-flooding/ Longer term solutions are needed, the current problems are not the 'fault' of any agency or the government. We must follow the scientific consensus on climate change rather than barmy conspiracy theorists... i.e. it's serious, man-made and likely to be already contributing to extreme weather events. Pickles' nonsense on dredging was some of the worst politics I have seen in many years...not least because its giving people false hope. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 26

10:42am Tue 11 Feb 14

yourkidding says...

Whitehorse if dredged a little..[LIKE CLEANING THE DRAINS }it helps the flow .but on the drain side of it Y.W.A .think different ?
Whitehorse if dredged a little..[LIKE CLEANING THE DRAINS }it helps the flow .but on the drain side of it Y.W.A .think different ? yourkidding
  • Score: 16

10:43am Tue 11 Feb 14

bolero says...

Is'nt this again a question of priorities? Money being expended in the wrong direction. Exhibition Square, Kings Square, cycle paths here there and everywhere, 20mph zones and so on and so on. These things could be shelved; in some cases for ever. Put the money from fines imposed on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate to some sensible use, like flood defences. Not only the Ouse is in need of dredging, what happened to the Foss Drainage board. I haven't seen any action on the Foss for many a year. How long since roadside ditches and culverts were cleared? Let's not forget that householders are partly to blame for the excess water lying around green areas and footpaths too. How much garden rubbish is thrown over the fence into culverts which were designed to prevent flooding but have now virtually disappeared through this practice? How much builders rubbish ends up in becks and sewers causing blockages? Silt and wintertime grit gathers in gutters and drainage channels and when heavy rain arrives it is all swept into the drains thereby causing more problems. Some serious thought needs to be given to these issues before we start blaming everybody with a government name tag. And if there is one thing that really riles me is these media reporters who stand in a convenient pool of water thrusting a microphone up the nose of totally fed up passers by who have been effected by the floods. Get a pair of rubber gloves on and start heaving a few sandbags around. In other words, do something useful for a change.
Is'nt this again a question of priorities? Money being expended in the wrong direction. Exhibition Square, Kings Square, cycle paths here there and everywhere, 20mph zones and so on and so on. These things could be shelved; in some cases for ever. Put the money from fines imposed on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate to some sensible use, like flood defences. Not only the Ouse is in need of dredging, what happened to the Foss Drainage board. I haven't seen any action on the Foss for many a year. How long since roadside ditches and culverts were cleared? Let's not forget that householders are partly to blame for the excess water lying around green areas and footpaths too. How much garden rubbish is thrown over the fence into culverts which were designed to prevent flooding but have now virtually disappeared through this practice? How much builders rubbish ends up in becks and sewers causing blockages? Silt and wintertime grit gathers in gutters and drainage channels and when heavy rain arrives it is all swept into the drains thereby causing more problems. Some serious thought needs to be given to these issues before we start blaming everybody with a government name tag. And if there is one thing that really riles me is these media reporters who stand in a convenient pool of water thrusting a microphone up the nose of totally fed up passers by who have been effected by the floods. Get a pair of rubber gloves on and start heaving a few sandbags around. In other words, do something useful for a change. bolero
  • Score: 11

10:50am Tue 11 Feb 14

old_geezer says...

As several have pointed out, dredging is not the answer for the Ouse. Slightly increasing the depth of the bed is trivial in comparison to the volume of water that flows down after heavy rain.The worst problem is the "gripping" (for installing which farmers were misguidedly paid a generation or two ago) on the upland moors, which is now being slowly reversed.
As several have pointed out, dredging is not the answer for the Ouse. Slightly increasing the depth of the bed is trivial in comparison to the volume of water that flows down after heavy rain.The worst problem is the "gripping" (for installing which farmers were misguidedly paid a generation or two ago) on the upland moors, which is now being slowly reversed. old_geezer
  • Score: 32

10:53am Tue 11 Feb 14

Knavesmire view says...

All of a sudden dredging would solve all problems of flooding? That is nonsense.

As has been mentioned above it has been done in the past and guess what, we still had flooding.

The focus at the moment should be on how best to help those who are being affected by it and giving them the support that they need.
All of a sudden dredging would solve all problems of flooding? That is nonsense. As has been mentioned above it has been done in the past and guess what, we still had flooding. The focus at the moment should be on how best to help those who are being affected by it and giving them the support that they need. Knavesmire view
  • Score: 24

10:59am Tue 11 Feb 14

baldiebiker says...

If the river is dredged it may carry more water but this may just move the flooding downstream (to me?) it would have to be dredged all the way to Naburn lock and then what it would still have to go over the weir would this be reduced in height? After the weir the river is tidal so making it deeper would also mean that the tide came in faster? It needs higher flood banks to stop flooding.
In the report it says the river has burst its banks, NO IT HASN'T, its just got higher, the problem may be solved by slowing down the speed the water gets to the river. The amount of rain falling is the problem if you live near a river floodplain then you run the risk of being flooded, who's fault is that, yours (includes me as my house was flooded twice before I bought it)
If the river is dredged it may carry more water but this may just move the flooding downstream (to me?) it would have to be dredged all the way to Naburn lock and then what it would still have to go over the weir would this be reduced in height? After the weir the river is tidal so making it deeper would also mean that the tide came in faster? It needs higher flood banks to stop flooding. In the report it says the river has burst its banks, NO IT HASN'T, its just got higher, the problem may be solved by slowing down the speed the water gets to the river. The amount of rain falling is the problem if you live near a river floodplain then you run the risk of being flooded, who's fault is that, yours (includes me as my house was flooded twice before I bought it) baldiebiker
  • Score: 23

11:07am Tue 11 Feb 14

take 5 says...

dredging wont do alot of good with this amount of water it needs massive reservoirs digging out along all rivers prone to flooding and in situations like were having open the gates and let the water flow into them !!
dredging wont do alot of good with this amount of water it needs massive reservoirs digging out along all rivers prone to flooding and in situations like were having open the gates and let the water flow into them !! take 5
  • Score: 18

11:15am Tue 11 Feb 14

whitehorse says...

Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...? whitehorse
  • Score: 15

11:25am Tue 11 Feb 14

roadwars says...

As others have said, dredging would be almost completely pointless and ineffective.
The causes of flooding are complex and range from narrowing the flow through Cities with development and "flood prevention" to the uncontrollable need of everyone "upstream" to have their land drained quickly (agricultural land and peat bogs).
The environment agency understand the issues, they are the professionals, including scientists and engineers. The politicians are absolutely clueless and will divert the blame to whomever they see fit to push their own agenda, they will also, as we have seen, grab on to any popularist opinion like dredging to try and save a few votes.
As others have said, dredging would be almost completely pointless and ineffective. The causes of flooding are complex and range from narrowing the flow through Cities with development and "flood prevention" to the uncontrollable need of everyone "upstream" to have their land drained quickly (agricultural land and peat bogs). The environment agency understand the issues, they are the professionals, including scientists and engineers. The politicians are absolutely clueless and will divert the blame to whomever they see fit to push their own agenda, they will also, as we have seen, grab on to any popularist opinion like dredging to try and save a few votes. roadwars
  • Score: 33

11:35am Tue 11 Feb 14

Yorkie41 says...

whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
I seem to remember after the 1947 floods seeing Recklaw a barge that did this dredging, and it did do what it was supposed to do for many years. But in those days the river Ouse used to dry up in the summer and freeze up in the winter.But to say that dredging won't help is misguided.
[quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]I seem to remember after the 1947 floods seeing Recklaw a barge that did this dredging, and it did do what it was supposed to do for many years. But in those days the river Ouse used to dry up in the summer and freeze up in the winter.But to say that dredging won't help is misguided. Yorkie41
  • Score: 8

11:43am Tue 11 Feb 14

BL2 says...

Don't build or live on or near flood plains or rivers ... !
Don't build or live on or near flood plains or rivers ... ! BL2
  • Score: 30

11:45am Tue 11 Feb 14

voiceofnormalpeople says...

In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do.

Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.
In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do. Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities. voiceofnormalpeople
  • Score: 12

12:01pm Tue 11 Feb 14

viking99 says...

the real problem with flooding lies in the past
planning authorities granted permission on flood plains for development.
It probably would alleviate the problem as a previous poster said by creating mini areas in the catchment area to hold the water and release as the situation gets better.
the real problem with flooding lies in the past planning authorities granted permission on flood plains for development. It probably would alleviate the problem as a previous poster said by creating mini areas in the catchment area to hold the water and release as the situation gets better. viking99
  • Score: 24

12:06pm Tue 11 Feb 14

YorkPatrol says...

roskoboskovic wrote:
you will have noticed that this morning ,on bbc news the spotlight has shifted from the south-west to the thames valley.you can now virtually guarantee that cameron will produce millions of pounds for flood prevention.he won t let the heartland of tory support suffer persistent flooding.these blokes in york have a right to complain because they do seem to have been abandoned because flood barriers such as those near the bottom of marygate are very effective.
Abandoned...?? I'm sure the people living in the Leeman Road area don't feel the same with millions recently invested in their flood defences.

Where do you think the money originated for this scheme (amongst others) if it wasn’t central government??

Another pathetic and unfounded dig at the conservative party
[quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: you will have noticed that this morning ,on bbc news the spotlight has shifted from the south-west to the thames valley.you can now virtually guarantee that cameron will produce millions of pounds for flood prevention.he won t let the heartland of tory support suffer persistent flooding.these blokes in york have a right to complain because they do seem to have been abandoned because flood barriers such as those near the bottom of marygate are very effective.[/p][/quote]Abandoned...?? I'm sure the people living in the Leeman Road area don't feel the same with millions recently invested in their flood defences. Where do you think the money originated for this scheme (amongst others) if it wasn’t central government?? Another pathetic and unfounded dig at the conservative party YorkPatrol
  • Score: 10

12:09pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Lollipop21 says...

I totally agree, rivers should be dredged. I lived in Selby for a lot of years and remember dredging, look now when the tide is out at all the silt and rubbish built up. It needs clearing out, I've been saying this for over 30 years. Yes it will cost money but in the long term it will make savings. Get DREDGING you people. Oh and stop building on flood plains. If you don't do something we'll sink.
I totally agree, rivers should be dredged. I lived in Selby for a lot of years and remember dredging, look now when the tide is out at all the silt and rubbish built up. It needs clearing out, I've been saying this for over 30 years. Yes it will cost money but in the long term it will make savings. Get DREDGING you people. Oh and stop building on flood plains. If you don't do something we'll sink. Lollipop21
  • Score: -2

12:12pm Tue 11 Feb 14

FarmersBlonde says...

I agree with roadwars and old_geezer, the problems are upstream. the intentisification of the management of uplands; burning blanket bog, short rotation burning of heath, and new tracks alongside historic drainage (grips) has vastly reduced the ability for the uplands to hold water. Unfortunately getting the grouse shooting moorland owners to change their ways isn't easy.

Ministers have been very quick to blame the Environment Agency and the lack of dredging, but they seem less willing to blame their old school friends who own and manage most of the uplands.
I agree with roadwars and old_geezer, the problems are upstream. the intentisification of the management of uplands; burning blanket bog, short rotation burning of heath, and new tracks alongside historic drainage (grips) has vastly reduced the ability for the uplands to hold water. Unfortunately getting the grouse shooting moorland owners to change their ways isn't easy. Ministers have been very quick to blame the Environment Agency and the lack of dredging, but they seem less willing to blame their old school friends who own and manage most of the uplands. FarmersBlonde
  • Score: 32

12:13pm Tue 11 Feb 14

yorkshirelad says...

