Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Top British government officials have predictably blamed Climate Change for severe flooding which has afflicted England in recent weeks. But there has also been strong criticism of river management policies.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
London: Climate change is forcing England to re-assess its flood defences in the face of unprecedented river level surges, one of the United Kingdom government’s most senior environment officials says.
“We are moving from a period of known extremes into a period of unknown extremes,” said David Rooke, deputy chief executive of the UK government’s Environment Agency, which manages the country’s rivers.
“We will need to re-assess all the defences right across the country.”
He linked the devastating Boxing Day floods, still engulfing swathes of the country, to climate change.
“What we are seeing are record river levels,” he told BBC Radio. “We saw in the Calder Valley in West Yorkshire levels that were a foot to two feet higher that we’d seen previously. We’ve seen similar again in Cumbria and elsewhere right across the north.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/unprecedented-flooding-in-britain-prompts-renewed-discussion-about-climate-change-20151228-glw0lw.html
There is another side to this story. Local farmer, historian and author Phillip Walling provides some background on the disastrous river management policies imposed by the bureaucratic European Union, which likely exacerbated the floods (h/t James Delingpole).
It was obvious to people, who depended on the land for their living that failing to keep the rivers clear of sand and gravel would cause them to burst their banks and destroy in a few hours fertility that had taken generations to create, wash away their houses, and drown their livestock.
Last century the obligation to dredge out the rivers was transferred to local river boards, consisting of farmers and landowners who knew the area and its characteristics, and who had statutory responsibilities to prevent or minimise flooding.
But all this changed with the creation of the Environment Agency in 1997 and when we adopted the European Water Framework Directive in 2000. No longer were the authorities charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, in an astonishing reversal of policy, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive. So, in order to comply with the obligations imposed on us by the EU we had to stop dredging and embanking and allow rivers to ‘re-connect with their floodplains’, as the currently fashionable jargon has it.
And to ensure this is done, the obligation to dredge has been shifted from the relevant statutory authority (now the Environment Agency) onto each individual landowner, at the same time making sure there are no funds for dredging. And any sand and gravel that might be removed is now classed as ‘hazardous waste’ and cannot be deposited to raise the river banks, as it used to be, but has to be carted away.
Read more: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/what-the-authorities-wont-tell-you-about-the-floods/
What’s disappointing, is that this is not the first time the EU directive which discourages proper dredging has been identified as an issue. However, there is very little ordinary people can do to fix this mess.
The European Union, which has ambitions to bind members into a new superstate, which would include all of Europe, parts of Asia, and potentially also include Russia and her allies, is not a very democratic institution. There is no “EU River Management Official” whom ordinary people can vote out of office. While there is an elected European Parliament, the parliament is virtually toothless – it has no real oversight powers, and no power to source new legislation. All new laws are proposed by a soviet style central committee, the European Commission, which also has responsibility for overseeing implementation of the laws.
Back in October, WUWT reported how an Egyptian official tried to blame flooding on climate change, in my opinion to deflect attention from the disastrous state of local drains. The Egyptian official was forced to resign. It seems unlikely anyone in Britain or Europe will be forced to resign, because of mismanagement of Britain’s waterways.
The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) has been strongly positive since October,
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
This in turn leads to the Tropical Maritime Air Mass, bringing mild, wet, windy weather.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/AO_NAO_files/image001.jpg
When the NAO turns strongly negative, it will turn cold, possibly snowy. Remember the winters of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation#Winter_of_2009.E2.80.9310_in_Europe
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2011/01/nao.mrf_.obs_.gif
Weather…
Current ENSM forecast …
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.sprd2.gif
One of these floods was covered in the Catholic Herald.
A catholic high school was inundated by flood.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/12/10/how-one-catholic-school-is-struggling-with-the-cumbria-flood/
This is covered in a Times article
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4636885.ece
Pay walled
‘Scientists have contradicted a minister’s claim that last
weekend’s flooding in Cumbria was unprecedented and linked to climate
change.
They say that there have been 34 extreme floods there in the past 300
years and that lives had been put at risk by “grossly underestimating”
the risk of floods and failing to consider evidence from records.
