Cost of dredging?

Cost of dredging?

Cost of dredging?

First published in Letters by

THE floods of Somerset and the south of England are a terrible disaster for this country.

Some of this could have been avoided if the Environment Agency had listened to the people who know their land.

Dredging had been mentioned but the agency, in their arrogance, didn’t want to know. I now ask what happened to the dredging of our rivers and why was it stopped?

No doubt the answer will be it isn’t necessary and it costs too much.

Joyce Gee, Kingsway North, Clifton, York.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:14pm Thu 13 Feb 14

The Great Buda says...

You answer your own question: "isn’t necessary and it costs too much".
You answer your own question: "isn’t necessary and it costs too much". The Great Buda
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

It is necessary (James) but you would rather waste the money on your stupid vanity projects and then expect central government to reactively come to the rescue. All too late.
It is necessary (James) but you would rather waste the money on your stupid vanity projects and then expect central government to reactively come to the rescue. All too late. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -35

4:14pm Thu 13 Feb 14

The Great Buda says...

Ah CAC, the self-proclaimed expert. Bravely trying to convince the people of York that the world is flat.
Ah CAC, the self-proclaimed expert. Bravely trying to convince the people of York that the world is flat. The Great Buda
  • Score: 8

4:29pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Firedrake says...

Generally speaking, rivers are dredged when they are still functioning as commercial waterways. I remember when fuel oil was delivered by tanker barge to Redfern National Glass and there was still an assortment of keels, tugs and lighters moored on Queen's Staithe ... along with a dredger! (The Reclaw, if I remember correctly.)
Get freight back on to the river and it'll be in someone's financial interests to dredge it.
Generally speaking, rivers are dredged when they are still functioning as commercial waterways. I remember when fuel oil was delivered by tanker barge to Redfern National Glass and there was still an assortment of keels, tugs and lighters moored on Queen's Staithe ... along with a dredger! (The Reclaw, if I remember correctly.) Get freight back on to the river and it'll be in someone's financial interests to dredge it. Firedrake
  • Score: 14

5:33pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Dr Robert says...

The Environment Agency came into being in 1996 and recruited every green thinking 'ologist' one can think of into its workforce, I personally think the rot had set in many years earlier with regards to clearing waterways and dredging. The Ecologists have managed to brainwash the Agency that dredging harms the natural balance of the riverbed by disturbing the creatures that live there, all very convenient then, we can save money into the bargain. At the end of the day, by increasing the volume of a vessel, i.e.' the riverbed', will increase the volume of water the vessel will hold. Have the men in white even thought about all the creatures that live on the sides of the riverbanks now being destroyed, by saving a few beetles in the riverbed.
The Environment Agency came into being in 1996 and recruited every green thinking 'ologist' one can think of into its workforce, I personally think the rot had set in many years earlier with regards to clearing waterways and dredging. The Ecologists have managed to brainwash the Agency that dredging harms the natural balance of the riverbed by disturbing the creatures that live there, all very convenient then, we can save money into the bargain. At the end of the day, by increasing the volume of a vessel, i.e.' the riverbed', will increase the volume of water the vessel will hold. Have the men in white even thought about all the creatures that live on the sides of the riverbanks now being destroyed, by saving a few beetles in the riverbed. Dr Robert
  • Score: -34

7:07pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

I never said the world was flat James, that would be rather silly. Just as silly as you even mentioning it because that's all you have.
Use a bit of logic and common sense...Oh no, that would mean unrestricting Lendal Bridge!
I never said the world was flat James, that would be rather silly. Just as silly as you even mentioning it because that's all you have. Use a bit of logic and common sense...Oh no, that would mean unrestricting Lendal Bridge! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -38

8:15pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ak7274 says...

