In article <stn16v$chd$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> You are showing your ignorance, because a naturally moulded water course
> is never triangular.

Erm IIUC, JJ was talking about *dredging* shapes. Not "maturally moulded".

> The faster flowing water (on the outside of bends, for instance) cuts a
> more vertical river bank, and that reduces the friction and improves the
> flow volume. Making that more vertical surface less vertical by cutting
> back the bank increases the friction and slows the flow more than it did
> before.

That's probably a better argument for delibrately meandering rivers, which
also slows them and may increase how much water they can contain as the
result is 'longer'.

> There is nothing pseudo about that science. You are free to take a
> different view if you wish, but real life won't agree with you.

The professional hydrologists seem to have a different view of "real life"
and "science" here. I take it that you aren't one?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 05/02/2022 23:28, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 05/02/2022 21:45, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 05/02/2022 20:50, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> The water has friction with the surfaces it is in contact with. The
>>> effect of friction is to slow down the flow. Widening a channel gives a
>>> larger friction surface than deepening it does, so it doesn't have the
>>> same throughput even if it has the same volume of water.
>>
>> Bah!  Pseudo-science!  As there is no smiley I can only suppose that you
>> mean this tosh actually to be taken seriously, but it's not going to be,
>> because it's laughable!
>>
>> The programme showed the dredging being done, and the angle of the sides
>> was approximately 45 degrees to the vertical, which means that  -  even
>> supposing friction to be significant in the first place, which of course
>> it isn't  -  it doesn't matter whether you increase the width by taking
>> each bank back by 1m or just the depth by 1m, the increase in the
>> hypotenuse length of each bank, and therefore the increase in any
>> friction against it, will be same.
>>
>> However the area of a triangle, including an upturned one of the
>> cross-section of a ditch, is ...
>>      1/2 * base * height
>> ... which means that if you increase the depth by one metre, you will
>> not increase the cross-sectional area as much as you would by taking
>> each bank back by one metre, because in the former case you are
>> increasing the height by one metre, but in the latter the base by two.
>>
> You are showing your ignorance, because a naturally moulded water course
> is never triangular.  The faster flowing water (on the outside of bends,
> for instance) cuts a more vertical river bank, and that reduces the
> friction and improves the flow volume.  Making that more vertical
> surface less vertical by cutting back the bank increases the friction
> and slows the flow more than it did before.
>
> Likewise, ditches are man-made and have almost vertical sides to carry
> the most water away quickly.  Unmanaged ones do develop angled banks,
> but this is a feature of neglect not water erosion, and on the whole the
> bottom remains flat or at worst U shaped even then, not pointed.

FFS, I've already told you that I've watched the fucking programme, so I
*KNOW* that you're making this bullshit up as you go along:

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/SomersetAfterTheFloods-Dredging.jpg

> There is nothing pseudo about that science.  You are free to take a
> different view if you wish, but real life won't agree with you.

Real life is the above still from the real programme showing the real
dredging as it was really taking place!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 06/02/2022 11:11, Java Jive wrote:

>> Likewise, ditches are man-made and have almost vertical sides to carry
>> the most water away quickly. Unmanaged ones do develop angled banks,
>> but this is a feature of neglect not water erosion, and on the whole the
>> bottom remains flat or at worst U shaped even then, not pointed.
>
> FFS, I've already told you that I've watched the fucking programme, so I
> *KNOW* that you're making this bullshit up as you go along:
>
> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/SomersetAfterTheFloods-Dredging.jpg

And I have already told you that the EA approach to dredging doesn't
provide the best solution to getting floodwater away as quickly as
possible. It was probably the quickest to implement and was better than
doing nothing, I admit.

Just because you have a picture of *a* solution doesn't mean it is the
*best* solution. Just because you rely on a programme you have watched
(a programme no longer available to me on line) only confirms that the
programme shows what was being done after the flood, not what could have
been done to prevent it in the first place.

Jim

On 06/02/2022 11:53, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 06/02/2022 11:11, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> Likewise, ditches are man-made and have almost vertical sides to carry
>>> the most water away quickly.  Unmanaged ones do develop angled banks,
>>> but this is a feature of neglect not water erosion, and on the whole the
>>> bottom remains flat or at worst U shaped even then, not pointed.
>>
>> FFS, I've already told you that I've watched the fucking programme, so I
>> *KNOW* that you're making this bullshit up as you go along:
>>
>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/SomersetAfterTheFloods-Dredging.jpg
>
> And I have already told you that the EA approach to dredging doesn't
> provide the best solution to getting floodwater away as quickly as
> possible.  It was probably the quickest to implement and was better than
> doing nothing, I admit.
>
> Just because you have a picture of *a* solution doesn't mean it is the
> *best* solution.  Just because you rely on a programme you have watched
> (a programme no longer available to me on line) only confirms that the
> programme shows what was being done after the flood, not what could have
> been done to prevent it in the first place.

What I've been trying to explain to you is that the dredging is not even
*a* solution let alone the best solution; it is being done merely to
pacify local residents politically rather than any actual good it will
do. Let me remind you again of the Wikipedia article long-since linked
and again below:

"Hydrology

There were public calls for the rivers Parrett and Tone, in particular,
to be dredged. The Environment Agency was blamed for having failed to
dredge the major river channels of the Levels. It was said that as a
consequence, rivers silt up and have reduced capacity to carry flooding
waters when rainfall is heavier than average. The Environment Agency and
others pointed out that it would be more effective to spend money on
delaying floodwaters upstream, and that increasing the capacity of
rivers by dredging would be of no significant use.[62][63] Senior
hydrologists made clear that dredging does not offer a useful solution
to flooding on the Somerset Levels.[64]"

Previously, I've also explained to you that work in higher catchment
areas, such as planting woodland or blocking up the drains in former
peat bogs, is sometimes more effective than work at mid-levels to
improve water flows, which often have unwanted side-effects of increased
flooding further downstream in centres of greater population density,
and this upstream work is also mentioned in the above quote.

I've also tried to encourage you to play around with the numbers
involved, hoping that doing so will give you a better feel for them, and
thereby be more willing to accept the expert opinions linked. Some of
the basic figures are in the articles linked. Here they are again:

Basic Timeline:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-26157538

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Flooding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_flooding_of_2013%E2%80%9314_on_the_Somerset_Levels#Rainfall

https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/news-and-events/news/2014/february/flooding-in-somerset--an-indicator-of-changes-to-come/

Previously I suggested that had a once in a century event happened
before the EA became involved rather than soon after, you'd now be
criticising the local drainage boards instead, and now I find this quote
from the second Wiki link:

"Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35] However, IDBs
have been actively participating with the Parrett Catchment Partnership,
a partnership of 30 organisations that aims to create a consensus on how
water is to be managed, in particular, looking at new ways to achieve
sustainable benefits for all local stakeholders.[36]"

But to return to numbers ...

"6880 hectares of agricultural land" were flooded, so including the
areas covered by roads, buildings, existing watercourses, etc, probably
around 7000 hectares would be a reasonable guesstimate as to the total
flooded area. Some places were deeply flooded to well over a metre, but
then others at the fringes would have been under shallower water, so an
average depth of 1m would seem a reasonable guesstimate for average
depth. A hectare is 10,000m2, so that gives us that around 70m m3 of
flood water were involved *BEYOND* what the rivers were taking away
which must have been constantly replaced by rainfall.

By contrast:

"During 2009 and 2010, work was undertaken to upgrade sluice gates,
watercourses, and culverts to enable seasonal flooding of Southlake Moor
during the winter diverting water from the Sowy River onto the moor. It
has the capacity to hold 1.2 million cubic metres (42×106 cu ft) as part
of a scheme by the Parrett Internal Drainage Board to restore ten
floodplains in Somerset. In spring, the water is drained away to enable
the land to be used as pasture during the summer.[37] The scheme is also
used to encourage water birds.[38]"

So that one huge scheme would only accommodate less than 2% of the
surplus water in 2014.