Tom Spencer, a reader in coastal ecology and geomorphology at the
University of Cambridge, said that analysis of deposits left by floods
in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries showed that they were the “biggest
events”. He said that the government relied too heavily on records
dating back only 40 years.’
Poor use of records is poor science.
Another ‘Unpresented since’ quote then.
And we see once again the real reason the sorry leaders running government embrace “global warming”: it dissolves the accountability they and their green supporters have for ruining the infrastructure built up at so much cost and hard work over decades of rational planning.
Instead now we have the nihilist misanthropes strutting around at their “climate conferences” pretending to work and plan and echoing each other’s empty parasitic ideas while in the real world the breakdown of sensible flood defense, erosion control, fire prevention, storm surge defense, etc. wastes away from lack of maintenance or upgrade.
But the money our “leaders” get from us tax payers to dole out to their trough mates only grows and grows.
I loved how ‘Unprecedented’ which is now the short hand for ‘Unprecedented since’ made headlines in the press.
No matter that what we are seeing now is close to 2012 and well below an unspecified period some time long in the past.
Agenda setting in a big way. More propaganda than real science.
I crave readers’ indulgence for re-posting from Bishop Hill:-
First, a declaration of interest.
I moved to York, famed for flooding problems, in early 1986.
In 2006, I purchased a house built directly on the banks of the River Foss (albeit a reasonable distance upstream from the City Centre.) As a Chartered Civil Engineer with wide professional experience in various issues (including flooding), I was very well aware that, at least on the basis of extreme weather and flood prediction practise, eventually flood water would arrive at my door. I considered (and consider still) that although the risk was real, it was acceptably low.
The house was built in 2002 and has been elevated well above the level of this week’s flooding and also the more severe floods (for where I live) in 2000 and 2007.
But I was still a City of York Councillor in 2000 and thus involved in the City flood problems pretty closely. The issues in York aren’t too hard to understand. The main river, the Ouse is fairly large and normally slow running through the flat terrain. The Ouse discharges (notably through Selby, downstream) into the river Humber and then into the sea. York, Selby and a vast surrounding area are all situated within what my Geologist chums call ancient Lake Humber, all underlain with clay, silt and sand sedimentary deposits, seldom rising much above 8.0 – 10.0m AOD.
The upland catchment area comprises of an even vaster area of North Yorkshire moors, dales and hills. Numerous significant rivers are tributaries of the Ouse and make periodic flooding events at times quite serious. These events can be considered to fall within three categories, firstly the direct flooding of the Ouse itself, secondly flooding from the Foss, a medium size tributary river which joins the Ouse quite close to Clifford’s Tower in the City Centre. This has historically occurred when the water trying to exit the Foss is prevented from doing so by water levels in the Ouse, which at times flows up the Foss. Thirdly there are the generally predictable (but hard to predict in detail) local flooding issues due to blocked drains, unmaintained dikes, discarded bicycles and shopping trolleys in main drainage ditches and so on.
As all the old guys who, from time immemorial, had low paid jobs keeping ditches and paths and hedges in order, had been sacked as unnecessary by genius politicians and sharp suited City Slickers in the 1980s and 1990s, these ‘local’ floods, affecting areas that (absolutely genuinely) had never before been flooded before 2000, this was a particular problem in 2000, which beyond any doubt was and still remains the most serious “modern” flood.
Following the serious 1982 floods, £8 Million had been invested in a Flood Barrier where the Foss discharges into the Ouse. This comprises simply of two elements, a barrier gate which can block flow in the river channel (obviously in either direction) and a series of high power pumps (8? 10?, can’t remember!) which take water in the flood basin and discharge it into the Ouse. The water then may possibly aggravate problems in Selby but prevents flooding in a large area of York old domestic housing in the lower reaches of the Foss. Other tactics and flood relief areas are supposed to protect Selby town (and indeed the strategically vital Selby Mines. Ho Ho.)
The pumps and the barrier in the Foss Flood Barrier are driven by electricity. In 2000, it became a massive battle to keep the electrical equipment working, an acquaintance of mine was working 18 hour shifts trying to keep it going. The whole system had been neglected (by traditional custom) since 1982. Some pumps worked, some didn’t and electrical failure was always likely. Ultimately, the danger was that, no matter how well the pumps worked, ever rising levels in the Ouse would rise to the point where the Ouse water would flood overland into the Foss (the area between Clifford’s tower and the Courts being most obvious) and make the barrier irrelevant. In 2000, the Ouse waters rose to within 150mm of this level.
