The real reason for flooding in Somerset Levels? Not global warming – river management

5758659-large[1]
A sign on a bridge over the River Parrett at Burrowbridge, Somerset. Martin Hesp says it is vital that rivers in the area are dredged after years of neglect that has seen capacity tumble Picture: SWNS
UPDATE: Satellite images added.

UPDATE2: Upon further inspection of satellite images and flood maps I’ve concluded that while what this commenter had to say about the history is indeed true, the impact in this situation is not particularly relevant. I was going on the idea that all of the flood control channels in Somerset levels were interconnected, so that there would be multiple paths of egress (directable by small dams). It turns out they are not, and the Huntspill sluice, even if full open, wouldn’t have drained any water where it was most needed. The real issue has to do with the lack of flow capacity in the Kings Sedgemoor Drain, (gravity drain, not pumped) due to silting and vegetation encroachment, as well as similar issues in the River Parrett where a campaign was launched in 2013 to get it dredged, to no avail. Thus I’ve changed the top photo and the title to reflect this new information about lack of management, putting wildlife over people.  – Anthony

UPDATE3/4: This before and after photo shows the problem of silting restricting the flow on the River Parrett (originally only two photos, now 3 together which tells the story better.

somerset-bridge_2825383b
Composite image of the River Parrett in Burrowbridge in the early 1960’s (top left) when dredging was carried out on a regular basis, a recent picture before the current flooding event showing the encroaching river banks (bottom left) and during the recent flooding Photo: SWNS

h/t to Richard North at EU Referendum for the original two on the left, with thanks to WUWT commenters ‘Peter’ and ‘Jones’ and ‘Jabba the Cat’

This article at The Telegraph is the source: How Somerset Levels river flooded after it was not dredged for decades

===============================================================

We’ve previously covered the absurd claims that “global warming” was the cause of flooding in Somerset, UK here and here, with yesterday, even a senior scientist at the Met Office disagreeing with the spinmistress in charge, Julio Slingo’s claim about an AGW connection. Now we learn the real reason. Lack of management.  The ROF pumping station was turned off in 2008 and nothing was done to replace it, while at the same time the Huntspill sluice gates to drain water to the sea seemed to be improperly managed by the EA.

I’m repeating the comment here to give wide distribution.

Bishop Hill writes: Commenter “Corporal Jones’ Ghost’ left this comment on one of the flooding threads. It looks to be quite important. (see my notes above in update 2, this claim while historically true, is no longer credible as a reason for flooding – Anthony)

============================================================

I want to tell you what really has happened on the Somerset Levels.

I am remaining anonymous for good reason, I think you’ll understand why.

You have to go back to 1939, when the MOD decided that they needed a new Munitions factory for HDX explosives, HDX uses a lot of water, all munitions manufacture does, but HDX is greedy. 

The levels had too much water and so we built one on the Levels, ROF37 or ROF Bridgewater or ROF Woolavington, it’s all the same place.

To ensure that there was enough water even on the waterlogged Levels, we built the Huntspill River, we then connected it to the River Brue to the North and the Kings Sedgemoor Drain via a pipe to the South, we also widened the River Sowy to get water to our factory.

We would use >5 thousand million litres every year, rain or shine.

We then disposed of it into the sea, we had to do this regardless of the tidal conditions and we had steam pumps that did this remarkable task, they pumped out at the Huntspill sluice 3 thousand million ltrs a year, the rest was either evaporated, too contaminated and shipped off-site or left the factory in the product!

Part of the legacy f the fall of Communism was that we didn’t need quite so much ordnance to practice killing the deadly foe.

In the mid 1990s the decision was made and we ran down the ROFs.

By 2000 ROF37 was given an execution date of 2008 and like all state executions, it was carried out on time.

We all knew that the ‘run-on’ from our departure would be that the EA/Levels Boards needed to take over pumping, they couldn’t afford our old system as it was very old and on restricted land.

I should explain at this point that the ONLY pumping done was ours, we could and did pump no matter the tides, we’d taken over the responsibility/control in 1940 for all high volume pumping on the Levels.

We advised that the Huntspill be automated and the Kings Sedgemoor Drain be pumped and made strong representation to that effect.