This rainfall report dates from 30/1/2014:

UK floods: January rain breaks records in parts of England
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25944823

You could note the graph misleadingly entitled "South's wettest January
since records began", but which actually shows rainfall for only the
South East and Central Southern England, and that it had been more than
double the preceding 20-year average and was the highest since records
began. However, we're interested in the South West, which with three
days of the month still to go:

"Across south-west England and south Wales, the 222.6 mm (8.8in) of
rainfall up to midnight on Tuesday meant January 2014 was already the
fifth-wettest on record."

The average rainfall in the levels is 700mm/yr, or 1.9mm/day, so 59.5mm
for any given 31 days such as January, but with three days to go the
area had already received 3.7 times that much, and more than twice the
average rainfall for January.

That is why the Somerset levels flooded, a prolonged period of above
average rainfall which had already made the entire catchment waterlogged
and unable to absorb any more, followed by sustained heavy rainfall over
many days.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <stocrf$i0q$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> > FFS, I've already told you that I've watched the fucking programme, so
> > I *KNOW* that you're making this bullshit up as you go along:
> >
> > www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/SomersetAfterTheFloods-Dredging.jpg

> And I have already told you that the EA approach to dredging doesn't
> provide the best solution to getting floodwater away as quickly as
> possible. It was probably the quickest to implement and was better than
> doing nothing, I admit.

> Just because you have a picture of *a* solution doesn't mean it is the
> *best* solution.

Similarly: Just because you're convinced you know better than the people at
the EA who may have spent their working life studying and working on the
topic doesn't mean you *do* know better.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 06/02/2022 13:54, Java Jive wrote:

>> Just because you have a picture of *a* solution doesn't mean it is the
>> *best* solution. Just because you rely on a programme you have watched
>> (a programme no longer available to me on line) only confirms that the
>> programme shows what was being done after the flood, not what could have
>> been done to prevent it in the first place.
>
> What I've been trying to explain to you is that the dredging is not even
> *a* solution let alone the best solution; it is being done merely to
> pacify local residents politically rather than any actual good it will
> do.
The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
and is better than doing nothing.

> Let me remind you again of the Wikipedia article long-since linked
> and again below:
>
> "Hydrology
>
> There were public calls for the rivers Parrett and Tone, in particular,
> to be dredged. The Environment Agency was blamed for having failed to
> dredge the major river channels of the Levels. It was said that as a
> consequence, rivers silt up and have reduced capacity to carry flooding
> waters when rainfall is heavier than average. The Environment Agency and
> others pointed out that it would be more effective to spend money on
> delaying floodwaters upstream, and that increasing the capacity of
> rivers by dredging would be of no significant use.[62][63] Senior
> hydrologists made clear that dredging does not offer a useful solution
> to flooding on the Somerset Levels.[64]"

So this is a financial decision, not a recognition that before the EA
took over, until 2005 the local river management did maximise flow
capacity and did manage to clear previous floods in an acceptable
timescale as a result. But of course the EA couldn't admit that because
it would prove that the criticism is justified. Eric Pickles did once
admit it in an unguarded moment.
>
> Previously, I've also explained to you that work in higher catchment
> areas, such as planting woodland or blocking up the drains in former
> peat bogs, is sometimes more effective than work at mid-levels to
> improve water flows, which often have unwanted side-effects of increased
> flooding further downstream in centres of greater population density,
> and this upstream work is also mentioned in the above quote.

You obviously are not familiar with the local geography. The word
"Levels" is not used casually.
>
> I've also tried to encourage you to play around with the numbers
> involved, hoping that doing so will give you a better feel for them, and
> thereby be more willing to accept the expert opinions linked.

I admit I haven't facts and figures for the four rivers across the
levels, but I have liaised with some of the former Bristol Avon Local
Flood Defence Committee, and have read the Bath Flood Protection Scheme
design documentation which that Committee insist is required reading for
anyone interested in flooding. The key feature was the to maintain a
designed flow rate, and the design made the river through the
residential area of Bath self-scouring, coupled with regular dredging
downstream of Bath as far as the point where the river became tidal. My
involvement was part of a co-ordinated effort to persuade the local
council that their suggestions for modifying the original design would
be disastrous. That effort did at least get the idea kicked into the
long grass, though it didn't achieve the aim of getting it cancelled
completely.

I might be an amateur, but I am an informed amateur. Which is more than
I can say about the EA I have talked to who very clearly don't
understand the function of the Radial Gate installed as part of the
Flood Protection Scheme (to scour away the silt as the water level
rose), and want to remove it because it would be cheaper than
maintaining it. Money before common sense again! The flood protection
advice in the Government Guidelines was amended in 2008 to recommend
water storage instead of the earlier risk-based approach

> Previously I suggested that had a once in a century event happened
> before the EA became involved rather than soon after, you'd now be
> criticising the local drainage boards instead, and now I find this quote
> from the second Wiki link:
>
> "Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
> has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35] However, IDBs
> have been actively participating with the Parrett Catchment Partnership,
> a partnership of 30 organisations that aims to create a consensus on how
> water is to be managed, in particular, looking at new ways to achieve
> sustainable benefits for all local stakeholders.[36]"

Yes, but within the bounds of the EA brief rather than being in charge
of the decisions as they were previously.
>
> But to return to numbers ...
>
> "6880 hectares of agricultural land" were flooded, so including the
> areas covered by roads, buildings, existing watercourses, etc, probably
> around 7000 hectares would be a reasonable guesstimate as to the total
> flooded area. Some places were deeply flooded to well over a metre, but
> then others at the fringes would have been under shallower water, so an
> average depth of 1m would seem a reasonable guesstimate for average
> depth. A hectare is 10,000m2, so that gives us that around 70m m3 of
> flood water were involved *BEYOND* what the rivers were taking away
> which must have been constantly replaced by rainfall.

Yes, it was a particularly severe flood. The real issue is that the
rivers which were trying to clear it were silted up through EA neglect
and so it took 3 months to pump it away, along the silted up rivers.
>
> By contrast:
>
> "During 2009 and 2010, work was undertaken to upgrade sluice gates,
> watercourses, and culverts to enable seasonal flooding of Southlake Moor
> during the winter diverting water from the Sowy River onto the moor. It
> has the capacity to hold 1.2 million cubic metres (42×106 cu ft) as part
> of a scheme by the Parrett Internal Drainage Board to restore ten
> floodplains in Somerset. In spring, the water is drained away to enable
> the land to be used as pasture during the summer.[37] The scheme is also
> used to encourage water birds.[38]"

Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One
suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir
upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak
flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!"
Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra
time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time.
>
> So that one huge scheme would only accommodate less than 2% of the
> surplus water in 2014.
>
> This rainfall report dates from 30/1/2014:
>
> UK floods: January rain breaks records in parts of England
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25944823
>
> You could note the graph misleadingly entitled "South's wettest January
> since records began", but which actually shows rainfall for only the
> South East and Central Southern England, and that it had been more than
> double the preceding 20-year average and was the highest since records
> began. However, we're interested in the South West, which with three
> days of the month still to go:
>
> "Across south-west England and south Wales, the 222.6 mm (8.8in) of
> rainfall up to midnight on Tuesday meant January 2014 was already the
> fifth-wettest on record."
>
> The average rainfall in the levels is 700mm/yr, or 1.9mm/day, so 59.5mm
> for any given 31 days such as January, but with three days to go the
> area had already received 3.7 times that much, and more than twice the
> average rainfall for January.
>
> That is why the Somerset levels flooded, a prolonged period of above
> average rainfall which had already made the entire catchment waterlogged
> and unable to absorb any more, followed by sustained heavy rainfall over
> many days.
>
Yes the levels flood; they always will. Waterlogged ground is not rare.
That is why speed of drainage rather than storage ought to be the
priority. Unfortunately the EA steadfastly refuse to put money into
achieving that[1], whereas before they were put in control of what
happened the previously in charge organisation focused on achieving the
highest possible Cubic Metres Per Minute throughput on each river.