This year, someone within the EA apparently just decided that as water was “entering the building”, the electrical equipment was “at risk” and therefore the barrier should be lifted. Thus deliberately flooding a large residential area.
The announcements of the EA are contradictory and appear tendentious. Other statements talk about ‘hoping to get at least one pump running” to remove some of the water they had permitted to devastate people’s property.
So, were the pumps working and, if not, why not?
Were the electrics maintained and sited above flood levels? (Think:- Fukushima!) If not, why not?
Who made the decision to open the barrier and make the £8M (1982 prices) installation an irrelevance? Who was consulted?
How many of those responsible will be sacked?
We all know the answer to the last one.
Sorry this was posted late in the day, not least because no-one will read it. But at least 22,000 fibre optic customers lost their internet. Including the shops at the major Monks Cross shopping centre, who mostly were only able to accept cash payments (and, of course ATM machines weren’t working, neither was at least one of the petrol stations (ASDA). No mention on the news that I have seen. My internet was down as well. A tiny taster of what will happen when the big blackout comes along. At least we can be happy that these things will never be allowed to affect the lives of the denizens of Islington or Westminster.
We must have passed through the same school of engineering – both academically,professionally and work experience wise! Cannot agree more, and I have also previously compared this Foss Barrier failure problem to the Japanese Nuclear Plant destruction. The Foss Barrier Pump Station should have been elevated, particularly the electrical/control works, above extreme flood level and had a solid bund wall around it, and the Japanese should have located their critical nuclear plant cooling water system inside the protected nuclear plant building. In both cases water got into electrical works where a responsible and proper design should never have allowed it to get!
My experience of UK utilities works such as this is that preventative maintenance, including frequent start-ups and running of complete emergency engineering systems for various emergency scenarios, is considered an unnecessary additional operating cost; “just wait until something fails and then fix it”. Pump Station failures was cause of similar flooding problems in the Malton area, I think, a year or two ago during flooding and in the previous flooding in Hull.
As for this latest Foss Barrier problem, someone has to ask for the past preventative maintenance schedules for this pump station, the HAZOP MOM’s prior to works design approvals which should have covered allpossible operational scenarios, including this Foss scenario, and also details of when these pumps, their standby power system and their control systems were fully checked out in running mode during necessary PM checks. I assume that given the present and forecast “unprecedented” rainfall, and the on-going prior Cumbrian experiences that these essential Foss Barrier System PM exercises were carried out just prior to the declared/forecast flooding started, and that strategic spares were on hand at the site to rectify any component failure that may have been experienced. If, as reasonably expected, the 8-10 pumps you mention includes standby pumps that can be started up automatically or even manually then I fail to see any problem – the system with necessary operator over-sight and inputs could have maintained the closed gate system in operation. Otherwise this is a main Control/MCC Panel failure or was it a panic response to some water creeping into the building and if so was there any local floor sump and drainage pump sufficient to control and overcome any water ingress problem. No one is suggesting an alternative scenario, namely that the inflow down the Fosse far exceeded the design allowance for a closed Barrier situation. Even so, did they provide a modulating control on the Barrier and not simply an open and closed control, which could have allowed some excess flow to drain out through a partially opened Barrier – providing of course the Fosse upstream had high enough banks. Again HAZOP records are critically important!
I’ve just read it Martin Brumby. Very interesting but dismaying. I can’t help feeling the EA and politicians are quite wilfully ignoring common sense and don’t care about what happens to ordinary people. They’ll turn up in their Wellies (Hunters or otherwise) for photo opportunities, spouting platitudes and shedding crocodile tears but still spend billions on foreign aid using borrowed money, requiring huge interest repayments, but somehow manage not to do the basics necessary to maintain the proper infrastructure of drainage ditches, dredging, etc.
From: http://www.fern.org/pt-br/node/5247
How are financial derivatives applied in the carbon market?
Simple transactions account only for a very small percentage of the carbon market today. The carbon market has moved away from its beginnings, where carbon trading was about a simple trade between two parties: one needing a permit or offset credit for compliance, and the other having one to spare. At financial conferences, carbon is now being marketed as a new asset class for investors such as pension funds. The carbon market has ‘matured’.
As a consequence, the nature of the trading has changed significantly. This section therefore looks at how more complex financial derivatives, and trading for speculation rather than compliance, changed the dynamic of the carbon market. It also explores how complex financial instruments increase price volatility and speculation in the carbon market and increasingly uncouple the development of the carbon market from its original objective of providing the most cost-effective way for companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
@John F. Hultquist December 28, 2015 at 6:40 pm et al
Here is a google street view of the alleged photo shop sign – it is real.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8216116,-2.4208706,3a,15y,179.89h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su-M2_2V7O5HQxHIwP1eoRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I take back what I commented earlier, Steve (to John F). I see now that the sign is actually triangular in plan and that there are two of them facing traffic. That is why the perspective looked out in the wet pic.
AFAIK the the point of dredging a river is not to increase flow capacity but to deepen the river by creating a V shape. This causes the surface of the visible river to be lowered. This has the effect of lowering the level of the much larger ‘invisible’ river,[ i.e. the water-table projecting out each side from the river surface] and so giving the ‘whole’ river a considerable increase in capacity before rising to ground level , and ‘flooding’ .
I also understand that a V shape has the interesting property of increasing mass-flow proprortional to the visible river height. e.g. “the higher the faster ” which is a regulatory mechanism. This is not true for U shaped channels or very wide flood-plane sheets of water.
If my understanding is right, then while a river in a deep V might not look pretty in the drier seasons, and so would not be an ideal habitat for eg. voles, it would not actually flood very much at all.. and when it did it would clear very quickly.. Also, it would not scour, which leads to downstream silting and so flattening and changing the shape of the river bed to a shallow U…. leading to really bad flooding ……
As these views might be considered heretical by UK’s DEFRA, can anyone tell me where I am ‘in error’ and can buy a yellow robe and a green candle?
It is interesting to look at how the drainage channels in the Somerset levels have not ben maintained for the last decade or more. The outlets to the river Severn have in part been blocked up (by new earthworks), the last drop to the river has not been dredged. And then surprise, it floods above those unimportant details.
I was fascinated with your explanation of how the ‘v-shaped’ dredging mechanism works by lowering the water table through reducing river height. With hindsight, it makes a lot of sense and, if confirmed by links to supporting evidence, this knowledge should be shared more widely than it clearly is at the moment.
Thanks, Tony, for this little nugget and for all your highly appreciated posts over the years that bring invaluable historical perspective to counter the oft-hysterical claims of the ‘unprecedented brigade’.
A Happy New Year to you, Sir, and lang may your lum reek (in the most sustainable way, of course)
Dredging does increase the flow capacity of an existing river with given river bank walls. It will take far more water flow after dredging with the water up to the level of the existing river bank walls than before dredging. You are correct about the “V” notch dredging, the profile cut maintains higher velocities as the central water depth drops than if the dredging was simply a rectangular channel profile.
Here is a bit of wisdom from the Environment agency:
“In some cases by not dredging it is possible for the river to become self-cleansing which means future dredging is not needed and impacts upon ecology are reduced.”
Assuming that nature always gets to the best place rather than trying to create an optimised, engineered solution (with proper design and maintenance). Then no-ones to blame except the Weather.
How long can they continue to blame climate change? If I understand correctly, the policy of not dredging has led to rivers flooding more often. Then inevitably, they will become so silted that they will flood every time there is a few days of continuous rain. Surely then, even the most unthinking members of the public will be wondering why the rivers flood every time it rains. It will be obvious that its nothing to do with 1 in 100 year events aka climate change.
Quelle surprise. An engineered system can be more efficient (or less if badly designed/maintained) than a similar natural system. Duh!
All governments are corrupt, the bigger and more powerful the government, the more corrupt it is.
If we replace the UK and flooding with Australia and bush fires we can see many similarities through the lack or proper land management. Here in Australia we’ve had some severe bush fires and loss of property this holiday season. This change in management policy happend in the mid 1990’s too.