No digs are needed at the Conservative Party - Pickles dug himself deeply enough in that interview on Sunday! Like so many he turned on an agency working extremely hard despite funding caps... whatever caused the flooding it wasn't the Environment Agency!

The same thing is repeated across government and across parties to hide their own inadequacies....

Pickles' foolish grandstanding on the floods (along with his populist but foolish vote-grabber on weekly bin collections) should be a total embarrassment to the Tories.
No digs are needed at the Conservative Party - Pickles dug himself deeply enough in that interview on Sunday! Like so many he turned on an agency working extremely hard despite funding caps... whatever caused the flooding it wasn't the Environment Agency! The same thing is repeated across government and across parties to hide their own inadequacies.... Pickles' foolish grandstanding on the floods (along with his populist but foolish vote-grabber on weekly bin collections) should be a total embarrassment to the Tories. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 22

12:21pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Fishergate Fred says...

Dredging the Ouse will make no difference to flooding in the middle of York. It was only done in the past for the purpose of navigation. It will make no difference because of the Naburn weir. The Ouse as it passes through York is effectively a long, thin lake. Ever wondered why in drought the water seems to barely be flowing, but the water level never drops below the zero mark on Ouse Bridge? This minimum volume of water is static and never changes (unless you were somehow to raise or lower Naburn weir. If you dredged the Ouse through York, all that would happen is that static volume of water would be bigger but the surface level would not change. It would still flood just as badly when the volume of water flowing through York exceeds the capacity of the river channel *on top* of the static volume of water.

This is not a comment on whether dredging works on rivers without a barrier. I do wonder though why Eric Pickles uses the term "experts" with such disdain? What are his qualifications to question scientific advice from "experts"?
Dredging the Ouse will make no difference to flooding in the middle of York. It was only done in the past for the purpose of navigation. It will make no difference because of the Naburn weir. The Ouse as it passes through York is effectively a long, thin lake. Ever wondered why in drought the water seems to barely be flowing, but the water level never drops below the zero mark on Ouse Bridge? This minimum volume of water is static and never changes (unless you were somehow to raise or lower Naburn weir. If you dredged the Ouse through York, all that would happen is that static volume of water would be bigger but the surface level would not change. It would still flood just as badly when the volume of water flowing through York exceeds the capacity of the river channel *on top* of the static volume of water. This is not a comment on whether dredging works on rivers without a barrier. I do wonder though why Eric Pickles uses the term "experts" with such disdain? What are his qualifications to question scientific advice from "experts"? Fishergate Fred
  • Score: 31

12:27pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Yorkie41 says...

Yorkie41 wrote:
whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
I seem to remember after the 1947 floods seeing Recklaw a barge that did this dredging, and it did do what it was supposed to do for many years. But in those days the river Ouse used to dry up in the summer and freeze up in the winter.But to say that dredging won't help is misguided.
I notice that people who refer to Dredging are being marked downwards. what a shame to a useful debate.Democracy at its worst (SAD)
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]I seem to remember after the 1947 floods seeing Recklaw a barge that did this dredging, and it did do what it was supposed to do for many years. But in those days the river Ouse used to dry up in the summer and freeze up in the winter.But to say that dredging won't help is misguided.[/p][/quote]I notice that people who refer to Dredging are being marked downwards. what a shame to a useful debate.Democracy at its worst (SAD) Yorkie41
  • Score: -6

12:32pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

Simple physics which is so out of fashion these days - a waste of time on the basis that you can hold more water in a slightly deeper channel, but if you are trying to get the water from A to B and the level at B is not above the current bed of the river, dredging will work.

Pickles acts like a buffoon in every area he has influence in, more fool Cameron for not reigning him in.
Simple physics which is so out of fashion these days - a waste of time on the basis that you can hold more water in a slightly deeper channel, but if you are trying to get the water from A to B and the level at B is not above the current bed of the river, dredging will work. Pickles acts like a buffoon in every area he has influence in, more fool Cameron for not reigning him in. Mulgrave
  • Score: 16

12:32pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Thecynic says...

Where's Noah when you need him?
Where's Noah when you need him? Thecynic
  • Score: 1

1:01pm Tue 11 Feb 14

mel_drew says...

The so called dredging carried out by Reklaw was never more than the digging of a few shallow holes in the river bed to extract builders sand. It cannot have had any effect on the river level. As long as there's a weir at Naburn, the Ouse in York will flood. Live with it. If you can't, don't live or work in areas liable to flood.
The so called dredging carried out by Reklaw was never more than the digging of a few shallow holes in the river bed to extract builders sand. It cannot have had any effect on the river level. As long as there's a weir at Naburn, the Ouse in York will flood. Live with it. If you can't, don't live or work in areas liable to flood. mel_drew
  • Score: 14

1:03pm Tue 11 Feb 14

meme says...

Then answer must be to have some form of dismountable barrier along the edge of the river in the staith areas of York
I seem to recall a design was done using attractive posts into which slotted in metal barriers which would contain the river except in exceptional circumstances
The fact is the water has to go somewhere and if we stop it flooding York downstream will get it even worse!! UNLESS it can be held up further upstream and released over months but that means more 'Clifton Ings' style lakes and where would those be?
Then answer must be to have some form of dismountable barrier along the edge of the river in the staith areas of York I seem to recall a design was done using attractive posts into which slotted in metal barriers [similar to those on houses in York] which would contain the river except in exceptional circumstances The fact is the water has to go somewhere and if we stop it flooding York downstream will get it even worse!! UNLESS it can be held up further upstream and released over months but that means more 'Clifton Ings' style lakes and where would those be? meme
  • Score: 12

1:49pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Minguel says...

40 signatures seems like a bit of a poor effort to me.
40 signatures seems like a bit of a poor effort to me. Minguel
  • Score: 13

1:57pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

voiceofnormalpeople wrote:
In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do.

Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.
From what I understand it is pumping stations that are needed more than dredgers as the outflow of the river is halted every time that the tide comes in. If more pumping stations were available the water could be pumped out even when the tide is in and the tidal gates closed.
[quote][p][bold]voiceofnormalpeople[/bold] wrote: In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do. Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.[/p][/quote]From what I understand it is pumping stations that are needed more than dredgers as the outflow of the river is halted every time that the tide comes in. If more pumping stations were available the water could be pumped out even when the tide is in and the tidal gates closed. Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: 13

2:17pm Tue 11 Feb 14

old_geezer says...

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
voiceofnormalpeople wrote:
In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do.

Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.
From what I understand it is pumping stations that are needed more than dredgers as the outflow of the river is halted every time that the tide comes in. If more pumping stations were available the water could be pumped out even when the tide is in and the tidal gates closed.
This reminds me of "Porridge" when Mackay asks Fletcher where they put the excavated earth from an escape tunnel, and having secured the brandy reward Fletch vouchsafes that they dug another hole and put in there.

Where would these extra pumping stations pump the water to - into the Humber estuary below Selby (which floods)? Good luck finding the money for that!
[quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceofnormalpeople[/bold] wrote: In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do. Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.[/p][/quote]From what I understand it is pumping stations that are needed more than dredgers as the outflow of the river is halted every time that the tide comes in. If more pumping stations were available the water could be pumped out even when the tide is in and the tidal gates closed.[/p][/quote]This reminds me of "Porridge" when Mackay asks Fletcher where they put the excavated earth from an escape tunnel, and having secured the brandy reward Fletch vouchsafes that they dug another hole and put in there. Where would these extra pumping stations pump the water to - into the Humber estuary below Selby (which floods)? Good luck finding the money for that! old_geezer
  • Score: 14

2:52pm Tue 11 Feb 14

mjgyork says...

old_geezer wrote:
As several have pointed out, dredging is not the answer for the Ouse. Slightly increasing the depth of the bed is trivial in comparison to the volume of water that flows down after heavy rain.The worst problem is the "gripping" (for installing which farmers were misguidedly paid a generation or two ago) on the upland moors, which is now being slowly reversed.
Absolutely! This misguided practice by the moorland farmers has also led to an increase n moorland fires. They were warned about the consequences, but took no notice. But at least dredging would remove that unsightly sandbank at the Ouse bridge and can not do any harm.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: As several have pointed out, dredging is not the answer for the Ouse. Slightly increasing the depth of the bed is trivial in comparison to the volume of water that flows down after heavy rain.The worst problem is the "gripping" (for installing which farmers were misguidedly paid a generation or two ago) on the upland moors, which is now being slowly reversed.[/p][/quote]Absolutely! This misguided practice by the moorland farmers has also led to an increase n moorland fires. They were warned about the consequences, but took no notice. But at least dredging would remove that unsightly sandbank at the Ouse bridge and can not do any harm. mjgyork
  • Score: 8

3:07pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

I used to sing a song at school which went;

Don't build your house on the sandy-land,
Don't build it too near the shore,
Well, it may look kind of nice
But you'll have to build it twice,
Oh, you'll have to build your house once more.

You better build your house upon the rock,
Make a good foundation on a solid spot.
And though the storms may come and go,
The peace of God you will know.

I can’t help but read this article and thank god I was taught such basic architecture as a young child. Praise the lord.
I used to sing a song at school which went; Don't build your house on the sandy-land, Don't build it too near the shore, Well, it may look kind of nice But you'll have to build it twice, Oh, you'll have to build your house once more. You better build your house upon the rock, Make a good foundation on a solid spot. And though the storms may come and go, The peace of God you will know. I can’t help but read this article and thank god I was taught such basic architecture as a young child. Praise the lord. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 14

3:20pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

Of course Skeldergate Bridge opened to allow shipping to the Bonding Warehouse and others up to Ouse Bridge. I wonder if this may have been why dredging took place - if it actually did, and was not Walkers obtaining sand with their dredger "Reklaw"?
Of course Skeldergate Bridge opened to allow shipping to the Bonding Warehouse and others up to Ouse Bridge. I wonder if this may have been why dredging took place - if it actually did, and was not Walkers obtaining sand with their dredger "Reklaw"? Mulgrave
  • Score: 9

3:45pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Dave Ruddock says...

just like to add reference rto river height/depth. One of the main resons is the amount of waterrun off from the Moors north of york, Peets lifting stopped the saoking up of rain water. then the Reklaw (Wakkers building Co dredger) did help by dredging form North Bounde-ry of York to South of York. the channel was a lot wider, and for those that do not know York wa a cargo boat discharge point. Now the council and goernment desided to build ever higher brick banks. what do the citizens of York want (A Brick wall 20 fet high) and (Deepen the river and constant dredge) and reinpose somesort of government on the Moors. one last thing reference Foss lock, its there as the Foss is lower then the Ouse , check 2000 floods
just like to add reference rto river height/depth. One of the main resons is the amount of waterrun off from the Moors north of york, Peets lifting stopped the saoking up of rain water. then the Reklaw (Wakkers building Co dredger) did help by dredging form North Bounde-ry of York to South of York. the channel was a lot wider, and for those that do not know York wa a cargo boat discharge point. Now the council and goernment desided to build ever higher brick banks. what do the citizens of York want (A Brick wall 20 fet high) and (Deepen the river and constant dredge) and reinpose somesort of government on the Moors. one last thing reference Foss lock, its there as the Foss is lower then the Ouse , check 2000 floods Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Tue 11 Feb 14