[1] In Bath the EA have concluded that because Bath rarely floods, there
is no need to maintain the Bath Flood Protection Scheme. What on earth
do they suppose is preventing flooding in Bath?

It is also worth mentioning that the 1974 Bath Flood Protection Scheme
contract contained a clause insisting that the planners would approve
whatever was asked for without trying to modify the requirements,
because the man who designed the scheme knew that without that clause
some penny-pinching accountant would insist there must be a cheaper way
of doing it. The scheme designer died a few years ago, and already
there are moves by the ignorant to mess around with what he designed. I
live less than a mile from the Avon, so it matters to me.

On 07/02/2022 00:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
> The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
> and is better than doing nothing.

There is this news report today, EA strikes again.

"The 250 yard stretch of the River Tone running through Taunton famous
with anglers for its wildlife has been stripped of its trees for
flood-management"

On 07/02/2022 08:58, MB wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2022 00:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
>> and is better than doing nothing.
>
> There is this news report today, EA strikes again.
>
> "The 250 yard stretch of the River Tone running through Taunton famous
> with anglers for its wildlife has been stripped of its trees for
> flood-management"

Yes, exactly, as I've already mentioned, one faction's dredging
supposedly to prevent flooding is everyone else's wildlife habit
destruction.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/02/2022 00:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 06/02/2022 13:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> What I've been trying to explain to you is that the dredging is not even
>> *a* solution let alone the best solution; it is being done merely to
>> pacify local residents politically rather than any actual good it will
>> do.
>
> The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
> and is better than doing nothing.

On the contrary, at least one of them was manifestly stupid enough to
suggest the EA were deliberately 'moving water about' onto the levels to
save other areas. Another has been stupid enough to invoke friction of
the water against the sides of a channel as a significant factor in the
flooding! None seem capable of appreciating the sheer scale of the
weather event that hit them that year. This is just the standard UK
'blame culture' where someone somewhere must be at fault for our misfortune.

>> Let me remind you again of the Wikipedia article long-since linked
>> and again below:
>>
>> "Hydrology
>>
>> There were public calls for the rivers Parrett and Tone, in particular,
>> to be dredged. The Environment Agency was blamed for having failed to
>> dredge the major river channels of the Levels. It was said that as a
>> consequence, rivers silt up and have reduced capacity to carry flooding
>> waters when rainfall is heavier than average. The Environment Agency and
>> others pointed out that it would be more effective to spend money on
>> delaying floodwaters upstream, and that increasing the capacity of
>> rivers by dredging would be of no significant use.[62][63] Senior
>> hydrologists made clear that dredging does not offer a useful solution
>> to flooding on the Somerset Levels.[64]"
>
> So this is a financial decision, not a recognition that before the EA
> took over, until 2005 the local river management did maximise flow
> capacity and did manage to clear previous floods in an acceptable
> timescale as a result. But of course the EA couldn't admit that because
> it would prove that the criticism is justified. Eric Pickles did once
> admit it in an unguarded moment.

As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local
drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent
flooding, and work had already been begun in response to those
criticisms, yet it soon happened again, and on a much more massive
scale. That doesn't suggest that the drainage boards got it any more
right than the EA.

>> Previously, I've also explained to you that work in higher catchment
>> areas, such as planting woodland or blocking up the drains in former
>> peat bogs, is sometimes more effective than work at mid-levels to
>> improve water flows, which often have unwanted side-effects of increased
>> flooding further downstream in centres of greater population density,
>> and this upstream work is also mentioned in the above quote.
>
> You obviously are not familiar with the local geography. The word
> "Levels" is not used casually.

I am familiar with the local geography. For one thing, it's very like
East Anglia where I was brought up. Secondly, I had a brief fling with
a girl from the area. Thirdly my general interest in ecology and human
impact on landscapes has led me to watch programmes and skim scientific
reports about this particular problem in this particular area.

>> I've also tried to encourage you to play around with the numbers
>> involved, hoping that doing so will give you a better feel for them, and
>> thereby be more willing to accept the expert opinions linked.
>
> I admit I haven't facts and figures for the four rivers across the
> levels

.... and until you do your arguments won't be convincing against the
scientific opinions of hydrologists who have ...

> but I have liaised with some of the former Bristol Avon Local
> Flood Defence Committee, and have read the Bath Flood Protection Scheme
> design documentation which that Committee insist is required reading for
> anyone interested in flooding. The key feature was the to maintain a
> designed flow rate, and the design made the river through the
> residential area of Bath self-scouring, coupled with regular dredging
> downstream of Bath as far as the point where the river became tidal.  My
> involvement was part of a co-ordinated effort to persuade the local
> council that their suggestions for modifying the original design would
> be disastrous. That effort did at least get the idea kicked into the
> long grass, though it didn't achieve the aim of getting it cancelled
> completely.

I know rather more about the Bath and Bradford On Avon area because I
had a much longer lasting fling with another girl from there! But
anyway, it wasn't the Avon that flooded so disastrously over the levels,
so I fail to see its relevance to this discussion.

> I might be an amateur, but I am an informed amateur.
> [snip details irrelevant to the Somerset Levels flooding of 2014]

Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
scale of the event.

>> Previously I suggested that had a once in a century event happened
>> before the EA became involved rather than soon after, you'd now be
>> criticising the local drainage boards instead, and now I find this quote
>> from the second Wiki link:
>>
>> "Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
>> has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35] However, IDBs
>> have been actively participating with the Parrett Catchment Partnership,
>> a partnership of 30 organisations that aims to create a consensus on how
>> water is to be managed, in particular, looking at new ways to achieve
>> sustainable benefits for all local stakeholders.[36]"
>
> Yes, but within the bounds of the EA brief rather than being in charge
> of the decisions as they were previously.

But the work that had already been done under the above arrangements
failed to prevent the 2014 flooding, which suggests that singling out
the EA for blame is merely playing the blame game and not saying
anything useful about the actual causes of the flooding.

>> But to return to numbers ...
>>
>> "6880 hectares of agricultural land" were flooded, so including the
>> areas covered by roads, buildings, existing watercourses, etc, probably
>> around 7000 hectares would be a reasonable guesstimate as to the total
>> flooded area.  Some places were deeply flooded to well over a metre, but
>> then others at the fringes would have been under shallower water, so an
>> average depth of 1m would seem a reasonable guesstimate for average
>> depth.  A hectare is 10,000m2, so that gives us that around 70m m3 of
>> flood water were involved *BEYOND* what the rivers were taking away
>> which must have been constantly replaced by rainfall.
>
> Yes, it was a particularly severe flood.  The real issue is that the
> rivers which were trying to clear it were silted up through EA neglect
> and so it took 3 months to pump it away, along the silted up rivers.

But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been
dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice? You have
never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with
and without dredging, yet still refuse to accept the scientific opinions
of the professional hydrologists who might be expected to have done such
calculations in support of their opinions.