But every meeting with the EA ended in frustration as they never sent a single seriously knowledgeable Drainage Engineer to any meeting. The Levels Boards understood the issues and tried to get the pumps installed.

It didn’t happen.

One of the problems with draining the Levels is silting, we used to pump in such a way as to utilise ‘scour’ of all the rhynes and ditches and pipelines to keep them clear, when we shut down in the 50s due to a slight mishap and explosion on site in just 15 days of reduced use we found the lines lost about 1% of their ‘flow sympathy’ meaning we had to suck about 1% harder to get the same amount of water through the top metering point.

We all hoped that the 2007 flood would wake the EA up and get them to re-think their stance on the KSD pumps, they would not even agree to a meeting! We were pumping furiously on a limited facility in that year or that flood would have been horrific.

Today, looking at the flood charts and pictures it is obvious that the connection to the Huntspill is blocked, silted up.

So the water can’t be ‘smeared’ over all the levels as in the past, that is why ‘record’ levels are being recorded in certain areas whilst others are barely affected.

The poor chap who has built an Island out of his home has my sympathies, he the KSD pumps been in place for the last 6 years he’d not be in the predicament he is in, nor for that matter would most of the others on the levels, the water won’t be going anywhere soon.

This is the reality of the situation, if you wish to check for yourself, you can go to even the Wiki pages and read about it (until they get edited no doubt!) but all that I’ve written is a matter of public record and can be verified elsewhere.

I enclose a single link to the fact that we did our best to convince the EA that the matter was serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Sedgemoor_Drain

Quote from above…

Floodwater is removed from many of the moors of the Somerset Levels by pumping stations, which were originally steam-powered. These were superseded by diesel engines, and more recently by electric pumps. The King’s Sedgemoor Drain is unusual in that it operates entirely by gravity. Consideration was given to replacing Dunball clyse with a pumping station in 2002, which would have allowed water to be discharged into the estuary at all states of the tide, but this course of action was not followed. Management of the Drain is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, whereas the numerous rhynes or drainage ditches which feed into the Drain are the responsibility of several Internal Drainage Boards, who work together as the Parrett Consortium of Drainage Boards.[19]

The reference point… ^ The Parrett Catchment Water Management Strategy Action Plan. Environment Agency. 2002. ISBN 1-85705-788-0. Retrieved 16 November 2010.

I thought someone ought to know the real truth behind this fiasco.

=============================================================

Also in the reference in Wikipedia is this story which backs up the commenter’s claim:

As part of the war effort, an explosives factory, ROF Bridgwater, was built at Puriton. The Catchment Board needed to be able to guarantee that 4.5 million gallons (20.5 Megalitres) of process water would be available to the factory every day. To this end, the Huntspill River was constructed, a little further to the north, which was essentially a revival of a plan by J. Aubrey Clark in 1853, to provide better drainage for the Brue valley. King’s Sedgemoor drain was deemed to be a backup source for water, should the Huntspill scheme fail, and so all of the work which had been planned before the war started was completed, to ensure that the volume of water needed was always available.[14] Greylake sluice was built by the Somerset Rivers Catchment Board in 1942, and used guillotine gates to control water levels. The original plaque commemorating its completion was incorporated into the new structure when the sluice was rebuilt in 2006.[15]

To help readers visualize, here is a couple of map items from Google Earth that I annotated. First, the ROF37 munitions factory, Huntspill River, the Huntspill Sluice (gates) and their proximity to the town of Bridgwater:

Hunstspil_ROF_map

It looks like they keep the Huntspill River artificially high, even in good weather. The voles must be happy:

Hunstspill_sluice

It seems the writing was on the wall in January 2014, as shown in this video:

Here are some photos from that same day:

DSC_0641[1]

But no, it MUST be AGW because water mismanagement by the Environmental Authority is out of the question.

Of course, this EA map says otherwise, click to enlarge:

EA_Map

This is from a policy document from 2008 which referred to the possibility – so-called option 6 – of allowing parts of the Levels to flood:

Policy Unit 8- Somerset Levels and Moors

Policy option 6 – Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere, which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction.

Note: This policy option involves a strategic increase in flooding in allocated areas, but is not intended to affect the risk to individual properties.