PhilR@Strike says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
While I can understand the concerns of people living near rivers, latching onto dredging as a solution is simply not credible. The nonsense spouted by Eric Pickles last weekend was a pure attempt to grab votes. Ignore the simplistic solutions...look here to see what this group of eminent people in the field have to say...(in short, dredging is not the answer). http://www.scienceme diacentre.org/expert -reaction-to-somerse t-flooding/ Longer term solutions are needed, the current problems are not the 'fault' of any agency or the government. We must follow the scientific consensus on climate change rather than barmy conspiracy theorists... i.e. it's serious, man-made and likely to be already contributing to extreme weather events. Pickles' nonsense on dredging was some of the worst politics I have seen in many years...not least because its giving people false hope.
To be fair, Eric Pickles was talking specifically about the Somerset Levels, which have particular needs (regular dredging and water pumps).
Agree that dredging is not the all fits one size solution.
Mind appears the EA dropped the ball in Somerset’s case?
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: While I can understand the concerns of people living near rivers, latching onto dredging as a solution is simply not credible. The nonsense spouted by Eric Pickles last weekend was a pure attempt to grab votes. Ignore the simplistic solutions...look here to see what this group of eminent people in the field have to say...(in short, dredging is not the answer). http://www.scienceme diacentre.org/expert -reaction-to-somerse t-flooding/ Longer term solutions are needed, the current problems are not the 'fault' of any agency or the government. We must follow the scientific consensus on climate change rather than barmy conspiracy theorists... i.e. it's serious, man-made and likely to be already contributing to extreme weather events. Pickles' nonsense on dredging was some of the worst politics I have seen in many years...not least because its giving people false hope.[/p][/quote]To be fair, Eric Pickles was talking specifically about the Somerset Levels, which have particular needs (regular dredging and water pumps). Agree that dredging is not the all fits one size solution. Mind appears the EA dropped the ball in Somerset’s case? PhilR@Strike
  • Score: -3

4:09pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

old_geezer wrote:
Big Bad Wolf wrote:
voiceofnormalpeople wrote:
In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do.

Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.
From what I understand it is pumping stations that are needed more than dredgers as the outflow of the river is halted every time that the tide comes in. If more pumping stations were available the water could be pumped out even when the tide is in and the tidal gates closed.
This reminds me of "Porridge" when Mackay asks Fletcher where they put the excavated earth from an escape tunnel, and having secured the brandy reward Fletch vouchsafes that they dug another hole and put in there.

Where would these extra pumping stations pump the water to - into the Humber estuary below Selby (which floods)? Good luck finding the money for that!
The pumping stations would be located at the tidal barriers that currently stop the flow of the river when the tide is too high.
These pumps exist now but need to be upgraded to cope with additional flow. This is how the Dutch cope, they have additional drainage channels to allow the water to be dispersed to other tidal exits.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceofnormalpeople[/bold] wrote: In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do. Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.[/p][/quote]From what I understand it is pumping stations that are needed more than dredgers as the outflow of the river is halted every time that the tide comes in. If more pumping stations were available the water could be pumped out even when the tide is in and the tidal gates closed.[/p][/quote]This reminds me of "Porridge" when Mackay asks Fletcher where they put the excavated earth from an escape tunnel, and having secured the brandy reward Fletch vouchsafes that they dug another hole and put in there. Where would these extra pumping stations pump the water to - into the Humber estuary below Selby (which floods)? Good luck finding the money for that![/p][/quote]The pumping stations would be located at the tidal barriers that currently stop the flow of the river when the tide is too high. These pumps exist now but need to be upgraded to cope with additional flow. This is how the Dutch cope, they have additional drainage channels to allow the water to be dispersed to other tidal exits. Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: 7

4:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Pedro wrote:
The river used to be dredged on a regular basis. Used to stop and watch it in my youth. The City seemed to flood just as often though. I suppose all some people have to hang on to is this "magic bullet."
Quite right.

Dredging is fast becoming the Emperors new clothes. It may increase the through flow slightly, but if people think it will stop flooding then I'll have what their smoking please.
The River Ouse was regularly dredged at the the Queens Staithe side of the Ouse Bridge by Walkers Builders Merchants, they used a dredging Barge called Reklaw (Walker spelt backwards) and it removed the sand bar and kept the third arch open and navigable, whilst dredging will not stop serious flooding it must surely increase the volume of water a river can take before over topping its banks - no doubt someone with a hydrology degree could answer the question.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: The river used to be dredged on a regular basis. Used to stop and watch it in my youth. The City seemed to flood just as often though. I suppose all some people have to hang on to is this "magic bullet."[/p][/quote]Quite right. Dredging is fast becoming the Emperors new clothes. It may increase the through flow slightly, but if people think it will stop flooding then I'll have what their smoking please.[/p][/quote]The River Ouse was regularly dredged at the the Queens Staithe side of the Ouse Bridge by Walkers Builders Merchants, they used a dredging Barge called Reklaw (Walker spelt backwards) and it removed the sand bar and kept the third arch open and navigable, whilst dredging will not stop serious flooding it must surely increase the volume of water a river can take before over topping its banks - no doubt someone with a hydrology degree could answer the question. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 5

4:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Is my maths assessment accurate? Don't you need to dredge out the same cubic capacity of silt as there is in the flood water over-spill to achieve any result. If so that would be impossible to achieve.
Is my maths assessment accurate? Don't you need to dredge out the same cubic capacity of silt as there is in the flood water over-spill to achieve any result. If so that would be impossible to achieve. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 20

4:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Diogenes2 says...

whitehorse wrote:
Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?
Dredging will increase the profile of the river so that it can carry more water.
More water can put pressure on the rubbish and silt on the river bottom will move, hence reduce the level of flooding.
Dredging will cost millions every five or ten years, but it will be worth it.
[quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?[/p][/quote]Dredging will increase the profile of the river so that it can carry more water. More water can put pressure on the rubbish and silt on the river bottom will move, hence reduce the level of flooding. Dredging will cost millions every five or ten years, but it will be worth it. Diogenes2
  • Score: -9

4:47pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Diogenes2 says...

bolero wrote:
Is'nt this again a question of priorities? Money being expended in the wrong direction. Exhibition Square, Kings Square, cycle paths here there and everywhere, 20mph zones and so on and so on. These things could be shelved; in some cases for ever. Put the money from fines imposed on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate to some sensible use, like flood defences. Not only the Ouse is in need of dredging, what happened to the Foss Drainage board. I haven't seen any action on the Foss for many a year. How long since roadside ditches and culverts were cleared? Let's not forget that householders are partly to blame for the excess water lying around green areas and footpaths too. How much garden rubbish is thrown over the fence into culverts which were designed to prevent flooding but have now virtually disappeared through this practice? How much builders rubbish ends up in becks and sewers causing blockages? Silt and wintertime grit gathers in gutters and drainage channels and when heavy rain arrives it is all swept into the drains thereby causing more problems. Some serious thought needs to be given to these issues before we start blaming everybody with a government name tag. And if there is one thing that really riles me is these media reporters who stand in a convenient pool of water thrusting a microphone up the nose of totally fed up passers by who have been effected by the floods. Get a pair of rubber gloves on and start heaving a few sandbags around. In other words, do something useful for a change.
Yes.
Priorities in and around York are quite stupid, thanks to York Council "officers" who spend our money foolishly on vanity projects.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Is'nt this again a question of priorities? Money being expended in the wrong direction. Exhibition Square, Kings Square, cycle paths here there and everywhere, 20mph zones and so on and so on. These things could be shelved; in some cases for ever. Put the money from fines imposed on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate to some sensible use, like flood defences. Not only the Ouse is in need of dredging, what happened to the Foss Drainage board. I haven't seen any action on the Foss for many a year. How long since roadside ditches and culverts were cleared? Let's not forget that householders are partly to blame for the excess water lying around green areas and footpaths too. How much garden rubbish is thrown over the fence into culverts which were designed to prevent flooding but have now virtually disappeared through this practice? How much builders rubbish ends up in becks and sewers causing blockages? Silt and wintertime grit gathers in gutters and drainage channels and when heavy rain arrives it is all swept into the drains thereby causing more problems. Some serious thought needs to be given to these issues before we start blaming everybody with a government name tag. And if there is one thing that really riles me is these media reporters who stand in a convenient pool of water thrusting a microphone up the nose of totally fed up passers by who have been effected by the floods. Get a pair of rubber gloves on and start heaving a few sandbags around. In other words, do something useful for a change.[/p][/quote]Yes. Priorities in and around York are quite stupid, thanks to York Council "officers" who spend our money foolishly on vanity projects. Diogenes2
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Diogenes2 says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
While I can understand the concerns of people living near rivers, latching onto dredging as a solution is simply not credible. The nonsense spouted by Eric Pickles last weekend was a pure attempt to grab votes.

Ignore the simplistic solutions...look here to see what this group of eminent people in the field have to say...(in short, dredging is not the answer).

http://www.scienceme

diacentre.org/expert

-reaction-to-somerse

t-flooding/

Longer term solutions are needed, the current problems are not the 'fault' of any agency or the government. We must follow the scientific consensus on climate change rather than barmy conspiracy theorists... i.e. it's serious, man-made and likely to be already contributing to extreme weather events.

Pickles' nonsense on dredging was some of the worst politics I have seen in many years...not least because its giving people false hope.
The problem IS the fault of the Conservative government, and the Labour before that.
The Environmental Agency is at fault, too.
The wait until there is a problem and run to the media saying what a good lot of chaps they are.
Proactive measures are needed, and now!
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: While I can understand the concerns of people living near rivers, latching onto dredging as a solution is simply not credible. The nonsense spouted by Eric Pickles last weekend was a pure attempt to grab votes. Ignore the simplistic solutions...look here to see what this group of eminent people in the field have to say...(in short, dredging is not the answer). http://www.scienceme diacentre.org/expert -reaction-to-somerse t-flooding/ Longer term solutions are needed, the current problems are not the 'fault' of any agency or the government. We must follow the scientific consensus on climate change rather than barmy conspiracy theorists... i.e. it's serious, man-made and likely to be already contributing to extreme weather events. Pickles' nonsense on dredging was some of the worst politics I have seen in many years...not least because its giving people false hope.[/p][/quote]The problem IS the fault of the Conservative government, and the Labour before that. The Environmental Agency is at fault, too. The wait until there is a problem and run to the media saying what a good lot of chaps they are. Proactive measures are needed, and now! Diogenes2
  • Score: -8

4:53pm Tue 11 Feb 14

E=MC^2 says...

The only long term sustainable solution is no new development in flood plains and no re development of existing areas in flood plains when buildings reach the end of their current use. Settlements on highly erodible east coast are probably not infinitely sustainable. See you back here in 400 years to check out if governments and people really have grasped what is needed.
The only long term sustainable solution is no new development in flood plains and no re development of existing areas in flood plains when buildings reach the end of their current use. Settlements on highly erodible east coast are probably not infinitely sustainable. See you back here in 400 years to check out if governments and people really have grasped what is needed. E=MC^2
  • Score: 11

4:58pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

Yorkie41 wrote:
Yorkie41 wrote:
whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
I seem to remember after the 1947 floods seeing Recklaw a barge that did this dredging, and it did do what it was supposed to do for many years. But in those days the river Ouse used to dry up in the summer and freeze up in the winter.But to say that dredging won't help is misguided.
I notice that people who refer to Dredging are being marked downwards. what a shame to a useful debate.Democracy at its worst (SAD)
I think we should all take these scores with a pinch of salt, sadly the pluss and minus scoring system no longer means anything and the press instead of ignoring it - OR PERHAPS THEY ARE IN COLUSION WITH IT? - should either remove it or devise another way of showing agreement or disagreement with a comment.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]I seem to remember after the 1947 floods seeing Recklaw a barge that did this dredging, and it did do what it was supposed to do for many years. But in those days the river Ouse used to dry up in the summer and freeze up in the winter.But to say that dredging won't help is misguided.[/p][/quote]I notice that people who refer to Dredging are being marked downwards. what a shame to a useful debate.Democracy at its worst (SAD)[/p][/quote]I think we should all take these scores with a pinch of salt, sadly the pluss and minus scoring system no longer means anything and the press instead of ignoring it - OR PERHAPS THEY ARE IN COLUSION WITH IT? - should either remove it or devise another way of showing agreement or disagreement with a comment. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -5

5:12pm Tue 11 Feb 14

arg says...