>> By contrast:
>>
>> "During 2009 and 2010, work was undertaken to upgrade sluice gates,
>> watercourses, and culverts to enable seasonal flooding of Southlake Moor
>> during the winter diverting water from the Sowy River onto the moor. It
>> has the capacity to hold 1.2 million cubic metres (42×106 cu ft) as part
>> of a scheme by the Parrett Internal Drainage Board to restore ten
>> floodplains in Somerset. In spring, the water is drained away to enable
>> the land to be used as pasture during the summer.[37] The scheme is also
>> used to encourage water birds.[38]"
>
> Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One
> suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir
> upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak
> flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!"
> Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra
> time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time.

Exactly, as still quoted below, such a scheme can hold only a small
fraction of the surplus water.

>> So that one huge scheme would only accommodate less than 2% of the
>> surplus water in 2014.
>>
>> This rainfall report dates from 30/1/2014:
>>
>> UK floods: January rain breaks records in parts of England
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25944823
>>
>> You could note the graph misleadingly entitled "South's wettest January
>> since records began", but which actually shows rainfall for only the
>> South East and Central Southern England, and that it had been more than
>> double the preceding 20-year average and was the highest since records
>> began.  However, we're interested in the South West, which with three
>> days of the month still to go:
>>
>> "Across south-west England and south Wales, the 222.6 mm (8.8in) of
>> rainfall up to midnight on Tuesday meant January 2014 was already the
>> fifth-wettest on record."
>>
>> The average rainfall in the levels is 700mm/yr, or 1.9mm/day, so 59.5mm
>> for any given 31 days such as January, but with three days to go the
>> area had already received 3.7 times that much, and more than twice the
>> average rainfall for January.
>>
>> That is why the Somerset levels flooded, a prolonged period of above
>> average rainfall which had already made the entire catchment waterlogged
>> and unable to absorb any more, followed by sustained heavy rainfall over
>> many days.
>
> Yes the levels flood; they always will. Waterlogged ground is not rare.
> That is why speed of drainage rather than storage ought to be the
> priority. Unfortunately the EA steadfastly refuse to put money into
> achieving that[1], whereas before they were put in control of what
> happened the previously in charge organisation focused on achieving the
> highest possible Cubic Metres Per Minute throughput on each river.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 12:02:09 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/02/2022 08:58, MB wrote:
> >
> > On 07/02/2022 00:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >>
> >> The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
> >> and is better than doing nothing.
> >
> > There is this news report today, EA strikes again.
> >
> > "The 250 yard stretch of the River Tone running through Taunton famous
> > with anglers for its wildlife has been stripped of its trees for
> > flood-management"
>
> Yes, exactly, as I've already mentioned, one faction's dredging
> supposedly to prevent flooding is everyone else's wildlife habit
> destruction.

Southern Spain and West Coast America have huge storm drains.
We have less land surface to relinquish for those "once in a .." events.

But surely we have expertise to build them s that they can be covered
over with concrete "lids" supporting agriculture above them?

--
Mint 20.3, kernel 5.4.0-95-generic, Cinnamon 5.2.7
running on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition processor with 16GB of
DRAM.

On 07/02/2022 14:59, pinnerite wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 12:02:09 +0000
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2022 08:58, MB wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/02/2022 00:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
>>>> and is better than doing nothing.
>>>
>>> There is this news report today, EA strikes again.
>>>
>>> "The 250 yard stretch of the River Tone running through Taunton famous
>>> with anglers for its wildlife has been stripped of its trees for
>>> flood-management"
>>
>> Yes, exactly, as I've already mentioned, one faction's dredging
>> supposedly to prevent flooding is everyone else's wildlife habit
>> destruction.
>
> Southern Spain and West Coast America have huge storm drains.
> We have less land surface to relinquish for those "once in a .." events.
>
> But surely we have expertise to build them s that they can be covered
> over with concrete "lids" supporting agriculture above them?

It's not so much the agriculture, though that is important in its own
right, it's that, amidst what is effectively an agricultural 'desert',
the rivers and man-made ditches are a haven for wildlife, and such
bio-diversity is destroyed when they are dredged.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/02/2022 13:16, Java Jive wrote:

> On the contrary, at least one of them was manifestly stupid enough to
> suggest the EA were deliberately 'moving water about' onto the levels to
> save other areas. Another has been stupid enough to invoke friction of
> the water against the sides of a channel as a significant factor in the
> flooding! None seem capable of appreciating the sheer scale of the
> weather event that hit them that year.

Just because a few people make stupid remarks, you shouldn't apply the
criticism to the whole population.

> As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local
> drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent
> flooding,

The local drainage boards lost the ability to make their own decisions
in 2005. Have you any evidence of such criticisms before that date?

> I am familiar with the local geography. For one thing, it's very like
> East Anglia where I was brought up.

East Anglia is undulating, not flat (my mother lived there in the
1990s). Not a valid comparison.
I lived on the levels for a while in the 1970s, which gains a better
appreciation of the area than someone visiting a girlfriend.

> it wasn't the Avon that flooded so disastrously over the levels,
> so I fail to see its relevance to this discussion.

Fluvial flood protection is the same regardless of the specific
location. The key feature is the success of a policy to maximise then
maintain a designed flow rate through and away.

> Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
> scale of the event.

I do understand the scale of the event. The input exceeded the output,
but the output wasn't what it was prior to 2005. That is why the
floodwater stayed for so long, and *that* is the issue you are ignoring.

>>> "Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
>>> has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35]

Those "[34][35]" references are about the situation in 2011, not
relevant to what would have been the position before 2005. Why rely on
quotes that are not relevant?

> But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been
> dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice? You have
> never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with
> and without dredging,

It does matter that the residents affected confirmed that the rivers
were much more silted up than they used to be. More silt means slower
drainage and therefore it would have cleared the floodwater more quickly
before the silt was allow to build up due to EA policy. It doesn't
matter how long exactly, it would have been less.

> yet still refuse to accept the scientific opinions
> of the professional hydrologists who might be expected to have done such
> calculations in support of their opinions.

The objective of queue management is improving service time not making
room for longer queues. My experience of the "experts" is that they
haven't bothered with the calculations because the Government Guidelines
now focus on storage so that is all the new recruits look at. That and
ecological benefits to the fauna and sod the inconvenience to the residents.

>> Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One
>> suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir
>> upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak
>> flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!"
>> Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra
>> time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time.
>
> Exactly, such a scheme can hold only a small fraction of the surplus water.

I wasn't recommending it, I was quoting the people who understand flood
management criticising people who don't and propose ineffective ideas.

> Dredging is extremely damaging ecologically and environmentally,

Dredging for depth of the primary channel is not damaging. The
"dredging" that the EA are doing and which you keep bringing to my
attention does have the effects you mention.

> I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

Hooray!

Jim

On 07/02/2022 15:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2022 13:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary, at least one of them was manifestly stupid enough to
>> suggest the EA were deliberately 'moving water about' onto the levels to
>> save other areas.  Another has been stupid enough to invoke friction of
>> the water against the sides of a channel as a significant factor in the
>> flooding!  None seem capable of appreciating the sheer scale of the
>> weather event that hit them that year.
>
> Just because a few people make stupid remarks, you shouldn't apply the
> criticism to the whole population.

Equally you should not assume that the whole population is cleverer than
the scientific professionals who are paid to investigate these issues.

>> As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local
>> drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent
>> flooding,
>
> The local drainage boards lost the ability to make their own decisions
> in 2005. Have you any evidence of such criticisms before that date?

On the contrary, the paragraph of the Wiki page previous to the one
already quoted begins ...

"Since 1990, the drainage boards have been charged with watching the
rhynes and keeping them clear, under the overall responsibility of the
Environment Agency."

.... so where is your evidence that anything concerning the above
arrangement changed in 2005?

>> I am familiar with the local geography.  For one thing, it's very like
>> East Anglia where I was brought up.
>
> East Anglia is undulating, not flat (my mother lived there in the
> 1990s). Not a valid comparison.