Hmmm. Let's not resort to insults James. Remember your own rhetoric.
At one time the Foss was navigable up to Strensall and now one can almost step across. The Ouse is shallower and doesn't allow as much flow. As is the Derwent. If it can't run away it will build up. I would start to worry about the old British Sugar site if I was you.
Who would like to be the first to buy a home there?
Hmmm. Let's not resort to insults James. Remember your own rhetoric. At one time the Foss was navigable up to Strensall and now one can almost step across. The Ouse is shallower and doesn't allow as much flow. As is the Derwent. If it can't run away it will build up. I would start to worry about the old British Sugar site if I was you. Who would like to be the first to buy a home there? ak7274
  • Score: -16

8:23pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ak7274 says...

For the love of god. Stop with your insults James. Grow up you silly man. If you write to the press complaining about being insulted, it's hardly good politics to continue to insult others.
If water can't run off the flood plains it will build up. The Foss, Derwent and Ouse were perfectly navigable years ago due in no small part to dredging.
Experts have been telling us all kinds of theories over the years that either have or have not come to pass.
Hands up the first volunteer to buy a home on the old British Sugar site.
For the love of god. Stop with your insults James. Grow up you silly man. If you write to the press complaining about being insulted, it's hardly good politics to continue to insult others. If water can't run off the flood plains it will build up. The Foss, Derwent and Ouse were perfectly navigable years ago due in no small part to dredging. Experts have been telling us all kinds of theories over the years that either have or have not come to pass. Hands up the first volunteer to buy a home on the old British Sugar site. ak7274
  • Score: -1

8:24pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ak7274 says...

Sorry about the duplicate
Sorry about the duplicate ak7274
  • Score: -9

10:36pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Good comments ak.
Good comments ak. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -30

9:27am Fri 14 Feb 14

The Great Buda says...

ak7274 wrote:
Hmmm. Let's not resort to insults James. Remember your own rhetoric.
At one time the Foss was navigable up to Strensall and now one can almost step across. The Ouse is shallower and doesn't allow as much flow. As is the Derwent. If it can't run away it will build up. I would start to worry about the old British Sugar site if I was you.
Who would like to be the first to buy a home there?
Point 1: What I wrote is not an insult, calling me "silly" is. Pot and kettle etc.

Point 2: I'm not James Alexander. Only CAC is "silly" (your term ak) enough to believe I am.
[quote][p][bold]ak7274[/bold] wrote: Hmmm. Let's not resort to insults James. Remember your own rhetoric. At one time the Foss was navigable up to Strensall and now one can almost step across. The Ouse is shallower and doesn't allow as much flow. As is the Derwent. If it can't run away it will build up. I would start to worry about the old British Sugar site if I was you. Who would like to be the first to buy a home there?[/p][/quote]Point 1: What I wrote is not an insult, calling me "silly" is. Pot and kettle etc. Point 2: I'm not James Alexander. Only CAC is "silly" (your term ak) enough to believe I am. The Great Buda
  • Score: 3

11:42am Fri 14 Feb 14

Tug job says...

Hmm, which opinions are the most informed on this one - those affected by flooding who want someone to blame? our resident environmental 'expert' who writes as if he has sat in the pub all day composing letter to the Press? numerous hydrologists who state that dredging would have had, at best, minimal impact on the flooding? I know which opinion I ascribe to.
Hmm, which opinions are the most informed on this one - those affected by flooding who want someone to blame? our resident environmental 'expert' who writes as if he has sat in the pub all day composing letter to the Press? numerous hydrologists who state that dredging would have had, at best, minimal impact on the flooding? I know which opinion I ascribe to. Tug job
  • Score: 2

11:56am Fri 14 Feb 14

The Great Buda says...

Tug job wrote:
Hmm, which opinions are the most informed on this one - those affected by flooding who want someone to blame? our resident environmental 'expert' who writes as if he has sat in the pub all day composing letter to the Press? numerous hydrologists who state that dredging would have had, at best, minimal impact on the flooding? I know which opinion I ascribe to.
Is it the guy in the pub with nothing better do?
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: Hmm, which opinions are the most informed on this one - those affected by flooding who want someone to blame? our resident environmental 'expert' who writes as if he has sat in the pub all day composing letter to the Press? numerous hydrologists who state that dredging would have had, at best, minimal impact on the flooding? I know which opinion I ascribe to.[/p][/quote]Is it the guy in the pub with nothing better do? The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Fri 14 Feb 14

E=MC^2 says...