Was rather astonished when, after I don't know how many millions of gallons of water flooded the levels Pickles (any relative of William and Mabel?) opened his mouth about dredging - as if that would have made one halfpenny's worth of difference. Elementary mathematics will show anyone that digging holes at the bottom of a river will have marginal effects on the flow while efforts at the wider top of the river will have significant impact. And as many have shown, the river is throttled by a wier at Naburn. By far the most effective control is proper meadows and ings allowing the water to create resevoirs that can capture water faster than the river can take it away. In some parts of the world artificial lakes are built that are normally empty but which can collect enormous amounts of water at peak rainfall. Large surface areas also allow for evaporation (I know, more atmospheric water vapour) but then if you melt the icecap the water has to go somewhere, These sorts of mitigation are pound for pound 100s of times more effective than extremely expensive dredging. And dredging to improve the flow even by 1% will cost a fortune.

The correct approach is to have significantly improved land management, less housing in flood plains; and a total ban on the development on agricultural land. I know, there are knock on issues, but there are many, many reasons to start planning for the country's long term survival, and not looking for ways to boost commercial land owner's pockets.
Was rather astonished when, after I don't know how many millions of gallons of water flooded the levels Pickles (any relative of William and Mabel?) opened his mouth about dredging - as if that would have made one halfpenny's worth of difference. Elementary mathematics will show anyone that digging holes at the bottom of a river will have marginal effects on the flow while efforts at the wider top of the river will have significant impact. And as many have shown, the river is throttled by a wier at Naburn. By far the most effective control is proper meadows and ings allowing the water to create resevoirs that can capture water faster than the river can take it away. In some parts of the world artificial lakes are built that are normally empty but which can collect enormous amounts of water at peak rainfall. Large surface areas also allow for evaporation (I know, more atmospheric water vapour) but then if you melt the icecap the water has to go somewhere, These sorts of mitigation are pound for pound 100s of times more effective than extremely expensive dredging. And dredging to improve the flow even by 1% will cost a fortune. The correct approach is to have significantly improved land management, less housing in flood plains; and a total ban on the development on agricultural land. I know, there are knock on issues, but there are many, many reasons to start planning for the country's long term survival, and not looking for ways to boost commercial land owner's pockets. arg
  • Score: 15

5:14pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Caecilius says...

PhilR@Strike wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
While I can understand the concerns of people living near rivers, latching onto dredging as a solution is simply not credible. The nonsense spouted by Eric Pickles last weekend was a pure attempt to grab votes. Ignore the simplistic solutions...look here to see what this group of eminent people in the field have to say...(in short, dredging is not the answer). http://www.scienceme diacentre.org/expert -reaction-to-somerse t-flooding/ Longer term solutions are needed, the current problems are not the 'fault' of any agency or the government. We must follow the scientific consensus on climate change rather than barmy conspiracy theorists... i.e. it's serious, man-made and likely to be already contributing to extreme weather events. Pickles' nonsense on dredging was some of the worst politics I have seen in many years...not least because its giving people false hope.
To be fair, Eric Pickles was talking specifically about the Somerset Levels, which have particular needs (regular dredging and water pumps).
Agree that dredging is not the all fits one size solution.
Mind appears the EA dropped the ball in Somerset’s case?
What Pickles carefully neglects to mention is that (a) despite the impression he tries so hard to give, the Environment Agency - like all executive agencies - is and always has been responsible to the relevant government minister and (b) the decision to cease dredging the Levels was taken almost immediately after the EA was established by the last Conservative government, when the minister responsible was John Selwyn Gummer. The Labour government stuck with it, as has the current one.
[quote][p][bold]PhilR@Strike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: While I can understand the concerns of people living near rivers, latching onto dredging as a solution is simply not credible. The nonsense spouted by Eric Pickles last weekend was a pure attempt to grab votes. Ignore the simplistic solutions...look here to see what this group of eminent people in the field have to say...(in short, dredging is not the answer). http://www.scienceme diacentre.org/expert -reaction-to-somerse t-flooding/ Longer term solutions are needed, the current problems are not the 'fault' of any agency or the government. We must follow the scientific consensus on climate change rather than barmy conspiracy theorists... i.e. it's serious, man-made and likely to be already contributing to extreme weather events. Pickles' nonsense on dredging was some of the worst politics I have seen in many years...not least because its giving people false hope.[/p][/quote]To be fair, Eric Pickles was talking specifically about the Somerset Levels, which have particular needs (regular dredging and water pumps). Agree that dredging is not the all fits one size solution. Mind appears the EA dropped the ball in Somerset’s case?[/p][/quote]What Pickles carefully neglects to mention is that (a) despite the impression he tries so hard to give, the Environment Agency - like all executive agencies - is and always has been responsible to the relevant government minister and (b) the decision to cease dredging the Levels was taken almost immediately after the EA was established by the last Conservative government, when the minister responsible was John Selwyn Gummer. The Labour government stuck with it, as has the current one. Caecilius
  • Score: 7

5:22pm Tue 11 Feb 14

roadwars says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Yorkie41 wrote:
Yorkie41 wrote:
whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
I seem to remember after the 1947 floods seeing Recklaw a barge that did this dredging, and it did do what it was supposed to do for many years. But in those days the river Ouse used to dry up in the summer and freeze up in the winter.But to say that dredging won't help is misguided.
I notice that people who refer to Dredging are being marked downwards. what a shame to a useful debate.Democracy at its worst (SAD)
I think we should all take these scores with a pinch of salt, sadly the pluss and minus scoring system no longer means anything and the press instead of ignoring it - OR PERHAPS THEY ARE IN COLUSION WITH IT? - should either remove it or devise another way of showing agreement or disagreement with a comment.
Igiveinthen wrote: I think we should all take these scores with a pinch of salt, sadly the pluss and minus scoring system no longer means anything and the press instead of ignoring it - OR PERHAPS THEY ARE IN COLUSION WITH IT? - should either remove it or devise another way of showing agreement or disagreement with a comment.


The scoring seems pretty accurate so far on this one, most comments dissagree with dredging and most voting backs that up, I'm sure there's time for that to change though...
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]I seem to remember after the 1947 floods seeing Recklaw a barge that did this dredging, and it did do what it was supposed to do for many years. But in those days the river Ouse used to dry up in the summer and freeze up in the winter.But to say that dredging won't help is misguided.[/p][/quote]I notice that people who refer to Dredging are being marked downwards. what a shame to a useful debate.Democracy at its worst (SAD)[/p][/quote]I think we should all take these scores with a pinch of salt, sadly the pluss and minus scoring system no longer means anything and the press instead of ignoring it - OR PERHAPS THEY ARE IN COLUSION WITH IT? - should either remove it or devise another way of showing agreement or disagreement with a comment.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: I think we should all take these scores with a pinch of salt, sadly the pluss and minus scoring system no longer means anything and the press instead of ignoring it - OR PERHAPS THEY ARE IN COLUSION WITH IT? - should either remove it or devise another way of showing agreement or disagreement with a comment.[/p][/quote] The scoring seems pretty accurate so far on this one, most comments dissagree with dredging and most voting backs that up, I'm sure there's time for that to change though... roadwars
  • Score: 6

5:54pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

I suggest that dredging/improved pumping may have helped in Somerset to avert the level of flooding that was experienced around Christmas time, when the ground was not completely saturated but sufficient run off into water courses and rivers in a short space of time caused flooding. The situation now is entirely different from that of six weeks ago, the repeat after repeat of torrential rain, apparently the worst going back to 1760, has presumably made the ground unable to take a single drop more water, and measures that would alleviate "flash" flooding become irrelevant - even concrete and tarmac areas will have totally saturated ground beneath them in these conditions. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the subject could suggest how much extra capacity would be needed to get the flood water into the sea as fast as it is raining down. This can only happen when the sea level is lower than the outfall that is draining into it. I would guess at 5 or even 10 times, ie for every existing river or stream you would need 5 to10 of the same draining to the sea. The best dredging could hope to do would be virtually irrelevant in these conditions.
I suggest that dredging/improved pumping may have helped in Somerset to avert the level of flooding that was experienced around Christmas time, when the ground was not completely saturated but sufficient run off into water courses and rivers in a short space of time caused flooding. The situation now is entirely different from that of six weeks ago, the repeat after repeat of torrential rain, apparently the worst going back to 1760, has presumably made the ground unable to take a single drop more water, and measures that would alleviate "flash" flooding become irrelevant - even concrete and tarmac areas will have totally saturated ground beneath them in these conditions. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the subject could suggest how much extra capacity would be needed to get the flood water into the sea as fast as it is raining down. This can only happen when the sea level is lower than the outfall that is draining into it. I would guess at 5 or even 10 times, ie for every existing river or stream you would need 5 to10 of the same draining to the sea. The best dredging could hope to do would be virtually irrelevant in these conditions. Mulgrave
  • Score: 2

6:00pm Tue 11 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

Bet dredging would fetch up loads of old bikes. How many could be recycled....?
Bet dredging would fetch up loads of old bikes. How many could be recycled....? pedalling paul
  • Score: -8

6:05pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Daisy1948 says...

Having grown up in York I can honestly say that flooding in York is much less over recent years than it was when we were children. Certain areas will always flood, they always have.
Having grown up in York I can honestly say that flooding in York is much less over recent years than it was when we were children. Certain areas will always flood, they always have. Daisy1948
  • Score: 12

6:13pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Poppy01 says...

Stop building more homes with hard landscaping in the river catchment area. There is nowhere for water to soak into the land and to slowly work its way into the river system. What will happen when 1000+ homes are built on the Sugar factory site? Rain water will run straight off the roads, drives and roofs, straight into the drains and quickly into the river, causing flooding down-stream. We should be building housing estates with larger gardens (Not hard landscaped) and with roads that have grass verges with trees to take up water.
Stop building more homes with hard landscaping in the river catchment area. There is nowhere for water to soak into the land and to slowly work its way into the river system. What will happen when 1000+ homes are built on the Sugar factory site? Rain water will run straight off the roads, drives and roofs, straight into the drains and quickly into the river, causing flooding down-stream. We should be building housing estates with larger gardens (Not hard landscaped) and with roads that have grass verges with trees to take up water. Poppy01
  • Score: 15

6:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Yorkie-Clifton says...