Stop this clueless bullshitting and making things up as you go along!
This as bad as telling me I didn't know the shape of ditches I'd seen
footage of being excavated just hours previously, or invoking magic
frictional forces. The simple truth is that large areas of East Anglia
are completely flat. See, for example ...

Talking Landscapes - The Fens
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m1n

> I lived on the levels for a while in the 1970s, which gains a better
> appreciation of the area than someone visiting a girlfriend.

No doubt, but it doesn't seem to help you understand the 2014 weather
events and the subsequent flooding.

>> it wasn't the Avon that flooded so disastrously over the levels,
>> so I fail to see its relevance to this discussion.
>
> Fluvial flood protection is the same regardless of the specific
> location.

Self-contradiction: Then why are you trying to claim your special local
knowledge is any better than mine???!!!

> The key feature is the success of a policy to maximise then
> maintain a designed flow rate through and away.

You seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the scientific
opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
done the sums.

>> Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
>> scale of the event.
>
> I do understand the scale of the event.  The input exceeded the output,
> but the output wasn't what it was prior to 2005. That is why the
> floodwater stayed for so long, and *that* is the issue you are ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it, but until you come up with some convincing
*EVIDENCE* in the form of numbers, I'm going to side with the opinions
of the scientific professionals in the field whom I presume have worked
out the numbers that you insist on ignoring.

>>>> "Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
>>>> has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35]
>
> Those "[34][35]" references are about the situation in 2011, not
> relevant to what would have been the position before 2005.  Why rely on
> quotes that are not relevant?

Because the arrangements in 2011 seem to have been in place since the
1990s, and therefore it doesn't appear to be a valid claim that the
drainage boards were handling things better, or indeed any differently,
in 2005.

>> But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been
>> dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice?  You have
>> never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with
>> and without dredging,
>
> It does matter that the residents affected confirmed that the rivers
> were much more silted up than they used to be.  More silt means slower
> drainage and therefore it would have cleared the floodwater more quickly
> before the silt was allow to build up due to EA policy. It doesn't
> matter how long exactly, it would have been less.

But, as you have been told repeatedly, UNTIL YOU DO THE SUMS you don't
know HOW MUCH difference this actually made! For all you know, it was
as little as just a few millimetres in terms of the highest flood level,
and a day or two in drainage time. Others who have done the sums
suggest that dredging in the area is not a cost effective solution, so
if you want to claim differently, you must show your working.

>> yet still refuse to accept the scientific opinions
>> of the professional hydrologists who might be expected to have done such
>> calculations in support of their opinions.
>
> The objective of queue management is improving service time not making
> room for longer queues. My experience of the "experts" is that they
> haven't bothered with the calculations because the Government Guidelines
> now focus on storage so that is all the new recruits look at. That and
> ecological benefits to the fauna and sod the inconvenience to the
> residents.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim? Until you can produce any I
shall rate this along with the false claims that you've already made
regarding the shape of ditches and that the Fens aren't flat.

>>> Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One
>>> suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir
>>> upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak
>>> flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!"
>>> Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra
>>> time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time.
>>
>> Exactly, such a scheme can hold only a small fraction of the surplus
>> water.
>
> I wasn't recommending it, I was quoting the people who understand flood
> management criticising people who don't and propose ineffective ideas.

Well it was your own beloved drainage boards who had implemented it, so
why are you blaming the EA?

>> Dredging is extremely damaging ecologically and environmentally,
>
> Dredging for depth of the primary channel is not damaging.

Nonsense! Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> The
> "dredging" that the EA are doing and which you keep bringing to my
> attention does have the effects you mention.

You can't just build a channel ever deeper without risk of its banks
collapsing, so you'd have cut back the sides as well. This is why the
banks of the channels are at about 45 degrees. Further, there's no
point in dredging deeper than the level of the water table, and indeed
it may be structurally dangerous to do so. See again the Wiki page
already linked (my caps, and note that they too see a similarity between
the Somerset Levels and the East Anglian Fens):

"The man-made Huntspill River was constructed during World War II with
sluices at both ends to provide a guaranteed daily supply of 4,500,000
imperial gallons (20,000,000 l; 5,400,000 US gal) of "process
water".[27] It was intended that in the summer, when water supply was
lower, it would serve as a reservoir with water pumped from the moors;
and in winter serve as a drainage channel, via gravity drainage.[28][29]
GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEMS PREVENTED IT FROM BEING DUG AS DEEP AS ORIGINALLY
INTENDED and so gravity-drainage of the moors was not possible: thus,
water is pumped up into the river throughout the year.[27] [...] the
Levels are not as intensively drained or farmed as the East Anglian
fens, historically a similar area of low marsh."

>> I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

I note the bit you snipped, so I'll reinstate it: "Until you can produce
convincing numbers"

Where are they???!!!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/02/2022 17:30, Java Jive wrote:

>> Just because a few people make stupid remarks, you shouldn't apply the
>> criticism to the whole population.
>
> Equally you should not assume that the whole population is cleverer than
> the scientific professionals who are paid to investigate these issues.

That doesn't justify your error of judgement. And I have dealt with your
so-called "experts" and they are not using expertise, they are following
the Government Guidelines.
>
>>> As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local
>>> drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent
>>> flooding,
>>
>> The local drainage boards lost the ability to make their own decisions
>> in 2005. Have you any evidence of such criticisms before that date?
>
> On the contrary, the paragraph of the Wiki page previous to the one
> already quoted begins ...
>
> "Since 1990, the drainage boards have been charged with watching the
> rhynes and keeping them clear, under the overall responsibility of the
> Environment Agency."
>
> ... so where is your evidence that anything concerning the above
> arrangement changed in 2005?

From a letter dated 19 October 2010 from the spokesman for the former
Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee as an official complaint to
the head of Bath Council trying to trace who took the funding for the
river improvements that should have been ring-fenced for river maintenance:
"The statement is therefore a gross misrepresentation of the efforts of
BALFDC over the years to protect and enhance the flood defences of Bath,
and maligns a Committee no longer able to defend its reputation because
it was dissolved on 1 April 2005 under Government Legislation."

Note the last line. *1 April 2005* was when all local autonomy was
removed. That letter will be in the council archives if you want to
read it yourself.

>
>>> I am familiar with the local geography. For one thing, it's very like
>>> East Anglia where I was brought up.
>>
>> East Anglia is undulating, not flat (my mother lived there in the
>> 1990s). Not a valid comparison.
>
> Stop this clueless bullshitting and making things up as you go along!
> This as bad as telling me I didn't know the shape of ditches I'd seen
> footage of being excavated just hours previously, or invoking magic
> frictional forces. The simple truth is that large areas of East Anglia
> are completely flat. See, for example ...
>
> Talking Landscapes - The Fens
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m1n

That is an item about THE FENS. There is a lot more to East Anglia than
that, and you were not specific. Also, The Levels are reclaimed land,
not peat bogs.
>
>> I lived on the levels for a while in the 1970s, which gains a better
>> appreciation of the area than someone visiting a girlfriend.
>
> No doubt, but it doesn't seem to help you understand the 2014 weather
> events and the subsequent flooding.
>

>> Fluvial flood protection is the same regardless of the specific
>> location.
>
> Self-contradiction: Then why are you trying to claim your special local
> knowledge is any better than mine???!!!

Because you were insisting I didn't know what I was talking about. You
call out other people who claim things you disagree with, but you don't
like the same thing done to you, do you?
>
>> The key feature is the success of a policy to maximise then
>> maintain a designed flow rate through and away.
>
> You seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the scientific
> opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
> done the sums.
>
They don't do the sums though. I have had arguments about it with their
expert officials.