York was originally founded by the Romans in 79 AD as its first major fort in northern England. They built it here because it was the confluence of two major rivers and the land was marshy and flood-prone making it easier to defend. Many Roman Emperors stayed here during various campaigns and Constantine the Great was actually proclaimed Emperor here when his father died during one of the campaigns.
The Romans abandoned it in 400 AD because of the frequent flooding.
Then King Edwin built his capital of Northumbria here. Then the Vikings took it over in 866 (fans of the Viking TV series will find that interesting). Then William the Conqueror built a major castle here in 1070 and Cliffords Tower was the main “Keep” of the castle. It still stands right next to the river today, almost 1,000 years later, despite the city being sacked dozens of times in the intervening years.
The same reason the city was founded in the first place is the reason it has been the centre of major forts over the centuries and the reason it is still flooding today.
You’d think a modern city would build a good flood defence after all the recent floods in York. But that had already been done, dozens of times over the centuries. The Romans, early British Kings, Vikings, William the Conqueror, William Wallace, William the Bruce, Edward I, Henry VIII, …
Leadership gets lazy after awhile and flood defences quit working which is also the history of all flood-prone areas.
What was that comment about history and having to live it again?
Those who fail History are doomed to repeat it.
I just knew someone else would know it! 🙂
Bill
A historical foot note. Up-thread I posted a link to an area of York that is currently a flood plain but thanks to a Govt inspector on appeal, is soon to be submerged by 650 houses. Bad enough in itself, but the area has now been identified as the site of the FIRST battle of 1066. So as well as being of practical value as a flood plain it also has considerable historical value.
With the Govt desperate to build houses to accommodate our burgeoning population we will see many more such sites being built on.
tonyb
The burgeoning population is the economic migrants arriving due to the EU Coudenhove plan. see theeuroprobe.org 2013 – 043
No it isn’t. The resident population does the increase all on its own. The additional inflow is also moderated by people leaving which can be hard to find in some statistics.
The Government’s inaction on inward capital investment in housing has pushed people further and further out into the countryside. No-one wants to touch that because it might cause a property crash.
Things will settle out long term, how many people get hurt and when is the real question.
Richard
There is a net inflow of around 350,000 people per year. Some 45% come from the EU, the remainder ,mainly from the old commonwealth
tonyb
In the UK during my lifetime, just a few events that come to mind, that would have certainly been put down to man made climate change if they occurred today:
1987 hurricane strength winds felled 15 million trees across Southern England, 18 deaths.
1952 Lynmouth flooded in Devon after 9 inches of rain in 24 hours, 32 deaths.
1947 and 1963 cruel Winters with three months below freezing and untold deaths
Need I go on?
See above
Add the 1953(?) East Coast Floods all the way from Kent up to the NE England
The list goes on and on.
Ever thought that, as there is a known 60 year cycle in the data, every Weather event in your lifetime will be ‘new’, to you at least?
History. Repeat. Generation.
So let’s start aa little list
1947 cruel Winters with three months below freezing and untold deaths
1952 Lynmouth flooded in Devon after 9 inches of rain in 24 hours, 32 deaths.
1953(?) East Coast Floods all the way from Kent up to the NE England
1963 cruel Winters with three months below freezing and untold deaths
1987 hurricane strength winds felled 15 million trees across Southern England, 18 deaths.
Care to add more?
And then project 60 years on?
Hard to believe, but this is in Forbes Magazine
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
What about the 97%??? 🙂
Thanks,
quote: “Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe”.
Yes, and just 2 years ago, after 3 cold winters, we wete told that colder drier winters were what we should expect as a result of man made climate change. Driven by the melting arctic ice.
These people just spout bollocks after bollocks.
Or wetter ones because the jet stream is a little further north than usual? If it moves East or South we will be buried!
High-pressure lock in the north east of Europe causes more rain in Ireland and the British Isles.
http://meteomodel.pl/gemeu/WIND10/24
Just heard on the BBC news:
Storm Frank (threatening UK) has just gone Explosive Cyclogenesis.
Looked it up, it says it is a Meteorological Bomb
‘undergone’
All storms are Meteorological Bombs. It is just the scale which varies.
Thanks Richard.
Using the links suggested above to Paul Homewood’s site :
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
I find a credible (for me as a layman) explanation in terms of the temporary direction of the Jet Stream
“By looking at the SST’s and jet stream, it is clear why we have had a run of wet weather in recent weeks. And the culprit is that cold pool of water (in the North Atlantic) , not global warming. ”
That comment could so easily have been passed on by the BBC .to anxious viewers worried about long term implications, or could have been passed to the Met Office as a hypothesis for their professional view of its credibility . But no , just the global warming , “wetter means warmer” mantra, no explanation of why the SE of UK has missed the downpours, but still experienced warm weather , or why the storm tracks are being diverted and “condensed” by high pressure over Europe , in fact no attempt at all to educate us, the viewers , and in some cases victims , in the actual complexities of real weather events . .
It is almost as if there is now a BBC policy to misinform the public , so contrary to the policies of the original DG, Lord Reith.
Agreed. A lot of stuff is propaganda, not science. See ‘Unpresented’ as shorthand for ‘Unpresented since’ as above. They add quotes as they know it is not right! The ture facts are not what you are seeing.
They could blame climate change for a failed re-election bid, and be closer to correct.
People live in ~70 year cycles.
Weather runs in ~60 year cycles.
Politicians (UK) run in 4 year cycles.
Journalist run on a 24 hour cycles (Paper).
TV runs in 1 hour cycles.
The web runs in millisecond cycles.
Information gets lost at each step.
Does WordPress purposefully load those enormous video ads onto your site to jam the system. Your site now slows everything and often jams. Maybe to force people away?
Incredible amounts of comments here! So now they want to link weather to climate change, before they were saying that weather and climate change are two different things. It is appalling the amount of people that buy that the weather can be changed by paying more for electricity, or carbon taxing everything.
Use the governmen to create a problem then increase the size and scope of the government to “solve” the problem where each “solution ” merely creates more problems necessitating the government increase its size and scope. How very animal farm.
How about requiring houses in floodplains to be built on stilts?
Some US houses are built that way.
It sounds like the New Orleans Levee Boards in action in the UK. False security is the name of the game in these cases of extremely bad public policy and organized unpreparedness.
We’ve been at it longer than you. Our excuses list is longer too.
You just need some race cards added in and religious cards to enliven the old list.
In 1976 when the big rains came to Eastern Australia, I was living on the Shoalhaven river flood plain and observed the action day by day. They had just completed the Talawa Dam higher up the river. It was filling quickly and after the massive flood, with 11 meters of water over the spillway, they realized that they should have let the water out in greater amounts, earlier, just like the Lockyer Valley tragedy in Queensland that was made worse due to the narrow path of the river. Once the dam fills, unlike the times when there was no dam, when there was forest to absorb the rain, the surface of the dam becomes a catchment area with nil absorbing capability, thus the floods are much worse. Since then we have not seen the same extent of flooding, for two reasons, both are man related but nothing to do whatsoever with climate change: 1) the dam is managed properly with exacting releases when there is heavy rain, and 2) farmers downstream are fencing their river frontage so that cattle don’t destroy the banks and thus river oaks and wattle, even exotic weed lantana: all of which act as early colonizers, stabilizing banks, slowing floods and enabling the germination and growth of larger trees that further slow, even absorb the water as it comes down the rivers, creeks and swamps and the like. This work has been well documented by scientist Dr. Tim Cohen at the University of Wollongong and it is logical, observable and comes with evidence.
Speaking of Wollongong (Australia), in 1998 there were record and severe floods that were not repeated, despite 2011 and 2012 being record wet years. They were so severe that cars were washed out to sea, indicating the speed of the flash flooding. No one was killed – a miracle. The reason for this not reoccurring is simple, it is again due to engineering works on Mt Ousely and Bulli pass that takes the water away from the roads, car parks and other developments which, like a full dam, serve as giant catchment areas, like roof tops. It’s simple really, these things are man made and one should firstly assume these factors before leaving it to the doom that we will all be ruined and that we are powerless to address – climate change.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n15/james-meek/when-the-floods-came
So true. Man made engineering has consequences beyond most peoples imagining. Some things get better, somethings get worse. All down to the engineering, not Nature