I have lived in York all my life and am very familiar with the river, having walked my dogs over many years down there . The river has changed its habits over the years . Drainage upriver has made the river movements to be quicker and the water is clearing in York much faster than it used to . If drainage of Clifton Moor had not been sorted in the very early stages we would have experienced the experiences that Somerset are now . I believe strongly that the Ouse and Foss Rivers are managed very well . Dredging these rivers will not help much at all as the sand and silt keeps moving . When the sand was removed many years ago it was sold commercially . Maybe it would be cost effective to dredge again ?? That is all . A well managed River .
I have lived in York all my life and am very familiar with the river, having walked my dogs over many years down there . The river has changed its habits over the years . Drainage upriver has made the river movements to be quicker and the water is clearing in York much faster than it used to . If drainage of Clifton Moor had not been sorted in the very early stages we would have experienced the experiences that Somerset are now . I believe strongly that the Ouse and Foss Rivers are managed very well . Dredging these rivers will not help much at all as the sand and silt keeps moving . When the sand was removed many years ago it was sold commercially . Maybe it would be cost effective to dredge again ?? That is all . A well managed River . Yorkie-Clifton
  • Score: 9

6:53pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

Poppy01 wrote:
Stop building more homes with hard landscaping in the river catchment area. There is nowhere for water to soak into the land and to slowly work its way into the river system. What will happen when 1000+ homes are built on the Sugar factory site? Rain water will run straight off the roads, drives and roofs, straight into the drains and quickly into the river, causing flooding down-stream. We should be building housing estates with larger gardens (Not hard landscaped) and with roads that have grass verges with trees to take up water.
I have put my theory on this 3 posts before yours regarding Somerset, Poppy01 - after a season of very wet weather it makes less difference, water finds its own level in the ground under whatever we build on it but current building regulations do address this to a degree with new developments regarding materials and means of retention of storm water rather than releasing it immediately into the drainage system. Perhaps many don't realise that you now need to get building regulations approval to make additional hardstanding on an existing property, and concrete and tarmac are not acceptable because of run off contributing to flash flooding and overload of the drainage system.
[quote][p][bold]Poppy01[/bold] wrote: Stop building more homes with hard landscaping in the river catchment area. There is nowhere for water to soak into the land and to slowly work its way into the river system. What will happen when 1000+ homes are built on the Sugar factory site? Rain water will run straight off the roads, drives and roofs, straight into the drains and quickly into the river, causing flooding down-stream. We should be building housing estates with larger gardens (Not hard landscaped) and with roads that have grass verges with trees to take up water.[/p][/quote]I have put my theory on this 3 posts before yours regarding Somerset, Poppy01 - after a season of very wet weather it makes less difference, water finds its own level in the ground under whatever we build on it but current building regulations do address this to a degree with new developments regarding materials and means of retention of storm water rather than releasing it immediately into the drainage system. Perhaps many don't realise that you now need to get building regulations approval to make additional hardstanding on an existing property, and concrete and tarmac are not acceptable because of run off contributing to flash flooding and overload of the drainage system. Mulgrave
  • Score: 7

7:12pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ouseswimmer says...

whitehorse wrote:
Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?
Dredging would increase the volume of water passing any point at any time thus lowering the actual height of any flooding. It also shortens the duration of any flooding. Of course whatever depth you dredge to HAS to be higher than sea level to work.
[quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?[/p][/quote]Dredging would increase the volume of water passing any point at any time thus lowering the actual height of any flooding. It also shortens the duration of any flooding. Of course whatever depth you dredge to HAS to be higher than sea level to work. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 7

7:18pm Tue 11 Feb 14

AmusedofYork says...

Its good to see a good debate on the subject of dredging. I would like to add a few facts and figures to the debate and hopefully clear up a few misconceptions. Firstly the flood defences of York currently start way upstream at Jervaux on then River Ure where flood water is stored in the natural floodplain. There a numerous similar areas down the Ure, Swale and Nidd including Clifton Ings. Despite all these storage areas there are still between 300 and 400 cubic metres of water per second flowing under Ouse bridge on a good flood. That's 300 to 400 tonnes of water per second! The flood defence walls and flood banks in York, including the Foss Barrier, currently protect over 4000 properties from flooding.

I am informed that the River Ouse never has been dredged to prevent flooding. It was dredged in places to extract river sand for sale and to aid navigation. Reklaw was a sand dredger owned by Walkers who sold river sand and Potters of Boroughbridge had a dredger to extract gravel for sale. The area alongside Queens staith including the sandbank under Ouse Bridge was dredged to increase water depths so that barges could moor alongside the staith and I believe that the sand extracted there was actually dumped back into the river downstream near Rowntrees park. In Selby dredging was done on the bend in the river upstream of the toll bridge so that ships could turn without grounding. Localised sandbars on the inside of the river bends were removed to allow ships to get to Selby. Sadly this activity is no longer required.

The water levels are controlled by structures in the river ie the bridges and Naburn weir. Holes dredged in the river bed just fill with water and have no influence on the over all water level. Without the weir the Ouse would be tidal and in normal river flows the incoming tide would bring more silt up the river than the ebb tide could remove, hence the reason for the weir being built in the 18th century. In a big flood the weir is drowned out and no longer becomes an influence on flood levels.
Its good to see a good debate on the subject of dredging. I would like to add a few facts and figures to the debate and hopefully clear up a few misconceptions. Firstly the flood defences of York currently start way upstream at Jervaux on then River Ure where flood water is stored in the natural floodplain. There a numerous similar areas down the Ure, Swale and Nidd including Clifton Ings. Despite all these storage areas there are still between 300 and 400 cubic metres of water per second flowing under Ouse bridge on a good flood. That's 300 to 400 tonnes of water per second! The flood defence walls and flood banks in York, including the Foss Barrier, currently protect over 4000 properties from flooding. I am informed that the River Ouse never has been dredged to prevent flooding. It was dredged in places to extract river sand for sale and to aid navigation. Reklaw was a sand dredger owned by Walkers who sold river sand and Potters of Boroughbridge had a dredger to extract gravel for sale. The area alongside Queens staith including the sandbank under Ouse Bridge was dredged to increase water depths so that barges could moor alongside the staith and I believe that the sand extracted there was actually dumped back into the river downstream near Rowntrees park. In Selby dredging was done on the bend in the river upstream of the toll bridge so that ships could turn without grounding. Localised sandbars on the inside of the river bends were removed to allow ships to get to Selby. Sadly this activity is no longer required. The water levels are controlled by structures in the river ie the bridges and Naburn weir. Holes dredged in the river bed just fill with water and have no influence on the over all water level. Without the weir the Ouse would be tidal and in normal river flows the incoming tide would bring more silt up the river than the ebb tide could remove, hence the reason for the weir being built in the 18th century. In a big flood the weir is drowned out and no longer becomes an influence on flood levels. AmusedofYork
  • Score: 24

7:27pm Tue 11 Feb 14

MouseHouse says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Bet dredging would fetch up loads of old bikes. How many could be recycled....?
Paul - you're right. It's not just bikes though. beds, motorbikes, lawn mowers, bits of cars and boats...you name it will be at the bottom somewhere. This debris can cause blockages of culverts etc that drain into the Ouse and Foss, causing a backup of water.

Dredging may or may not assist, but keeping the waterways free of debris surely makes sense.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Bet dredging would fetch up loads of old bikes. How many could be recycled....?[/p][/quote]Paul - you're right. It's not just bikes though. beds, motorbikes, lawn mowers, bits of cars and boats...you name it will be at the bottom somewhere. This debris can cause blockages of culverts etc that drain into the Ouse and Foss, causing a backup of water. Dredging may or may not assist, but keeping the waterways free of debris surely makes sense. MouseHouse
  • Score: 7

8:18pm Tue 11 Feb 14

DrP says...

You can't simply equate the lack of dredging with an increase in the frequency of flooding in York, as these people do. Surely they must have noticed an increase in the frequency of heavy rain affecting the region in the same period? Besides, how can making a fairly narrow river a tiny bit deeper contain all the extra water we see in these floods? It's just a hobbyhorse that people are jumping on at the moment. It think you need to look at holding more water in the upland catchment areas for the Ouse and the Nidd, recently featured on Countryfile
You can't simply equate the lack of dredging with an increase in the frequency of flooding in York, as these people do. Surely they must have noticed an increase in the frequency of heavy rain affecting the region in the same period? Besides, how can making a fairly narrow river a tiny bit deeper contain all the extra water we see in these floods? It's just a hobbyhorse that people are jumping on at the moment. It think you need to look at holding more water in the upland catchment areas for the Ouse and the Nidd, recently featured on Countryfile DrP
  • Score: 7

8:22pm Tue 11 Feb 14

DrP says...

bolero wrote:
Is'nt this again a question of priorities? Money being expended in the wrong direction. Exhibition Square, Kings Square, cycle paths here there and everywhere, 20mph zones and so on and so on. These things could be shelved; in some cases for ever. Put the money from fines imposed on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate to some sensible use, like flood defences. Not only the Ouse is in need of dredging, what happened to the Foss Drainage board. I haven't seen any action on the Foss for many a year. How long since roadside ditches and culverts were cleared? Let's not forget that householders are partly to blame for the excess water lying around green areas and footpaths too. How much garden rubbish is thrown over the fence into culverts which were designed to prevent flooding but have now virtually disappeared through this practice? How much builders rubbish ends up in becks and sewers causing blockages? Silt and wintertime grit gathers in gutters and drainage channels and when heavy rain arrives it is all swept into the drains thereby causing more problems. Some serious thought needs to be given to these issues before we start blaming everybody with a government name tag. And if there is one thing that really riles me is these media reporters who stand in a convenient pool of water thrusting a microphone up the nose of totally fed up passers by who have been effected by the floods. Get a pair of rubber gloves on and start heaving a few sandbags around. In other words, do something useful for a change.
When was the last time the Foss flooded? I can't really remember it, yet it also never gets dredged. It's where the water is coming from and holding it there longer that will have a greater effect on flooding in York. Slowing release off the hills rather than dredging will help to manage river levels here.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Is'nt this again a question of priorities? Money being expended in the wrong direction. Exhibition Square, Kings Square, cycle paths here there and everywhere, 20mph zones and so on and so on. These things could be shelved; in some cases for ever. Put the money from fines imposed on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate to some sensible use, like flood defences. Not only the Ouse is in need of dredging, what happened to the Foss Drainage board. I haven't seen any action on the Foss for many a year. How long since roadside ditches and culverts were cleared? Let's not forget that householders are partly to blame for the excess water lying around green areas and footpaths too. How much garden rubbish is thrown over the fence into culverts which were designed to prevent flooding but have now virtually disappeared through this practice? How much builders rubbish ends up in becks and sewers causing blockages? Silt and wintertime grit gathers in gutters and drainage channels and when heavy rain arrives it is all swept into the drains thereby causing more problems. Some serious thought needs to be given to these issues before we start blaming everybody with a government name tag. And if there is one thing that really riles me is these media reporters who stand in a convenient pool of water thrusting a microphone up the nose of totally fed up passers by who have been effected by the floods. Get a pair of rubber gloves on and start heaving a few sandbags around. In other words, do something useful for a change.[/p][/quote]When was the last time the Foss flooded? I can't really remember it, yet it also never gets dredged. It's where the water is coming from and holding it there longer that will have a greater effect on flooding in York. Slowing release off the hills rather than dredging will help to manage river levels here. DrP
  • Score: 4

8:35pm Tue 11 Feb 14

welf_man says...

As a number of posters have said, sea level needs to be lower than river mouths in order for water to drain, regardless of how deep the river has been made.