>>> Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
>>> scale of the event.
>>
>> I do understand the scale of the event. The input exceeded the output,
>> but the output wasn't what it was prior to 2005. That is why the
>> floodwater stayed for so long, and *that* is the issue you are ignoring.
>
> I'm not ignoring it, but until you come up with some convincing
> *EVIDENCE* in the form of numbers, I'm going to side with the opinions
> of the scientific professionals in the field whom I presume have worked
> out the numbers that you insist on ignoring.

They don't do the sums though! I have had arguments about it with them.
Across a table at meetings!
>
>>>>> "Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
>>>>> has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35]
>>
>> Those "[34][35]" references are about the situation in 2011, not
>> relevant to what would have been the position before 2005. Why rely on
>> quotes that are not relevant?
>
> Because the arrangements in 2011 seem to have been in place since the
> 1990s, and therefore it doesn't appear to be a valid claim that the
> drainage boards were handling things better, or indeed any differently,
> in 2005.

That is an assumption. I bet you can't prove it. The 1990s were a very
different river management arrangement then. It all changed in 2005, on
the 1st April to be precise, and it wasn't an April Fool joke.
>
>>> But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been
>>> dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice? You have
>>> never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with
>>> and without dredging,
>>
>> It does matter that the residents affected confirmed that the rivers
>> were much more silted up than they used to be. More silt means slower
>> drainage and therefore it would have cleared the floodwater more quickly
>> before the silt was allow to build up due to EA policy. It doesn't
>> matter how long exactly, it would have been less.
>
> But, as you have been told repeatedly, UNTIL YOU DO THE SUMS you don't
> know HOW MUCH difference this actually made! For all you know, it was
> as little as just a few millimetres in terms of the highest flood level,
> and a day or two in drainage time.

The news coverage at the time by the residents of the area described
that the silt had accumulated to such an extent that it reduced the
largest river to half its carrying capacity. It would have made *weeks*
of difference, bearing mind that the floods took 3 months to get away.
Original clearance capacity divided by 2 is the sum.

> Others who have done the sums
> suggest that dredging in the area is not a cost effective solution, so
> if you want to claim differently, you must show your working.

That is money, NOT floodwater clearance. You don't listen, do you?
>
>>> yet still refuse to accept the scientific opinions
>>> of the professional hydrologists who might be expected to have done such
>>> calculations in support of their opinions.

They DON'T do the sums on flow though, only on the cost. I have had
arguments about it with their expert officials.
>>
>> The objective of queue management is improving service time not making
>> room for longer queues. My experience of the "experts" is that they
>> haven't bothered with the calculations because the Government Guidelines
>> now focus on storage so that is all the new recruits look at. That and
>> ecological benefits to the fauna and sod the inconvenience to the
>> residents.
>
> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

I have had arguments about it with their expert officials at minuted
meetings. It will no doubt be in the EA archives somewhere.

If you can't be bothered to find it, it doesn't make it untrue.

>
>>>> Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One
>>>> suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir
>>>> upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak
>>>> flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!"
>>>> Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra
>>>> time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time.
>>>
>>> Exactly, such a scheme can hold only a small fraction of the surplus
>>> water.
>>
>> I wasn't recommending it, I was quoting the people who understand flood
>> management criticising people who don't and propose ineffective ideas.
>
> Well it was your own beloved drainage boards who had implemented it, so
> why are you blaming the EA?

On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 16:06:01 +0000 (GMT), charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>> >> I gave away all my old bottles of malts when I had to give up drinking
>> >> for health reasons. Alas.
>> >
>> > My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some
>> > away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"
>
>> She'll get 'em eventually, regardless. Why can't she enjoy them now?
>
> she doesn't like whisky!

What *was* she going to do with them then? Give 'em away, sell 'em or
pour 'em down the sink?

On 07/02/2022 22:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2022 17:30, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Equally you should not assume that the whole population is cleverer than
>> the scientific professionals who are paid to investigate these issues.
>
> That doesn't justify your error of judgement.

I haven't made an error of judgement, but you've made several; here's a
list of the errors and falsehoods you have claimed so far:
Shape of ditches
'Magic' frictional forces
East Anglia not flat
Timing of the drainage boards coming under EA control
Scientific denialism concerning hydrology

> And I have dealt with your
> so-called "experts" and they are not using expertise, they are following
> the Government Guidelines.

They are professionals giving professional opinions. Your not liking
those opinions doesn't mean they are wrong, nor that there is some sort
of governmental conspiracy to cover up the truth.

>>>> As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local
>>>> drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent
>>>> flooding,
>>>
>>> The local drainage boards lost the ability to make their own decisions
>>> in 2005. Have you any evidence of such criticisms before that date?
>>
>> On the contrary, the paragraph of the Wiki page previous to the one
>> already quoted begins ...
>>
>> "Since 1990, the drainage boards have been charged with watching the
>> rhynes and keeping them clear, under the overall responsibility of the
>> Environment Agency."
>>
>> ... so where is your evidence that anything concerning the above
>> arrangement changed in 2005?
>
> From a letter dated 19 October 2010 from the spokesman for the former
> Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee as an official complaint to
> the head of Bath Council trying to trace who took the funding for the
> river improvements that should have been ring-fenced for river maintenance:
> "The statement is therefore a gross misrepresentation of the efforts of
> BALFDC over the years to protect and enhance the flood defences of Bath,
> and maligns a Committee no longer able to defend its reputation because
> it was dissolved on 1 April 2005 under Government Legislation."

That's the Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee, not any of the
drainage boards for where the flooding actually occurred.

> Note the last line. *1 April 2005* was when all local autonomy was
> removed.  That letter will be in the council archives if you want to
> read it yourself.

It's irrelevant, so I don't need to.

>>>> I am familiar with the local geography.  For one thing, it's very like
>>>> East Anglia where I was brought up.
>>>
>>> East Anglia is undulating, not flat (my mother lived there in the
>>> 1990s). Not a valid comparison.
>>
>> Stop this clueless bullshitting and making things up as you go along!
>> This as bad as telling me I didn't know the shape of ditches I'd seen
>> footage of being excavated just hours previously, or invoking magic
>> frictional forces.  The simple truth is that large areas of East Anglia
>> are completely flat.  See, for example ...
>>
>> Talking Landscapes - The Fens
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m1n
>
> That is an item about THE FENS. There is a lot more to East Anglia than
> that, and you were not specific.

Come to that, neither were you, meanwhile the fact remains that, as per
my claim and contrary to your claim, large parts of East Anglia are flat
as a pancake.

> Also, The Levels are reclaimed land,
> not peat bogs.

The Fens are also reclaimed land, and, as most others in the world seem
to think except you, similar to the Somerset Levels.

>>> I lived on the levels for a while in the 1970s, which gains a better
>>> appreciation of the area than someone visiting a girlfriend.
>>
>> No doubt, but it doesn't seem to help you understand the 2014 weather
>> events and the subsequent flooding.
>>
>>> Fluvial flood protection is the same regardless of the specific
>>> location.
>>
>> Self-contradiction: Then why are you trying to claim your special local
>> knowledge is any better than mine???!!!
>
> Because you were insisting I didn't know what I was talking about.  You
> call out other people who claim things you disagree with, but you don't
> like the same thing done to you, do you?

You don't know what you're talking about; besides the above
self-contradiction, see again the list of your other errors and false
claims at the head of this reply.

>>> The key feature is the success of a policy to maximise then
>>> maintain a designed flow rate through and away.
>>
>> You seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the scientific
>> opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
>> done the sums.
>
> They don't do the sums though.  I have had arguments about it with their
> expert officials.

Another claim looking suspiciously like it's been plucked out of the
air. Who? What were his/her qualifications? What was his/her
professional or political position? If you can't be bothered to
authenticate your claims, they don't become true just because you wish
them to be so.