Click to access Parret%20Catchment%20Flood%20Management%20Plan.pdf

UPDATE:

Satellite image from Feb 8th, click to enlarge:

Somerset_sat_image_article

Same area seen today from MODIS, the brown floodwaters are obvious, though reduced:

MODIS_Somerset1

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

276 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Corporal Jones' Ghost
February 17, 2014 4:44 am

It does seem a ‘Chicken/Egg conundrum, but it isn’t.
The collapse of the system stems from one single act omission, the failure to pump and by that pumping keep the water courses clear. That was the card that fell and the remainder tumbled.
Cessation of both at/around the same time is just crass ignorance especially in the face of so much local knowledge and warning!
Take a quick look at this leaflet:- http://www.somersetdrainageboards.gov.uk/Southlake_FC_IDB_newsletter_2_Autumn_2010.pdf
The removal of the pipelines and the bunds (small embankments) that form RWLA system was tantamount to lunacy, in my opinion and I’d guess that of the locals too.
They admit to planned flooding, the plan failed not due to it being a bad idea alone (it was, again in my opinion, a very bad idea) but additionally the idea was not viable as a cohesive entity that took into account the true nature of the Moor.
I am amazed at the tolerance of the local people, in the face of far less incompetence in other nations there has been insurrection.
I’m not sure if my farm/house/home was filling with water ‘on purpose’ I’d be quite as sanguine.
Thanking for taking the time to read my letters.

richardscourtney
February 17, 2014 4:49 am

Corporal Jones’ Ghost:
Thankyou for your further reply at February 17, 2014 at 4:44 am which removes my confusion.
I hope you recognise that my persistent questioning results from genuine interest and I am grateful for your information.
Perhaps the lessons learned from the Levels will be applied to the Thames and the drainage plan for there will be completed (hope springs eternal).
Richard

Corporal Jones' Ghost
February 17, 2014 4:57 am

I consider your questions to have been both valid and thought provoking.
Keep them coming, Steel sharpens Steel.

Bloke down the pub
February 17, 2014 5:02 am

Corporal Jones’ Ghost says:
February 17, 2014 at 3:49 am
Hi, again!
3/. 11 years later the Dutch have been/are Pumping in that exact spot.
Latest news is that the pumps have been switched off.

Corporal Jones' Ghost
February 17, 2014 5:12 am

Yes, they are not discharging onto the Concrete shute but the soft embankment, damage was inevitable.
They’ll resume once they’ve welded the new pieces of pipe to do this or extended the pipes into water to ameliorate the water abrasion.

RichardLH
February 17, 2014 5:12 am

Corporal Jones’ Ghost says:
February 17, 2014 at 4:44 am
“The collapse of the system stems from one single act omission, the failure to pump and by that pumping keep the water courses clear. That was the card that fell and the remainder tumbled.”
Given the tidal range on the Severn, gravity – if properly used – is more than capable of pumping the required amount of water to the sea.
The Dutch, when they first setup the system, mainly used that alone. It was topped up with some pumping later to help the system move more water to the outlet rather than move that water then to the sea.
If we were to adopt the style of system that the French use at Mont-Saint-Michel and elsewhere where computer controlled sluices use the available water to keep the channels clear of silt both above and below the barrage as well as pump the water required then things would be a lot better than there are now.
At couple of those at the confluence of Kings Sedgemoor Drain and the River Parret and also at confluence of Huntspill River and the River Parret would do a lot of the heavy lifting required.
When you consider the width of the sluices currently used and the lack of a buffering reservoirs close to the outlets it is no surprise the system can barely cope.
Also the River Parret is tidal all the way to Bridgewater and beyond. Keeping that river course dredged out to a reasonable depth or providing another parallel flood relief channel if that is considered to be too ecologically unsound is one of the options that also needs seriously considering.

RichardLH
February 17, 2014 5:29 am

Corporal Jones’ Ghost says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:12 am
“Yes, they are not discharging onto the Concrete shute but the soft embankment, damage was inevitable.”
Which half arsed engineer allowed them to start as they did with the pipes barley over the top on the banking and dropping 10-15 ft vertically to the mud? You could see at a glance what was about to happen then!