The majority of the increase in temperature has been absorbed by the sea causing thermal expansion i.e. the same amount of water now takes up more space. This has led to a rise in sea level around the coast line of 12cm over the last hundred years. Tidal reaches in rivers are extending upstream meaning less drainage and the water is "bigger" making floods extend further, particularly on flood plains.

This is not going to change - a further sea level rise of up to 15cm is expected over the next 50 years. Some areas are simply not going to be able to cope with this, hence plans for managed retreat from sea level settlements on various coastlines around Britain.

Catchment lakes in flood-prone areas will help, along with flood barriers and pumping stations - which could be powered by Archimedean Screw turbines in some areas.

Ultimately though, we need to look at where and how we live and accept that we cannot conquer the tide.
As a number of posters have said, sea level needs to be lower than river mouths in order for water to drain, regardless of how deep the river has been made. The majority of the increase in temperature has been absorbed by the sea causing thermal expansion i.e. the same amount of water now takes up more space. This has led to a rise in sea level around the coast line of 12cm over the last hundred years. Tidal reaches in rivers are extending upstream meaning less drainage and the water is "bigger" making floods extend further, particularly on flood plains. This is not going to change - a further sea level rise of up to 15cm is expected over the next 50 years. Some areas are simply not going to be able to cope with this, hence plans for managed retreat from sea level settlements on various coastlines around Britain. Catchment lakes in flood-prone areas will help, along with flood barriers and pumping stations - which could be powered by Archimedean Screw turbines in some areas. Ultimately though, we need to look at where and how we live and accept that we cannot conquer the tide. welf_man
  • Score: 3

8:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

farmerpalmer says...

Lets do some simple physics folks:

Decrease the volume of a channel: reduce the velocity.
Decreasing velocity increases the rates at which silt is deposited in the water course.

So whilst dredging will not stop flash floods, it will hasten the departure of the water.

Defra etc can worry about the voles and tadpoles, i think its time common sense pregailed and our waterways are maintained as they were until the 90's.

Next argument; ooh it will cost too much: our prisons are full, get them off their back sides and work!

The foss and derwent are a shadow of their former selves due to lack of dredging, i kjow one section of the derwent that was 6 or 7ft deep, its now 2ft max. The foss in kings pool resembles a swamp with according to the depth markers over 2 metres of silt.

As for politicians... oh do shut up
Lets do some simple physics folks: Decrease the volume of a channel: reduce the velocity. Decreasing velocity increases the rates at which silt is deposited in the water course. So whilst dredging will not stop flash floods, it will hasten the departure of the water. Defra etc can worry about the voles and tadpoles, i think its time common sense pregailed and our waterways are maintained as they were until the 90's. Next argument; ooh it will cost too much: our prisons are full, get them off their back sides and work! The foss and derwent are a shadow of their former selves due to lack of dredging, i kjow one section of the derwent that was 6 or 7ft deep, its now 2ft max. The foss in kings pool resembles a swamp with according to the depth markers over 2 metres of silt. As for politicians... oh do shut up farmerpalmer
  • Score: -3

8:51pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

farmerpalmer wrote:
Lets do some simple physics folks:

Decrease the volume of a channel: reduce the velocity.
Decreasing velocity increases the rates at which silt is deposited in the water course.

So whilst dredging will not stop flash floods, it will hasten the departure of the water.

Defra etc can worry about the voles and tadpoles, i think its time common sense pregailed and our waterways are maintained as they were until the 90's.

Next argument; ooh it will cost too much: our prisons are full, get them off their back sides and work!

The foss and derwent are a shadow of their former selves due to lack of dredging, i kjow one section of the derwent that was 6 or 7ft deep, its now 2ft max. The foss in kings pool resembles a swamp with according to the depth markers over 2 metres of silt.

As for politicians... oh do shut up
Assuming you have a flow, which is not always the case with a channel of water - see various posts - I suggest decreasing the volume/size/capacity
, call it what you will, increases the velocity - same principle as an adjustable nozzle on a hose or a shower head.
[quote][p][bold]farmerpalmer[/bold] wrote: Lets do some simple physics folks: Decrease the volume of a channel: reduce the velocity. Decreasing velocity increases the rates at which silt is deposited in the water course. So whilst dredging will not stop flash floods, it will hasten the departure of the water. Defra etc can worry about the voles and tadpoles, i think its time common sense pregailed and our waterways are maintained as they were until the 90's. Next argument; ooh it will cost too much: our prisons are full, get them off their back sides and work! The foss and derwent are a shadow of their former selves due to lack of dredging, i kjow one section of the derwent that was 6 or 7ft deep, its now 2ft max. The foss in kings pool resembles a swamp with according to the depth markers over 2 metres of silt. As for politicians... oh do shut up[/p][/quote]Assuming you have a flow, which is not always the case with a channel of water - see various posts - I suggest decreasing the volume/size/capacity , call it what you will, increases the velocity - same principle as an adjustable nozzle on a hose or a shower head. Mulgrave
  • Score: 4

9:27pm Tue 11 Feb 14

jumbojet says...

whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.
[quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids. jumbojet
  • Score: 6

9:38pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

jumbojet wrote:
whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.
Interesting to note that the town of Goole was created from marshland in the mid 19th century under Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, and apart from some local issues in the surrounding areas does remarkably well at keeping above water.
[quote][p][bold]jumbojet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.[/p][/quote]Interesting to note that the town of Goole was created from marshland in the mid 19th century under Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, and apart from some local issues in the surrounding areas does remarkably well at keeping above water. Mulgrave
  • Score: 4

9:43pm Tue 11 Feb 14

AmusedofYork says...

jumbojet wrote:
whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.
I think that you are mixing up land drainage with flood prevention
[quote][p][bold]jumbojet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.[/p][/quote]I think that you are mixing up land drainage with flood prevention AmusedofYork
  • Score: 3

9:51pm Tue 11 Feb 14

AmusedofYork says...

Mulgrave wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.
Interesting to note that the town of Goole was created from marshland in the mid 19th century under Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, and apart from some local issues in the surrounding areas does remarkably well at keeping above water.
The Dutch are experts at defending their country from the sea but as 60 per cent of their land is reclaimed from the sea they have to and it costs them £6 billion a year Even the Dutch are worried about about river flooding and realise that the old methods are not sustainable. The Dutch were acknowledged experts in reclaiming and draining marshes hence the work they did in this country in the 17th century
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jumbojet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.[/p][/quote]Interesting to note that the town of Goole was created from marshland in the mid 19th century under Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, and apart from some local issues in the surrounding areas does remarkably well at keeping above water.[/p][/quote]The Dutch are experts at defending their country from the sea but as 60 per cent of their land is reclaimed from the sea they have to and it costs them £6 billion a year Even the Dutch are worried about about river flooding and realise that the old methods are not sustainable. The Dutch were acknowledged experts in reclaiming and draining marshes hence the work they did in this country in the 17th century AmusedofYork
  • Score: 6

9:57pm Tue 11 Feb 14

AmusedofYork says...

Mulgrave wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
whitehorse wrote:
Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?
Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.
Interesting to note that the town of Goole was created from marshland in the mid 19th century under Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, and apart from some local issues in the surrounding areas does remarkably well at keeping above water.
And the area is protected by extensive flood defences that were raised a few years ago to take account of rising sea levels
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jumbojet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Thank you for your answers to my question. I kind of thought that the volume of water was more relevant to the situation. It sounds like an impractical solution- kind of like painting the Forth Road Bridge. The dredging would have to take place frequently...?[/p][/quote]Confused is the word 'whitehorse' and I am also. Why don't we get the experts in to advise, and I mean the Dutch, they have forgotten more than we will ever know about water and drainage. They reclaim land that was once sea, they are good 'at it', the least we can do is consult them. I do remember as a child the Yorkshire Ouse River Board having a Priestman excavator working year on year in the dykes and culverts around Escrick and surrounding villages, making a super job, and banking at 45 degrees. This worked, the only flood I remember was 1948, the worst winter since the Met men looked out of the windows, and the banks of the river burst at Barlby, so affecting the whole area, but the RAF were at Riccall and brought the dinghies in, fun time for us kids.[/p][/quote]Interesting to note that the town of Goole was created from marshland in the mid 19th century under Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, and apart from some local issues in the surrounding areas does remarkably well at keeping above water.[/p][/quote]And the area is protected by extensive flood defences that were raised a few years ago to take account of rising sea levels AmusedofYork
  • Score: 3

10:27pm Tue 11 Feb 14

AmusedofYork says...

Diogenes2 wrote:
whitehorse wrote:
Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?
Dredging will increase the profile of the river so that it can carry more water.
More water can put pressure on the rubbish and silt on the river bottom will move, hence reduce the level of flooding.
Dredging will cost millions every five or ten years, but it will be worth it.
The Ouse in the York area is at its deepest around Poppleton and the bend near the waterworks. This is around 5 metres in normal summers levels. It is no coincidence that the channel is narrower here than in the city centre. Through the city it varies between 2.5 metres and 3.5 metres and has an undulating bed. As far as I am aware there has been little change in these depths in living memory.
[quote][p][bold]Diogenes2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Genuine question of curiosity here. How would dredging help ease the flooding? How much mud and rubbish is there on the bottom of the Ouse?[/p][/quote]Dredging will increase the profile of the river so that it can carry more water. More water can put pressure on the rubbish and silt on the river bottom will move, hence reduce the level of flooding. Dredging will cost millions every five or ten years, but it will be worth it.[/p][/quote]The Ouse in the York area is at its deepest around Poppleton and the bend near the waterworks. This is around 5 metres in normal summers levels. It is no coincidence that the channel is narrower here than in the city centre. Through the city it varies between 2.5 metres and 3.5 metres and has an undulating bed. As far as I am aware there has been little change in these depths in living memory. AmusedofYork
  • Score: 8

11:20pm Tue 11 Feb 14

VINNIE J says...

I find it totally unbelievable that it has took this long to realise that if you make a bigger hole (dredging the river and / or even making it deeper / wider) it will hold more water and therefore stop or at least reduce the risk of the river bursting its banks, Instead of building a wall or fllood bank too stop one area flooding but flooding another area that did not flood before. Not exactly rocket science is it??????????
I find it totally unbelievable that it has took this long to realise that if you make a bigger hole (dredging the river and / or even making it deeper / wider) it will hold more water and therefore stop or at least reduce the risk of the river bursting its banks, Instead of building a wall or fllood bank too stop one area flooding but flooding another area that did not flood before. Not exactly rocket science is it?????????? VINNIE J
  • Score: -7

12:41am Wed 12 Feb 14

AmusedofYork says...

VINNIE J wrote:
I find it totally unbelievable that it has took this long to realise that if you make a bigger hole (dredging the river and / or even making it deeper / wider) it will hold more water and therefore stop or at least reduce the risk of the river bursting its banks, Instead of building a wall or fllood bank too stop one area flooding but flooding another area that did not flood before. Not exactly rocket science is it??????????
I understand that the option of dredging the Ouse was considered a few years ago. It was concluded that it would have to be dredged thoroughly from Linton locks to Naburn locks to reduce flood levels by about 0.5 of a metre in York BUT the cost would be around £400 million and it would probably need redoing in a few years. No it's not rocket science
[quote][p][bold]VINNIE J[/bold] wrote: I find it totally unbelievable that it has took this long to realise that if you make a bigger hole (dredging the river and / or even making it deeper / wider) it will hold more water and therefore stop or at least reduce the risk of the river bursting its banks, Instead of building a wall or fllood bank too stop one area flooding but flooding another area that did not flood before. Not exactly rocket science is it??????????[/p][/quote]I understand that the option of dredging the Ouse was considered a few years ago. It was concluded that it would have to be dredged thoroughly from Linton locks to Naburn locks to reduce flood levels by about 0.5 of a metre in York BUT the cost would be around £400 million and it would probably need redoing in a few years. No it's not rocket science AmusedofYork
  • Score: 7

3:52am Wed 12 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

To me, dredging the river combined with the current costs of cleanup operations is just a sticking plaster. Why not just bite the bullt and put in a working solution: a big diameter pipeline from Skelton Ings to the Humber Bridge.... contolled by a sluice gate that is activated by water level sensors, so that when the water level is about 2ft from flodding the lowest part of a riverside path then the sluice gate opens, at least partially, to take the excess water away, opening further if the river level continues to rise.