>>>> Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
>>>> scale of the event.
>>>
>>> I do understand the scale of the event.  The input exceeded the output,
>>> but the output wasn't what it was prior to 2005. That is why the
>>> floodwater stayed for so long, and *that* is the issue you are ignoring.
>>
>> I'm not ignoring it, but until you come up with some convincing
>> *EVIDENCE* in the form of numbers, I'm going to side with the opinions
>> of the scientific professionals in the field whom I presume have worked
>> out the numbers that you insist on ignoring.
>
> They don't do the sums though! I have had arguments about it with them.
> Across a table at meetings!

As above: Who? What were his/her qualifications? What was his/her
professional or political position? If you can't be bothered to
authenticate your claims, they don't become true just because you wish
them to be so.

>>>>>> "Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood
>>>>>> protection
>>>>>> has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35]
>>>
>>> Those "[34][35]" references are about the situation in 2011, not
>>> relevant to what would have been the position before 2005.  Why rely on
>>> quotes that are not relevant?
>>
>> Because the arrangements in 2011 seem to have been in place since the
>> 1990s, and therefore it doesn't appear to be a valid claim that the
>> drainage boards were handling things better, or indeed any differently,
>> in 2005.
>
> That is an assumption.  I bet you can't prove it.  The 1990s were a very
> different river management arrangement then. It all changed in 2005, on
> the 1st April to be precise, and it wasn't an April Fool joke.

You've only showed that it changed for one particular group which was
not a drainage board, and not in the area affected by the 2014 flooding,
while Wiki states that the drainage boards have been under EA control
since the 1990s.

>>>> But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been
>>>> dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice?  You
>>>> have
>>>> never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with
>>>> and without dredging,
>>>
>>> It does matter that the residents affected confirmed that the rivers
>>> were much more silted up than they used to be.  More silt means slower
>>> drainage and therefore it would have cleared the floodwater more quickly
>>> before the silt was allow to build up due to EA policy. It doesn't
>>> matter how long exactly, it would have been less.
>>
>> But, as you have been told repeatedly, UNTIL YOU DO THE SUMS you don't
>> know HOW MUCH difference this actually made!  For all you know, it was
>> as little as just a few millimetres in terms of the highest flood level,
>> and a day or two in drainage time.
>
> The news coverage at the time by the residents of the area described
> that the silt had accumulated to such an extent that it reduced the
> largest river to half its carrying capacity.  It would have made *weeks*
> of difference, bearing mind that the floods took 3 months to get away.
> Original clearance capacity divided by 2 is the sum.

On 08/02/2022 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
> On 07/02/2022 22:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 07/02/2022 17:30, Java Jive wrote:

>> That doesn't justify your error of judgement.
>
> I haven't made an error of judgement, but you've made several; here's a
> list of the errors and falsehoods you have claimed so far:
> Shape of ditches
Man made ditches are U shaped if they are designed to be drains. It is
the shape that holds the greatest volume but remains stable

> 'Magic' frictional forces
Friction exists between liquids and solids; that is why when you stir a
cup of tea it doesn't keep rotating indefinitely. Everybody sees the
same thing, so it isn't magic. The amount of friction depends on the
abutting surfaces, but it is never zero at any temperature above
absolute zero.

> East Anglia not flat
Not all of East Anglia is fenland, and there are parts which are not
flat. Buy an OS map and look at the contour lines.

> Timing of the drainage boards coming under EA control
1 April 2005 is documented. It was a Statutory Instrument which removed
the autonomy of ALL the drainage boards. It was a Statutory Instrument
which amended Schedule 3 to the Land Drainage Act 1991 and it is on the
gov.uk website if you really want to find it. I know the number, but I
am not going to do your research for you.

> Scientific denialism concerning hydrology
Your ignorance, not mine

>
>> And I have dealt with your
>> so-called "experts" and they are not using expertise, they are following
>> the Government Guidelines.
>
> They are professionals giving professional opinions.
These are professionals repeating Government Guidelines.

> Your not liking
> those opinions doesn't mean they are wrong
The Bristol University Hydrolab in response to a joint B&NES/Environment
Agency final report produced in March 2003 proves the Government
Guidelines are wrong assumptions. It was sent to the EA who ignored it
on the grounds that they "had to follow the guidelines". The guidelines
are to use storage rather than flow management, and you and I have both
dismissed the effectiveness of storage for flood prevention.

>>> You seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the scientific
>>> opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
>>> done the sums.
>>
>> They don't do the sums though. I have had arguments about it with their
>> expert officials.
>
> Another claim looking suspiciously like it's been plucked out of the
> air. Who? What were his/her qualifications? What was his/her
> professional or political position?
His name was Mark Willetts, he attended representing the Environment
Agency and he covered the Somerset area. I didn't get his business card
so I can't answer the rest of your "doubting Thomas" nosiness.

At that point I came to the conclusion that your knowledge is based
solely on what you have seen or read elsewhere and you have no PERSONAL
understanding of what is relevant and what is not, so you always assume
everybody who doesn't agree with your quotes is wrong. I can't see the
point in arguing with a parrot who is just going to say the same things
over again because you don't know what is right and what is wrong so you
can't understand reality.

I will just add:

-Wikipedia is not God. I have previously registered for and obtained (in
July 2010 if you want to check) Wikipedia's authority to add or amend
anything in Wikipedia, so in theory I can make articles say whatever I
want to change them to. I don't do that with anything that is not
established fact, but there are complaints in Wikipedia that things have
been altered, so not everybody is so honest.

-And I quote the definition of dredging from the US Waterways authority
(I looked at the UK version but they are only concerned with
applications for licences to dredge not the definition of it, so the US
one will have to do):
"Dredging is the removal of sediments and debris from the bottom of
lakes, rivers, harbors, and other water bodies. It is a routine
necessity in waterways around the world because sedimentation — the
natural process of sand and silt washing downstream - gradually fills
channels and harbors."

Just note that it says "bottom" *not* "sides". Proper dredging is from a
floating platform so that the sides are not disturbed. Your description
of dredging doesn't fit that description.

*GOODBYE PARROT*. I have established that you are ignorant but will
reply despite that, and I will ignore your inevitable retort which will
be quotes of others untouched by your own thought processes.
So I am taking you up on your own offer:
"I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion."

Jim

On 08/02/2022 16:55, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 08/02/2022 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 07/02/2022 22:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/02/2022 17:30, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> That doesn't justify your error of judgement.
>>
>> I haven't made an error of judgement, but you've made several; here's a
>> list of the errors and falsehoods you have claimed so far:
>>     Shape of ditches
>
> Man made ditches are U shaped if they are designed to be drains. It is
> the shape that holds the greatest volume but remains stable

Nonsense! You are clearly lying now. If you are correct ...

Why are all the drainage channels up here dug with sloping sides?

Why does this drainage channel on The Fens have sloping sides?

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/TalkingLandscapes-Fens-Drainage.jpg

Why did the undredged sections of the still I linked have sloping sides?