R. de Haan
February 17, 2014 5:29 am

Anthony, just for the record, I think you have missed the core of the story here and that is the fact that the lack of maintenance has been caused by the Environmental Agency executing EU Directives. See Eureferendum.
Also let it be clear that Somerset is not the only land under water.
The same EU directives have forced the Dutch to turn land into a salt water marsh to compensate for the “environmental damage” caused by dredging the “Schelde”, the waterway that connects the harbor of Antwerp with the North Sea.
If nations are forced by mandatory directives to compensate dredging operations by flooding land, it is just a matter of time before 1/2 of the World Population have lost their home because that is the number of people living in coastal flood planes which as you know all are in need of regular dredging operations to keep the land dry.
What should be the TOP story here is the total madness of the EU and it’s system of directives.

Corporal Jones' Ghost
February 17, 2014 5:38 am

Tidal ebbs are powerful and you are right, but only partially.
If the Moors were subject to no occupation (ie natural) then it would be fine, but the land effectively lost for production.
So we have confined the River and built shore defences, this has fundamentally changed the effectiveness of the Ebb tide drag.
The result is that man who did this has to make up for the natural drag of a surface ebb tide on the land.
We do this by removing all the water we can from the Eastern end of the Moor where the lag in the soil keeps the water table high.
By doing the drainage the way we have chosen to we have to make up for that shortfall.
The Dutch use an intensive ‘ditch/field’ system and high levees to allow pumping at the shore line to occur. It is a good system, it isn’t very ‘natural’ looking to the English sensibilities I feel.
So we went for the more beautiful way the Levels looked until recently, the tiny fields surrounded on 4 sides by water looks too much patchwork quilt for us.
I am not familiar with the M-St-M system but it sounds like what we did but with humans until recently.
The lift of water is only needed at tidal break-over points, below that of course nature works perfectly.

George Lawson
February 17, 2014 5:41 am

With the unusual amount of flooding in Britain recently, we regularly read of comparative flood levels with those of 100 years ago. Such comparisons are meaningless until we factor in the number of other changes to life in Britain over the past 100 years that have had such a bearing on the rivers and water courses across the country. To start with, we now have a population which has increased by 50 per cent from 40 million to 60 million in the last 100 years. The average person, we are told, consumes circa 100 gallons of water a day through washing, showering, lavatories, washing machines, dishwashers, car washing and drinking. Which means that two billion additional gallons of water are being consumed, and subsequently put into the drainage system every day of the year, with possibly twice that figure being used by industry and commerce. The 20 million increase in the population has resulted in a 50 per cent increase in housing stock with the resultant huge increase in rainwater run – off, directly into the drainage system, water which would otherwise be absorbed into the ground and dissipate more slowly. Add to that the massive increase in the building of commercial and industrial properties across the country to satisfy an ever growing economy, and the huge increase in run off of rainwater directly into the system is obvious. More motorways, roadways and airport runways similarly call for major direct drainage facilities. Out of town shopping centres and business parks, with their attendant car parks and roadways covering thousands of acres serving every town of the country, demand similar facilities for taking away rain water very quickly. Natural absorption and drainage is being replaced by more and more by man – made drainage systems which may not effectively replace natural drainage that has evolved over thousands of years. More flood prevention structures are understandably being demanded by householders who have often bought houses that have been erected on flood plains in order that developers and local authorities alike can benefit financially without regard for the long term environmental deficit from doing so. Flood prevention structures are then put into place by environment authorities who seem to completely disregard the old adage that ‘flood prevention upstream means more flooding downstream’; the water has to go somewhere, A good example is the 11 km Jubilee River, built in 2002 at a cost of £84 million, to relieve flooding in Maidenhead and Windsor, which is now being rightly blamed for the excessive flooding downstream of Windsor. Is the environment agency now going to respond to the cries for flood prevention schemes in Datchet and further down the river, if so, where will it all stop? Or will they decide to adopt a policy which allows a flood to take its historical own course and spread and rise less over a wider area rather than force it to rise higher over a lesser area, with a potentially more devastating result? They should think hard about the best way to deal with the occasional, naturally occurring problem of flooding, and question whether their current flood prevention policies are the right ones.

Corporal Jones' Ghost
February 17, 2014 5:47 am

“Which half arsed engineer allowed them to start as they did with the pipes barley over the top on the banking and dropping 10-15 ft vertically to the mud? You could see at a glance what was about to happen then!”
No Engineer would voluntarily do that unless in the face of an emergency or pressure to start instantly, so it may have been an imposed deadline to get something moving.
The Dutch engineers would have said something like “2/3 days max (or similar) then we do it properly.” and that is happening now I expect.
Engineers get the kick in the nuts because bureaucracy often puts us in the firing line for that purpose. It’s part of the job in this Country, even the Dutch can’t avoid it, it seems.

richardscourtney
February 17, 2014 6:04 am

George Lawson:
Your post at February 17, 2014 at 5:41 am attempts to excuse the results of the EA’s environmentalist policy which has caused the disasterous floods in the North of England, the Thames valley and the Somerset Levels.
Your failed excuses include this outrageous falsehood

Flood prevention structures are then put into place by environment authorities who seem to completely disregard the old adage that ‘flood prevention upstream means more flooding downstream’; the water has to go somewhere, A good example is the 11 km Jubilee River, built in 2002 at a cost of £84 million, to relieve flooding in Maidenhead and Windsor, which is now being rightly blamed for the excessive flooding downstream of Windsor. Is the environment agency now going to respond to the cries for flood prevention schemes in Datchet and further down the river, if so, where will it all stop? Or will they decide to adopt a policy which allows a flood to take its historical own course and spread and rise less over a wider area rather than force it to rise higher over a lesser area, with a potentially more devastating result? They should think hard about the best way to deal with the occasional, naturally occurring problem of flooding, and question whether their current flood prevention policies are the right ones.

If you had read my above post which is here then you would have read

The unprecedented flooding of the Thames results from a similar policy decision but in that case a higher priority was given to rich residential areas than middle class residential areas.
Four new channels were scheduled to convey water to the sea. One was completed and the funding for the other three was then removed. So, water which in the past provided minor and historically frequent flooding of Windsor is now transported downstream and is added to what used to be minor and historically frequent flooding but is now a disaster.

It is bad enough that you environmentalists inflict your evil ideology on people, but it is disgraceful that you pretend the horrific effects of adopting your ideology should be accepted as being unavoidable.
Richard

RichardLH
February 17, 2014 6:23 am

Corporal Jones’ Ghost says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:38 am
“I am not familiar with the M-St-M system but it sounds like what we did but with humans until recently.”

From about 1:16 onwards for a quick description of what happens and how they do it (in French 🙂 ).
Lots of other systems likewise over there. They just bother to do the investment that’s all.

Corporal Jones' Ghost
February 17, 2014 6:37 am

I’m afraid George Lawson is repeating a commonly held truth that is in fact a fallacy.
Built-up landscapes do not increase problems of drainage, they just highlight them, a managed drainage system whether in town or country actually makes up for the ‘natural’ latency of drainage issues.
The same goes for ‘consumption’, the more water pulled out of the natural environment and encased in pipes, sewers, station, reservoirs, filtration plants, the less there is for people to drown in.
The latter is so obvious that many who are told this for the first feel quite embarrassed they didn’t see it themselves.
But there is an issue and one that really upsets people too when they are informed of the fact.
Modern ‘paved over’ areas are the single biggest reason that places like London are not under huge amounts of water right now, if the ‘paved over’ areas were not there then London would be inundated, but the Thames Valley is ‘sacrificed’ by impeding the flow by use of these ‘paved over’ areas as surface reservoirs.
Live with it, but don’t be fooled into believing a false reason for it happening.
The sacrifice is essential, London has an underground network, the cost of that being flooded makes the cost of replacing Paul Daniels furniture and Debbies pretty dresses of no consequence at all.
As to the idea of their being a ‘class/political’ decision as to where to flood, couldn’t say, looking at it dispassionately, I’d drown the rich houses, there are fewer of them and all with much more land, but i have no idea really!

richardscourtney
February 17, 2014 6:55 am

Corporal Jones’ Ghost:
I agree much of what you say at February 17, 2014 at 6:37 am. I write to comment on your saying

Modern ‘paved over’ areas are the single biggest reason that places like London are not under huge amounts of water right now, if the ‘paved over’ areas were not there then London would be inundated, but the Thames Valley is ‘sacrificed’ by impeding the flow by use of these ‘paved over’ areas as surface reservoirs.
Live with it, but don’t be fooled into believing a false reason for it happening.
The sacrifice is essential, London has an underground network, the cost of that being flooded makes the cost of replacing Paul Daniels furniture and Debbies pretty dresses of no consequence at all.
As to the idea of their being a ‘class/political’ decision as to where to flood, couldn’t say, looking at it dispassionately, I’d drown the rich houses, there are fewer of them and all with much more land, but i have no idea really!