The river floods because the input of water is far higher than what the river can take away. Normally, it's like having both taps running into your bathroom sink: the water flows out at the same rate it is going in... but then if you borrowed a fire engine pump and put the hose from that into your sink then you'd have a flood because the drain cannot cope with such a volume of water. Ciies in the USA have dedicated storm channels to siphon off excess water that would otherwise flood the city, and it's time we did the same here... York floods at least twice each year without fail - imagine how much money would be saved over the course of 30,40,50,60 years in not having to shut up shop followed by insurance claims and cleaning up afterward if a 2m or 3m diameter pipeline was there to take the floodwater and send it off straight into the esturary, the money saved in the long term would outweigh the costs of building the pipeline that's for certain - because it'd not only benefit York but also to an extend Cawood and Selby, and places upstream such as boroughbridge and the valleys of any river that feeds into the Ouse.
To me, dredging the river combined with the current costs of cleanup operations is just a sticking plaster. Why not just bite the bullt and put in a working solution: a big diameter pipeline from Skelton Ings to the Humber Bridge.... contolled by a sluice gate that is activated by water level sensors, so that when the water level is about 2ft from flodding the lowest part of a riverside path then the sluice gate opens, at least partially, to take the excess water away, opening further if the river level continues to rise. The river floods because the input of water is far higher than what the river can take away. Normally, it's like having both taps running into your bathroom sink: the water flows out at the same rate it is going in... but then if you borrowed a fire engine pump and put the hose from that into your sink then you'd have a flood because the drain cannot cope with such a volume of water. Ciies in the USA have dedicated storm channels to siphon off excess water that would otherwise flood the city, and it's time we did the same here... York floods at least twice each year without fail - imagine how much money would be saved over the course of 30,40,50,60 years in not having to shut up shop followed by insurance claims and cleaning up afterward if a 2m or 3m diameter pipeline was there to take the floodwater and send it off straight into the esturary, the money saved in the long term would outweigh the costs of building the pipeline that's for certain - because it'd not only benefit York but also to an extend Cawood and Selby, and places upstream such as boroughbridge and the valleys of any river that feeds into the Ouse. Magicman!
  • Score: -3

7:32am Wed 12 Feb 14

AmusedofYork says...

Magicman! wrote:
To me, dredging the river combined with the current costs of cleanup operations is just a sticking plaster. Why not just bite the bullt and put in a working solution: a big diameter pipeline from Skelton Ings to the Humber Bridge.... contolled by a sluice gate that is activated by water level sensors, so that when the water level is about 2ft from flodding the lowest part of a riverside path then the sluice gate opens, at least partially, to take the excess water away, opening further if the river level continues to rise.

The river floods because the input of water is far higher than what the river can take away. Normally, it's like having both taps running into your bathroom sink: the water flows out at the same rate it is going in... but then if you borrowed a fire engine pump and put the hose from that into your sink then you'd have a flood because the drain cannot cope with such a volume of water. Ciies in the USA have dedicated storm channels to siphon off excess water that would otherwise flood the city, and it's time we did the same here... York floods at least twice each year without fail - imagine how much money would be saved over the course of 30,40,50,60 years in not having to shut up shop followed by insurance claims and cleaning up afterward if a 2m or 3m diameter pipeline was there to take the floodwater and send it off straight into the esturary, the money saved in the long term would outweigh the costs of building the pipeline that's for certain - because it'd not only benefit York but also to an extend Cawood and Selby, and places upstream such as boroughbridge and the valleys of any river that feeds into the Ouse.
Let's talk cost/benefit. You would need at least a 30 metre diameter pipe to make any difference at all and the distance must be around at least 30 miles. Add to that the huge disruption to everything on the route - roads, railways, fields, etc and the ongoing maintenance costs. The benefits? No more than 30 properties in York and downstream remain unprotected by current flood defences and may benefit from this idea.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: To me, dredging the river combined with the current costs of cleanup operations is just a sticking plaster. Why not just bite the bullt and put in a working solution: a big diameter pipeline from Skelton Ings to the Humber Bridge.... contolled by a sluice gate that is activated by water level sensors, so that when the water level is about 2ft from flodding the lowest part of a riverside path then the sluice gate opens, at least partially, to take the excess water away, opening further if the river level continues to rise. The river floods because the input of water is far higher than what the river can take away. Normally, it's like having both taps running into your bathroom sink: the water flows out at the same rate it is going in... but then if you borrowed a fire engine pump and put the hose from that into your sink then you'd have a flood because the drain cannot cope with such a volume of water. Ciies in the USA have dedicated storm channels to siphon off excess water that would otherwise flood the city, and it's time we did the same here... York floods at least twice each year without fail - imagine how much money would be saved over the course of 30,40,50,60 years in not having to shut up shop followed by insurance claims and cleaning up afterward if a 2m or 3m diameter pipeline was there to take the floodwater and send it off straight into the esturary, the money saved in the long term would outweigh the costs of building the pipeline that's for certain - because it'd not only benefit York but also to an extend Cawood and Selby, and places upstream such as boroughbridge and the valleys of any river that feeds into the Ouse.[/p][/quote]Let's talk cost/benefit. You would need at least a 30 metre diameter pipe to make any difference at all and the distance must be around at least 30 miles. Add to that the huge disruption to everything on the route - roads, railways, fields, etc and the ongoing maintenance costs. The benefits? No more than 30 properties in York and downstream remain unprotected by current flood defences and may benefit from this idea. AmusedofYork
  • Score: 7

8:20am Wed 12 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

AmusedofYork wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
To me, dredging the river combined with the current costs of cleanup operations is just a sticking plaster. Why not just bite the bullt and put in a working solution: a big diameter pipeline from Skelton Ings to the Humber Bridge.... contolled by a sluice gate that is activated by water level sensors, so that when the water level is about 2ft from flodding the lowest part of a riverside path then the sluice gate opens, at least partially, to take the excess water away, opening further if the river level continues to rise.

The river floods because the input of water is far higher than what the river can take away. Normally, it's like having both taps running into your bathroom sink: the water flows out at the same rate it is going in... but then if you borrowed a fire engine pump and put the hose from that into your sink then you'd have a flood because the drain cannot cope with such a volume of water. Ciies in the USA have dedicated storm channels to siphon off excess water that would otherwise flood the city, and it's time we did the same here... York floods at least twice each year without fail - imagine how much money would be saved over the course of 30,40,50,60 years in not having to shut up shop followed by insurance claims and cleaning up afterward if a 2m or 3m diameter pipeline was there to take the floodwater and send it off straight into the esturary, the money saved in the long term would outweigh the costs of building the pipeline that's for certain - because it'd not only benefit York but also to an extend Cawood and Selby, and places upstream such as boroughbridge and the valleys of any river that feeds into the Ouse.
Let's talk cost/benefit. You would need at least a 30 metre diameter pipe to make any difference at all and the distance must be around at least 30 miles. Add to that the huge disruption to everything on the route - roads, railways, fields, etc and the ongoing maintenance costs. The benefits? No more than 30 properties in York and downstream remain unprotected by current flood defences and may benefit from this idea.
Interesting to note that Magicman suggests a 3 meter diameter pipeline but AmusedofYork puts forward 30 meter diameter, the former has a cross section of around 7 metres squared, the latter 100 times greater (3.142 x radius squared). I think there is a general tendency to look at this problem on the scale we would like it to be on and we can easily relate to, rather than the scale it is on. I think Pickles panders to the former - it makes him appear to be in control, the EA do have the understanding of the scale - even if they may have cut expenditure back too far.
[quote][p][bold]AmusedofYork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: To me, dredging the river combined with the current costs of cleanup operations is just a sticking plaster. Why not just bite the bullt and put in a working solution: a big diameter pipeline from Skelton Ings to the Humber Bridge.... contolled by a sluice gate that is activated by water level sensors, so that when the water level is about 2ft from flodding the lowest part of a riverside path then the sluice gate opens, at least partially, to take the excess water away, opening further if the river level continues to rise. The river floods because the input of water is far higher than what the river can take away. Normally, it's like having both taps running into your bathroom sink: the water flows out at the same rate it is going in... but then if you borrowed a fire engine pump and put the hose from that into your sink then you'd have a flood because the drain cannot cope with such a volume of water. Ciies in the USA have dedicated storm channels to siphon off excess water that would otherwise flood the city, and it's time we did the same here... York floods at least twice each year without fail - imagine how much money would be saved over the course of 30,40,50,60 years in not having to shut up shop followed by insurance claims and cleaning up afterward if a 2m or 3m diameter pipeline was there to take the floodwater and send it off straight into the esturary, the money saved in the long term would outweigh the costs of building the pipeline that's for certain - because it'd not only benefit York but also to an extend Cawood and Selby, and places upstream such as boroughbridge and the valleys of any river that feeds into the Ouse.[/p][/quote]Let's talk cost/benefit. You would need at least a 30 metre diameter pipe to make any difference at all and the distance must be around at least 30 miles. Add to that the huge disruption to everything on the route - roads, railways, fields, etc and the ongoing maintenance costs. The benefits? No more than 30 properties in York and downstream remain unprotected by current flood defences and may benefit from this idea.[/p][/quote]Interesting to note that Magicman suggests a 3 meter diameter pipeline but AmusedofYork puts forward 30 meter diameter, the former has a cross section of around 7 metres squared, the latter 100 times greater (3.142 x radius squared). I think there is a general tendency to look at this problem on the scale we would like it to be on and we can easily relate to, rather than the scale it is on. I think Pickles panders to the former - it makes him appear to be in control, the EA do have the understanding of the scale - even if they may have cut expenditure back too far. Mulgrave
  • Score: 4

8:53am Wed 12 Feb 14

again says...

voiceofnormalpeople wrote:
In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do.

Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.
Well obviously if they live below sea level they don't get fewer floods because they dredge the rivers!

Holland does have a lot of pumps, though.
[quote][p][bold]voiceofnormalpeople[/bold] wrote: In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do. Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.[/p][/quote]Well obviously if they live below sea level they don't get fewer floods because they dredge the rivers! Holland does have a lot of pumps, though. again
  • Score: 1

9:46am Wed 12 Feb 14

Sugarpop says...

Did anyone see this peice of self congratulation in the Guardian yesterday?

http://www.theguardi
an.com/society/2014/
feb/11/york-flooding
-defences-government
-investment

Comments section looking rather empty so suspect not.
Did anyone see this peice of self congratulation in the Guardian yesterday? http://www.theguardi an.com/society/2014/ feb/11/york-flooding -defences-government -investment Comments section looking rather empty so suspect not. Sugarpop
  • Score: 3

10:07pm Wed 12 Feb 14

VINNIE J says...