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/SomersetAfterTheFloods-Dredging.jpg

Why do these Somerset ditches and originally natural water courses that
have been dredged by man all have sloping sides?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0960944,-2.8204298,3a,75y,89.13h,59.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssHMhNrUoNdHM3pHwEE90Lw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.148641,-2.9452382,3a,75y,328.33h,82.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD8-VRwikngnyOpuMXR0JXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0110869,-2.761,3a,75y,97.34h,77.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss7u6cHi0krD0Fx9uJEy0rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0305852,-2.817406,3a,75y,44.68h,88.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sssn78uibw8AMoumOxSpzlA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.033068,-2.822126,3a,15y,342.49h,86.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKe-SuZSDNGtgRO050RBakw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DKe-SuZSDNGtgRO050RBakw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.36386%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

And even with those that are full, there is still the suggestion from
the angle of the top of the banks that at least some of them, probably
all, also have sloping sides:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1803574,-2.8707475,3a,75y,76.77h,95.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-2_tR5JKT1O5ary7Au24Tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1885169,-2.9382514,3a,37.5y,105.2h,85.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN9LVUarAPfKa1nSEz0J5og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1670618,-2.826268,3a,75y,316.91h,94.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAV9Me7JBcGIknQDgeW55Og!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAV9Me7JBcGIknQDgeW55Og%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D110.64941%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Beyond the sluice:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1843485,-2.9070863,3a,75y,32.24h,83.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLEb-VVHpPBB2Zix1awvqPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.101585,-2.8689597,3a,37.5y,142.76h,80.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVVD3q0QS9K7lq-0DFjis8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Etc, etc. It astonishes me, and is rather a depressing comment on the
ignorant stupidity of man, that when arguing with someone who has
something of a reputation for following the scientific textbook, you
stick your neck out lying like this when half an hour with Google Street
View was all that was needed to get to the truth!

>>     'Magic' frictional forces
>
> Friction exists between liquids and solids; that is why when you stir a
> cup of tea it doesn't keep rotating indefinitely. Everybody sees the
> same thing, so it isn't magic. The amount of friction depends on the
> abutting surfaces, but it is never zero at any temperature above
> absolute zero.

Its effect is miniscule in the situation being discussed and is
therefore of zilch relevance.

>>     East Anglia not flat
>
> Not all of East Anglia is fenland, and there are parts which are not
> flat. Buy an OS map and look at the contour lines.

They are parts of Somerset that aren't flat too, so? The point that you
tried to deny is that it is widely accepted by experts in the field that
the Somerset Levels and the East Anglian Fens have a great deal in common.

>>     Timing of the drainage boards coming under EA control
>
> 1 April 2005 is documented. It was a Statutory Instrument which removed
> the autonomy of ALL the drainage boards.  It was a Statutory Instrument
> which amended Schedule 3 to the Land Drainage Act 1991 and it is on the
> gov.uk website if you really want to find it. I know the number, but I
> am not going to do your research for you.

How typical of you to expect others to prove your points for you. It's
not going to happen.

>>     Scientific denialism concerning hydrology
>
> Your ignorance, not mine

Nope, in the absence of meaningful *EVIDENCE* to the contrary, I'm
accepting scientific opinion on this subject, it's you that's denying
scientific opinion without offering meaningful *EVIDENCE*.

>>>> You seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the
>>>> scientific
>>>> opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
>>>> done the sums.
>>>
>>> They don't do the sums though.  I have had arguments about it with their
>>> expert officials.
>>
>> Another claim looking suspiciously like it's been plucked out of the
>> air.  Who?  What were his/her qualifications?  What was his/her
>> professional or political position?
>
> His name was Mark Willetts, he attended representing the Environment
> Agency and he covered the Somerset area. I didn't get his business card
> so I can't answer the rest of your "doubting Thomas" nosiness.

There are no worthwhile hits for him, so we are none the wiser as to his
scientific credentials and job title.

> At that point I came to the conclusion that your knowledge is based
> solely on what you have seen or read elsewhere and you have no PERSONAL
> understanding of what is relevant and what is not, so you always assume
> everybody who doesn't agree with your quotes is wrong. I can't see the
> point in arguing with a parrot who is just going to say the same things
> over again because you don't know what is right and what is wrong so you
> can't understand reality.

LOL! Look in a mirror why don't you?

> I will just add:
>
> -Wikipedia is not God. I have previously registered for and obtained (in
> July 2010 if you want to check) Wikipedia's authority to add or amend
> anything in Wikipedia, so in theory I can make articles say whatever I
> want to change them to. I don't do that with anything that is not
> established fact, but there are complaints in Wikipedia that things have
> been altered, so not everybody is so honest.

No Wikipedia isn't god and not all people are honest, but neither are
you god, and unfortunately neither are you honest, as manifestly proven
by your behaviour in this thread in plucking multiple claims out of the
air, nearly all of which were easily disproven either immediately by
general scientific knowledge or else by minimal research.
> -And I quote the definition of dredging from the US Waterways authority
> (I looked at the UK version but they are only concerned with
> applications for licences to dredge not the definition of it, so the US
> one will have to do):
> "Dredging is the removal of sediments and debris from the bottom of
> lakes, rivers, harbors, and other water bodies. It is a routine
> necessity in waterways around the world because sedimentation — the
> natural process of sand and silt washing downstream - gradually fills
> channels and harbors."
>
> Just note that it says "bottom" *not* "sides". Proper dredging is from a
> floating platform so that the sides are not disturbed. Your description
> of dredging doesn't fit that description.

Different people mean different things by such terms on just one side of
the pond, let alone on both. Perhaps we should stick to the EA's
definition (I couldn't find a link to this document on the EA's site,
but this appears to be the genuine article):

"Dredging is the process of removing silt from the bottom and sides of
the river channel" [Picture is of a drag-shovel excavating a bank]

Also:

"Natural river channels
• The river channel is not large enough to contain extreme
floods, even after dredging
• Dredging of river channels does NOT prevent flooding
during extreme river flows"

And most, probably all, the diagrams of channels have sloping banks.

https://www.swallowfieldfishingclub.co.uk/downloads/category/13-environmental?download=23:river-dredging-a-flood-defence

This is the scientific opinion, and therefore the default opinion, to
shift it you have to do some numbers-based work, and so far you have
failed to do so.

On 09/02/2022 00:20, Java Jive wrote:

The reply which I predicted to happen, no doubt parroting the things you
have read which prove your pre-conceived ideas, and which I have snipped
unread, as I said I would.

Jim

On 09/02/2022 16:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> The reply which I predicted to happen, no doubt parroting the things you
> have read which prove your pre-conceived ideas, and which I have snipped
> unread, as I said I would.

That's rich from someone trying to lie about the shape of rural drainage
ditches to a person from a farming background. I suppose you didn't
bother to even look at the dozen or so counter examples mostly from the
Somerset Levels I linked, thus condemning yourself to remain as ignorant
about land drainage as you are about climate change. That's your
problem, no-one else's, and certainly not mine.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/02/2022 17:02, Java Jive wrote:

<SNIP>

I have met Obsessives before. They just keep going until all other
points of view give up, then smugly think they have won.

It doesn't bother me that you think that. I am happy that my work with
"BSc CEng MIET" is accurate.

Jim

On 09/02/2022 19:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> I have met Obsessives before.

Yes, every time you look in a mirror. Who is it who keeps on insisting
against all evidence, most of it freely available to you, that drainage
ditches are U-shaped rather than, as in fact they nearly always are,
V-shaped? Who is it who can't accept losing a rational argument and
instead keeps on obsessing about my character instead? You've been told
many times that you need *EVIDENCE* to overthrow established scientific
thinking. Railing against the person telling you that just makes you
look an inadequate prick.

> It doesn't bother me that you think that. I am happy that my work with
> "BSc CEng MIET" is accurate.

It isn't, because you don't know what shape drainage ditches are. See
the dozen or so examples given you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/02/2022 20:25, Java Jive wrote:
<SNIP>
I am not doing much tonight, so I am happy to waste your time typing
stuff I don't read.

Jim

On 09/02/2022 20:44, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> I am not doing much tonight, so I am happy to waste your time typing
> stuff I don't read.

Fooling no-one while making an arse of yourself.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/02/2022 21:23, Java Jive wrote:
<SNIP>
I am not doing much tonight, so I am happy to waste your time typing
stuff I don't read.

Jim