The ‘class issue’ is certainly asserted by the bulk of the people in the flooded Thames region. It cannot be known if they are right or not, but it is certain that the overall solution was abandoned when the minor problem in the ‘rich’ area was solved by transferring it as an addition to the previously minor problem in the ‘poorer’ area. And the ‘rich’ people have more political ‘clout’.
It is unfair to malign Mr & Mrs Daniels who have been among the most outspoken complainants at the transfer of the problem from their and their neighbours’ properties. They have made several public appearances to complain about it, notably on BBC1 in ‘The Week In Politics’ last Friday. And – despite their being beneficiaries of the policy – they openly assert that it is a matter of the greater influence of their locality over that of people in the areas which are now flooded.
Richard

Corporal Jones' Ghost
February 17, 2014 7:13 am

My apologies if my ‘tongue-in-cheek’ mention of the PD-D (first and only gratuitous hip-hop reference of the day 🙂 ) was taken as in any way maligning them, I think to stand calm during such matters is a great show of resilience, no animosity at all was intended.
But the point stands even if I made it clumsily.
But I do take your point and will refrain from making light of those who are in the midst of a personal catastrophe.

R. de Haan
February 17, 2014 8:18 am
Another Gareth
February 17, 2014 10:06 am

Corporal Jones’ Ghost,
Do you know if Dunball sluice is open or is it just the Dutch pumps evacuating water there? In flood conditions the sluice is supposed to be open to allow water from King’s Sedgemoor Drain to enter the Parrett river.

Corporal Jones' Ghost
February 17, 2014 10:45 am

I don’t know but I will soon, in the last hour I have been ‘invited’ down, odd.

RichardLH
February 17, 2014 11:13 am

Another Gareth says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:06 am
“Do you know if Dunball sluice is open or is it just the Dutch pumps evacuating water there? In flood conditions the sluice is supposed to be open to allow water from King’s Sedgemoor Drain to enter the Parrett river.”
I did see a video (which I now can’t find) of a reasonable river flow even when the pumps were off so I suspect that they are being used correctly.

GregM
February 17, 2014 11:22 am

Manunmade draining? Manmade undraining? Mad Man braintraining.

Sam The Frist
February 17, 2014 1:14 pm

BBC Panorama, a major current affairs programme on the network, just aired an hour ‘special’ on the flooding. Needless to say none of the practical reasons for Somerset being under water discussed above was mentioned. Instead, all the doom-mongering concerned ‘global warming’, climate change, and rising sea levels. So predictable, and so depressing.
Has anyone sent the Corporal’s Ghost’s piece to the local newspapers?

My-oh-My
February 17, 2014 3:03 pm

@Corporal Jones’ Ghost,
Are you still able to communicate after your ‘invite’?

February 17, 2014 4:17 pm

@Sam The Frist
bit of a nerve you’ve got rewarding the present incarnation of Panorama with “major current affairs programme” tag eh ?
Wheeling out George Monbiot and comprehensively ignoring most of the key issues … I’m betting the deceit went further when talking to locals and filming – the location crew lied about the program etc… I’m thinking BBC crews will not get a warm welcome in future …..
For those still following this – see the EA have found another reason to stop pumping – rank incompetence in the operation of pumps…. you couldn’t make it up
Birdseye view of Dunball c/w stopped pumps and scour damage

R. de Haan
February 17, 2014 5:05 pm

Watch this map from Somerset. If this map is real you will know the flood is PLANNED:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2057/met-office-watch?page=11
Just looking for the source of the map.
Who knows where it was published?

1 5 6 7 8 9 11