There are good scientific reasons why dredging would likely have been only of marginal use in reducing flood water levels there. Rainfall- Jan was their wettest month in nearly 250 years, falling on ground which was already approaching saturation - a bad flooding event, on which even more urbanised locations with reasonable flood protection and without the topological issues of the levels would struggle to remain dry. The available gradient of the river channels to the sea is very shallow, as the area is very low lying and the channels are tide locked and discharge only occurs at low tides- even if dredged. Widening the channels would allow more of the high tide to enter and also bring silt back in. Any effectiveness of dredging is made more difficult by modern land use practices which increase sediment run off from the land .Any increase in discharge may affect urban areas downstream. Dredging is not the magic bullet for the levels. Such proposals would need careful modelling.
There are good scientific reasons why dredging would likely have been only of marginal use in reducing flood water levels there. Rainfall- Jan was their wettest month in nearly 250 years, falling on ground which was already approaching saturation - a bad flooding event, on which even more urbanised locations with reasonable flood protection and without the topological issues of the levels would struggle to remain dry. The available gradient of the river channels to the sea is very shallow, as the area is very low lying and the channels are tide locked and discharge only occurs at low tides- even if dredged. Widening the channels would allow more of the high tide to enter and also bring silt back in. Any effectiveness of dredging is made more difficult by modern land use practices which increase sediment run off from the land .Any increase in discharge may affect urban areas downstream. Dredging is not the magic bullet for the levels. Such proposals would need careful modelling. E=MC^2
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Tug job says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Tug job wrote:
Hmm, which opinions are the most informed on this one - those affected by flooding who want someone to blame? our resident environmental 'expert' who writes as if he has sat in the pub all day composing letter to the Press? numerous hydrologists who state that dredging would have had, at best, minimal impact on the flooding? I know which opinion I ascribe to.
Is it the guy in the pub with nothing better do?
The same, but it doesn't matter as climate change is only a scare tactic; if we drink enough beer and say it's all a myth it will go away of its own accord.

Which one of us is James Alexander?
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: Hmm, which opinions are the most informed on this one - those affected by flooding who want someone to blame? our resident environmental 'expert' who writes as if he has sat in the pub all day composing letter to the Press? numerous hydrologists who state that dredging would have had, at best, minimal impact on the flooding? I know which opinion I ascribe to.[/p][/quote]Is it the guy in the pub with nothing better do?[/p][/quote]The same, but it doesn't matter as climate change is only a scare tactic; if we drink enough beer and say it's all a myth it will go away of its own accord. Which one of us is James Alexander? Tug job
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

It was suggested that it was the bloke down the pub who told the IPCC in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035. Yeah, right!
Why don't you check out the winter rain of 1929/30 and maybe you will see we have been here before. The difference is that back then, and that winter is but one example, waterways and land management was of greater importance and also we did not fill the countryside with concrete.
It was suggested that it was the bloke down the pub who told the IPCC in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035. Yeah, right! Why don't you check out the winter rain of 1929/30 and maybe you will see we have been here before. The difference is that back then, and that winter is but one example, waterways and land management was of greater importance and also we did not fill the countryside with concrete. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Tug job says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
It was suggested that it was the bloke down the pub who told the IPCC in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035. Yeah, right!
Why don't you check out the winter rain of 1929/30 and maybe you will see we have been here before. The difference is that back then, and that winter is but one example, waterways and land management was of greater importance and also we did not fill the countryside with concrete.
Hic!
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: It was suggested that it was the bloke down the pub who told the IPCC in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035. Yeah, right! Why don't you check out the winter rain of 1929/30 and maybe you will see we have been here before. The difference is that back then, and that winter is but one example, waterways and land management was of greater importance and also we did not fill the countryside with concrete.[/p][/quote]Hic! Tug job
  • Score: 2

6:25pm Sun 16 Feb 14

wallman says...

when the Ouse was dredged Leeman Rd. still flooded
when the Ouse was dredged Leeman Rd. still flooded wallman
  • Score: 1

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