AmusedofYork wrote:
VINNIE J wrote:
I find it totally unbelievable that it has took this long to realise that if you make a bigger hole (dredging the river and / or even making it deeper / wider) it will hold more water and therefore stop or at least reduce the risk of the river bursting its banks, Instead of building a wall or fllood bank too stop one area flooding but flooding another area that did not flood before. Not exactly rocket science is it??????????
I understand that the option of dredging the Ouse was considered a few years ago. It was concluded that it would have to be dredged thoroughly from Linton locks to Naburn locks to reduce flood levels by about 0.5 of a metre in York BUT the cost would be around £400 million and it would probably need redoing in a few years. No it's not rocket science
Correct its not rocket science its about money. How much do we send abroad every time there is a disaster? Prob would cost a lot of money, but doubt £400 million, and a lot less than we send abroad for disasters and sticking our nose into every war abroad. Without doubt it would need doing every year, just like it used to be, never mind every few years. Perhaps never mind just dredging the rivers, they could be dug out deeper and or wider, therefore would hold more water. Ditches could be cleaned out and made bigger, more ditches could be made to replace those that have been filled in etc etc. So no AmusedofYork its not rocket science its common sense.
[quote][p][bold]AmusedofYork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VINNIE J[/bold] wrote: I find it totally unbelievable that it has took this long to realise that if you make a bigger hole (dredging the river and / or even making it deeper / wider) it will hold more water and therefore stop or at least reduce the risk of the river bursting its banks, Instead of building a wall or fllood bank too stop one area flooding but flooding another area that did not flood before. Not exactly rocket science is it??????????[/p][/quote]I understand that the option of dredging the Ouse was considered a few years ago. It was concluded that it would have to be dredged thoroughly from Linton locks to Naburn locks to reduce flood levels by about 0.5 of a metre in York BUT the cost would be around £400 million and it would probably need redoing in a few years. No it's not rocket science[/p][/quote]Correct its not rocket science its about money. How much do we send abroad every time there is a disaster? Prob would cost a lot of money, but doubt £400 million, and a lot less than we send abroad for disasters and sticking our nose into every war abroad. Without doubt it would need doing every year, just like it used to be, never mind every few years. Perhaps never mind just dredging the rivers, they could be dug out deeper and or wider, therefore would hold more water. Ditches could be cleaned out and made bigger, more ditches could be made to replace those that have been filled in etc etc. So no AmusedofYork its not rocket science its common sense. VINNIE J
  • Score: -5

12:12am Thu 13 Feb 14

AmusedofYork says...

VINNIE J wrote:
AmusedofYork wrote:
VINNIE J wrote:
I find it totally unbelievable that it has took this long to realise that if you make a bigger hole (dredging the river and / or even making it deeper / wider) it will hold more water and therefore stop or at least reduce the risk of the river bursting its banks, Instead of building a wall or fllood bank too stop one area flooding but flooding another area that did not flood before. Not exactly rocket science is it??????????
I understand that the option of dredging the Ouse was considered a few years ago. It was concluded that it would have to be dredged thoroughly from Linton locks to Naburn locks to reduce flood levels by about 0.5 of a metre in York BUT the cost would be around £400 million and it would probably need redoing in a few years. No it's not rocket science
Correct its not rocket science its about money. How much do we send abroad every time there is a disaster? Prob would cost a lot of money, but doubt £400 million, and a lot less than we send abroad for disasters and sticking our nose into every war abroad. Without doubt it would need doing every year, just like it used to be, never mind every few years. Perhaps never mind just dredging the rivers, they could be dug out deeper and or wider, therefore would hold more water. Ditches could be cleaned out and made bigger, more ditches could be made to replace those that have been filled in etc etc. So no AmusedofYork its not rocket science its common sense.
Sorry but let's get rid of one misconception - the river Ouse was never ever dredged every year to stop flooding. You are right in saying that a wider river channel would help but at what cost? I am sorry to say it's all about the costs v the benefits and as Lord Chris Smith pointed out the treasury currently set the rules at £8 of benefit (ie damage prevented) for every £1 spent. It will be interesting to see if this is relaxed in the future especially after the Thames valley flooding.
[quote][p][bold]VINNIE J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmusedofYork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VINNIE J[/bold] wrote: I find it totally unbelievable that it has took this long to realise that if you make a bigger hole (dredging the river and / or even making it deeper / wider) it will hold more water and therefore stop or at least reduce the risk of the river bursting its banks, Instead of building a wall or fllood bank too stop one area flooding but flooding another area that did not flood before. Not exactly rocket science is it??????????[/p][/quote]I understand that the option of dredging the Ouse was considered a few years ago. It was concluded that it would have to be dredged thoroughly from Linton locks to Naburn locks to reduce flood levels by about 0.5 of a metre in York BUT the cost would be around £400 million and it would probably need redoing in a few years. No it's not rocket science[/p][/quote]Correct its not rocket science its about money. How much do we send abroad every time there is a disaster? Prob would cost a lot of money, but doubt £400 million, and a lot less than we send abroad for disasters and sticking our nose into every war abroad. Without doubt it would need doing every year, just like it used to be, never mind every few years. Perhaps never mind just dredging the rivers, they could be dug out deeper and or wider, therefore would hold more water. Ditches could be cleaned out and made bigger, more ditches could be made to replace those that have been filled in etc etc. So no AmusedofYork its not rocket science its common sense.[/p][/quote]Sorry but let's get rid of one misconception - the river Ouse was never ever dredged every year to stop flooding. You are right in saying that a wider river channel would help but at what cost? I am sorry to say it's all about the costs v the benefits and as Lord Chris Smith pointed out the treasury currently set the rules at £8 of benefit (ie damage prevented) for every £1 spent. It will be interesting to see if this is relaxed in the future especially after the Thames valley flooding. AmusedofYork
  • Score: 6

1:05pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Yorkie-Clifton says...

Well i have never heard the term Rocket Science so much --lol -- I have just returned from my daily walk from the River and it is not in flood ( breaking its banks ) The flow is incredible , the fastest i have ever seen it . I do not believe the river needs dredging .
Well i have never heard the term Rocket Science so much --lol -- I have just returned from my daily walk from the River and it is not in flood ( breaking its banks ) The flow is incredible , the fastest i have ever seen it . I do not believe the river needs dredging . Yorkie-Clifton
  • Score: 5

6:46pm Thu 13 Feb 14

GuyWithCommonSense says...

I'm no expert but surely at the moment the council only spends a bit of cash on spraying down the paths after flooding and putting a few sandbags/mobile pumps around when the water rises. Isn't the majority of repair work from damage carried out by private home/business owners/insurance companies? Obviously the council have to comment, but are flood really an inconvenience to them? As I said, I'm no expert but asking them to go from a few pumps/sandbags and a high powered spray to a multimillion pound defence system when it doesn't benefit them? Although I suppose it is their job and it is our money... I won't bring up the tourism fund either...
I'm no expert but surely at the moment the council only spends a bit of cash on spraying down the paths after flooding and putting a few sandbags/mobile pumps around when the water rises. Isn't the majority of repair work from damage carried out by private home/business owners/insurance companies? Obviously the council have to comment, but are flood really an inconvenience to them? As I said, I'm no expert but asking them to go from a few pumps/sandbags and a high powered spray to a multimillion pound defence system when it doesn't benefit them? Although I suppose it is their job and it is our money... I won't bring up the tourism fund either... GuyWithCommonSense
  • Score: -1

8:59pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Yorkie-Clifton says...

GuyWithCommonSense wrote:
I'm no expert but surely at the moment the council only spends a bit of cash on spraying down the paths after flooding and putting a few sandbags/mobile pumps around when the water rises. Isn't the majority of repair work from damage carried out by private home/business owners/insurance companies? Obviously the council have to comment, but are flood really an inconvenience to them? As I said, I'm no expert but asking them to go from a few pumps/sandbags and a high powered spray to a multimillion pound defence system when it doesn't benefit them? Although I suppose it is their job and it is our money... I won't bring up the tourism fund either...
Guy -- No need to hose down paths along the walk i take . They have installed pipes along the path to take away all the spare water as the river goes now .. You get up to date . lol ---- Its the Environment Agency who are in control . Great job .

They also provide fantastic pumps .
[quote][p][bold]GuyWithCommonSense[/bold] wrote: I'm no expert but surely at the moment the council only spends a bit of cash on spraying down the paths after flooding and putting a few sandbags/mobile pumps around when the water rises. Isn't the majority of repair work from damage carried out by private home/business owners/insurance companies? Obviously the council have to comment, but are flood really an inconvenience to them? As I said, I'm no expert but asking them to go from a few pumps/sandbags and a high powered spray to a multimillion pound defence system when it doesn't benefit them? Although I suppose it is their job and it is our money... I won't bring up the tourism fund either...[/p][/quote]Guy -- No need to hose down paths along the walk i take . They have installed pipes along the path to take away all the spare water as the river goes now .. You get up to date . lol ---- Its the Environment Agency who are in control . Great job . They also provide fantastic pumps . Yorkie-Clifton
  • Score: 3

3:55pm Fri 14 Feb 14

pjr_1984 says...

random question .. but where is reckaw these days???
random question .. but where is reckaw these days??? pjr_1984
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

again wrote:
voiceofnormalpeople wrote:
In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do.

Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.
Well obviously if they live below sea level they don't get fewer floods because they dredge the rivers!

Holland does have a lot of pumps, though.
In simple terms they dig and maintain Dykes which fill with water thereby lowering the water levels, I worked in Capelle aan den Ijssel near Rotterdam, at that point we were 3.5 mtrs below sea level!
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceofnormalpeople[/bold] wrote: In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do. Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.[/p][/quote]Well obviously if they live below sea level they don't get fewer floods because they dredge the rivers! Holland does have a lot of pumps, though.[/p][/quote]In simple terms they dig and maintain Dykes which fill with water thereby lowering the water levels, I worked in Capelle aan den Ijssel near Rotterdam, at that point we were 3.5 mtrs below sea level! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

pjr_1984 - From a Google search - Recklaw Barge has now been rufurbished and is used for holidays for handicapped and under privaliged children it is based at Goole.
pjr_1984 - From a Google search - Recklaw Barge has now been rufurbished and is used for holidays for handicapped and under privaliged children it is based at Goole. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 3

7:48am Sat 15 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
again wrote:
voiceofnormalpeople wrote:
In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do.

Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.
Well obviously if they live below sea level they don't get fewer floods because they dredge the rivers!

Holland does have a lot of pumps, though.
In simple terms they dig and maintain Dykes which fill with water thereby lowering the water levels, I worked in Capelle aan den Ijssel near Rotterdam, at that point we were 3.5 mtrs below sea level!
Oops bit of a 'for par', I should have added the polders behind the Dykes fill with water
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceofnormalpeople[/bold] wrote: In Holland, where they have similar rainfall to us, 60 per cent of the country is below sea level - yet they have fewer floods than we do. Funding the maintenance and dredging of rivers would significantly reduce the impact inland flooding has on our communities.[/p][/quote]Well obviously if they live below sea level they don't get fewer floods because they dredge the rivers! Holland does have a lot of pumps, though.[/p][/quote]In simple terms they dig and maintain Dykes which fill with water thereby lowering the water levels, I worked in Capelle aan den Ijssel near Rotterdam, at that point we were 3.5 mtrs below sea level![/p][/quote]Oops bit of a 'for par', I should have added the polders behind the Dykes fill with water Igiveinthen
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree