looks like that one house forgot step 2, a pump and way to power it
looks like that one house forgot step 2, a pump and way to power it
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-15-2014 at 06:41 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I've not heard of any in a non-flood plain yet. And as I've said those outside of flood plains ought to be able to get insurance.
Furthermore the EA ought to have had a policy of dredging rivers to prevent floods and not stopping to do so in order to encourage them. As once you have a flood its easier for it to rise higher and higher.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I know that, hence why I put winter in quotation marks. It was a joke.Winter is a season.According to your Environmental Agency, your floods are related to "extreme rain" and the Thames breaching its banks. Plus chalk in your soil that's saturated to capacity, and causing ground-flooding.
Source? There's nothing happening now that hasn't happened before and it is not scientific to highlight something after it has happened and say "see that's an exception" because that is just a selection bias.This thread is about extreme weather events, not "climate change".
I've not been affected one jot that I know of. If it wasn't for the news/internet might not even know that there was a flood on.Living on higher ground doesn't mean much, the flooding will affect everyone in your country, indirectly.
Bull. Austerity has no bearing whatsoever on this. The Environmental Agency chose not to dredge the rivers, chose to encourage flooding to encourage biodiversity that has nothing to do with austerity. The UK has shit weather when it comes to rain but remarkably calm weather when it comes to extremes. We almost never get severe earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis etc - yet the UK's Environmental Agency has 11,200 employees - more than the equivalents of Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and Austria combined. Nearly as many as the USA's Environmental Protection Agency. Last year the Environment Agency spent £2.7m on dredging rivers, £20m on total river maintenance ... but £592mn on staffing costs. Totally messed up priorities. Quite frankly we could cut 80% of the employees out the Environment Agency bringing our small islands nation down to that which covers the entirety of Canada or Germany alone and spend more on avoiding this.I'm not familiar with how your gov't agencies work together, how choices are made between biodiversity and infrastructure -- or whether Austerity was the defining factor. Cameron is saying today that money is no object, we'll spend whatever we need to spend, but is getting flak for not having spent money on prevention (preparation) when it could have made a difference.
There's a saying I've known since being a child: "too many chefs spoil the broth". Does it make any sense to you that the UK would need more employees in its Environment Agency than Canada which has significantly worse weather and is 36 times our size? Does it make any sense to you that the UK would need more employees than Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and Austria combined? Does it make any sense to you that we spend 220x more on wages/pensions than on actually dredging rivers etc which prevents flooding?
Source for new ones please?And if they built there 100 years ago? What about new flood zones that expand beyond previous 'flood plains' due to man-made decisions? Should the private insurance industry be setting the price for proximity to the Thames or tributaries, including businesses -- or does that include a federal/national flood insurance program?
97% of UK land is undeveloped, a higher proportion for most other nations. There's more than enough land.There's only so much land to begin with. What are you going to do -- price everyone out of an area, or forcibly move/remove people from 'danger' zones (when apparently that includes overhead power lines, too)?
Suppose it depends where you live.
Us living just off the Thames in Twickenham, it's all anybody is talking about.
West of Teddington Lock where the Thames stops being tidal, I've never known the Thames rise much at all, let alone breach it's banks, in the 22 years I've lived around the area. An entire stretch of development of bars and restaurants that we frequent in Kingston over the bridge from us is flooded out.
This is a picture a friend of mine took from within one of those restaurants as the water was rising and posted on Facebook.
Officially the wettest winter in history.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 02-16-2014 at 09:38 AM.
That guy seems to have had some skrilla on hand to prepare better than most...and yet it still breached the walls of his castle!
Yep - he was beaten despite his best efforts.
Telegraph
His house has been hailed as the lone symbol of defiance against the flooding that has submerged the Somerset levels.
But the makeshift barricade around Sam Notaro's island home appeared to finally be losing its battle against the elements on as new aerial pictures show water seeping beneath his defences.
Mr Notaro's spacious home in the village of Moorland, which was built four years ago, and its lush green lawn have until now been protected by a wall of clay and soil hastily erected against the rising waters.
The new images, however, reveal that a substantial part of the lawn has now become submerged as the water appears to have found a way through.
BBC--with charts for rainfall by season and year, showing it's the rainiest winter on record. They also wrote about greater numbers of people, and newly flooded areas, related to building and infrastructure practices. That you haven't been affected directly doesn't mean you won't feel it in taxation or public policy.I know that, hence why I put winter in quotation marks. It was a joke.
Source? There's nothing happening now that hasn't happened before and it is not scientific to highlight something after it has happened and say "see that's an exception" because that is just a selection bias.
I've not been affected one jot that I know of. If it wasn't for the news/internet might not even know that there was a flood on.
Well, who sets the priorities over there -- the Environmental Agency?Bull. Austerity has no bearing whatsoever on this. The Environmental Agency chose not to dredge the rivers, chose to encourage flooding to encourage biodiversity that has nothing to do with austerity. The UK has shit weather when it comes to rain but remarkably calm weather when it comes to extremes. We almost never get severe earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis etc - yet the UK's Environmental Agency has 11,200 employees - more than the equivalents of Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and Austria combined. Nearly as many as the USA's Environmental Protection Agency. Last year the Environment Agency spent £2.7m on dredging rivers, £20m on total river maintenance ... but £592mn on staffing costs. Totally messed up priorities. Quite frankly we could cut 80% of the employees out the Environment Agency bringing our small islands nation down to that which covers the entirety of Canada or Germany alone and spend more on avoiding this. <snip>
Does it make any sense to you that we spend 220x more on wages/pensions than on actually dredging rivers etc which prevents flooding?Of course it doesn't make sense to spend 200X more on wages/pensions than infrastructure programs, but Austerity (as a policy) doesn't mean priorities are put into proper perspective, either....just that there's less spending somewhere to balance the books.
Would Cameron's administration have spent 500 Million on water management programs -- dredging rivers, building new locks or levees, moving or upgrading utilities -- but only if it came from less spending in other areas? Or would it still have been considered unnecessary government spending? That's a rhetorical question about ideology and "political climates"
Mostly BBC articles, but also US news sources. They discuss the relationships b/w new construction, surface run-off, soil composition, ground flooding, and rainwater/water management. That kind of engineering is important science, especially for densely populated places, whether it's a small nation like the UK, or an important city like NYC.Source for new ones please?
97% of UK land is undeveloped, a higher proportion for most other nations. There's more than enough land.
Thinking there's "more than enough land" doesn't excuse or replace bad (or outdated) land/water management. That's actually a quite dangerous attitude to have when making public policy, IMO.
A few things - apparently it's the wettest winter in 250 years, which means that it is obviously an exception. A more fair question is whether the exception was to be taken into account with flood planning. For example, as I've posted before, over here the acceptable risks for flooding are between 1/250 years and 1/10.000 years - which would make flooding in certain areas in the wettest season in 250 years an acceptable risk in some parts (the risks depend on forecasts of economical damage and loss of lives, i.e. industrial areas and highly populated areas are kept safer, as well as sea flooding areas in general since river floods are more predictable, and therefore the areas can be evacuated more in advance, reducing the damage and loss of lives).I know that, hence why I put winter in quotation marks. It was a joke.
Source? There's nothing happening now that hasn't happened before and it is not scientific to highlight something after it has happened and say "see that's an exception" because that is just a selection bias.
I've not been affected one jot that I know of. If it wasn't for the news/internet might not even know that there was a flood on.
Bull. Austerity has no bearing whatsoever on this. The Environmental Agency chose not to dredge the rivers, chose to encourage flooding to encourage biodiversity that has nothing to do with austerity. The UK has shit weather when it comes to rain but remarkably calm weather when it comes to extremes. We almost never get severe earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis etc - yet the UK's Environmental Agency has 11,200 employees - more than the equivalents of Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and Austria combined. Nearly as many as the USA's Environmental Protection Agency. Last year the Environment Agency spent £2.7m on dredging rivers, £20m on total river maintenance ... but £592mn on staffing costs. Totally messed up priorities. Quite frankly we could cut 80% of the employees out the Environment Agency bringing our small islands nation down to that which covers the entirety of Canada or Germany alone and spend more on avoiding this.
There's a saying I've known since being a child: "too many chefs spoil the broth". Does it make any sense to you that the UK would need more employees in its Environment Agency than Canada which has significantly worse weather and is 36 times our size? Does it make any sense to you that the UK would need more employees than Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and Austria combined? Does it make any sense to you that we spend 220x more on wages/pensions than on actually dredging rivers etc which prevents flooding?
Source for new ones please?
97% of UK land is undeveloped, a higher proportion for most other nations. There's more than enough land.
Second, the staffing vs. maintenance costs isn't as messed up as you make it out to be (not by definition anyway). The agency is also responsible for environmental regulation, which is obviously a lot broader than just river defenses. Also costs of new (expensive) projects tends to be outside the usual budget, and the more important question is 'how much is needed for proper maintenance'. I'm not sure about the budget of our flood prevention here, since it's mostly decentralized. Which also makes it hard to compare the amount of employees, also because our water boards are responsible for flood protection and drinking water, and the national service responsible for flood protection is also responsible for waterway management in general, and road infrastructure as well. This article mentions €2.2bn, but that appears to be money earmarked for upgrading the defenses to reduce the flooding risk, not maintenance. Also mentions that over here farmers from flood plains were forced to relocate, and the interviewed farmer understands the reasons for it.
Also, with the number of recent floods you guys have had (8 or 9 since 2000?) makes it clear your country obviously has a high risk for flooding, and something actually should be done properly about that. That many floods would be unacceptable here, I don't think we've had many since 1960 (two relatively minor river floods in 1993 and 1995 spring to mind). In the long run, that's like to be very cost effective too, with each flood costing millions-billions in economic damage. Comparing the size of an agency with, say, the Canadian, isn't that useful, since Canada has different risks, and the agency may have different responsibilities as well. What you need is to assess whether they provide their money's worth, and if not it should be reorganized. I think it's safe to say that for a country as densely populated as the UK (97% undeveloped land, sure, but you're living in one of the most densely populated countries, esp. England, which is more densely populated than the Netherlands) flood protection is very important, and should be handled by the government. Also you say austerity had no influence, but they at least claim that part of the reason not to dredge was lack of money.
About the dredging, while it obviously helps, it's not an end-all or long-term solution - it's important next to the rest of the protection. Flood plains are (as the name implies) supposed to be flooded.. It's natural, and a way to increase the water capacity of the rivers. It's good policy to have them flooded regularly, because a) that's the function of it, and b) it's very good environmentally. Over here it's mostly grazing lands, I think, so when the rivers get high you can just pull the cows back to the farm, and you're good. It sounds like it is mostly a soundbite for easy complaints right now. Also, planning to have flood plains flooded obviously does imply you still protect beyond those plains. It's a recommended tactic by basically most experts.
On a side note, I was looking up some articles about the Dutch help that has been sent to the UK (mostly expertise), and am once again surprised by the anti-EU stuff.. It's not the EUs fault, we are also operating within the EU and manage just fine. It's how you implement recommendation/rules that makes the difference. And if your flood defense is underfunded, it's not surprising it will come back and bite you. Like I said, floods that costs hundreds of millions to billions in damage every few years is not a very sustainable plan either.. Also, they're conveniently forgetting the EU also pays out compensation from the solidarity fund for the damages. Less for the UK, but EU-wide cooperation for flood risk is very important, because what, say, Germany does, affects the water levels in the Netherlands as well. Add local expertise from different areas, and it's simply sensible to cooperate on this subject.
edit: this was an interesting/surprising read, too:
"Pointing the finger at the extractive industries gets us off the hook and avoids the fundamental problem which is our selfishness and our way of life, which has been fuelled by plentiful, cheap energy and more and more people around the world wanting that," he said.
[...]
"Climate change is a moral issue because the rich world has disproportionately contributed to it and the poor world is disproportionately suffering. Poor communities are least equipped to deal with the impacts."
Steven Croft, the bishop of Sheffield, described the threat of climate change as "a giant evil; a great demon of our day", adding: "Its power is fed by greed, blindness and complacency in the present generation, and we know that this giant wreaks havoc though the immense power of the weather systems, which are themselves unpredictable."
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Well said, Flixy.
It's been a brutal winter for the US. More polar vortex weather on its way.Many midwest and east coast locales are short on road salt, or went over-budget for plowing and road maintenance before January. Ice has been a big stressor on roads, overhead electric lines, underground pipes, and waterways/river transportation. Western and plains droughts have been historic, causing more wildfires.
Billions of 'economic dollars' were lost, testing already-stressed tax bases and budgets. Food/agriculture, transportation, commerce and public safety is precarious...exposing all sorts of poor planning, bad budgeting, and short-sighted policy. Our public infrastructure is pathetically outdated and decrepit, with failing 'grades' from engineers and town planners. State Governors are concerned about proposed DoD budget cuts that would reduce the National Guard (because they're used during weather disaster relief). FEMA is under-funded compared to its growing expectations. Then there's flood insurance insolvency, and Acts on top of Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeown...ty_Act_of_2014
So my question is: wouldn't it make more sense to create an "Infrastructure Bank", and direct Billions of federal tax dollars into modernizing/upgrading our roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, electric grids, sea ports, waterways, drainage/sewerage, etc. so they can withstand the "new normals" associated with extreme weather events? It would also act like a Jobs Bill, employing at least a million people (or more) while re-building the US at the same time. Win/Win.
Why aren't we doing that?
Everything is an excuse to increase spending and debt, isn't it?
Huh?
There is always more that can be done. You focus heavily on that. But of more relevance is how much difference it will make. Something illustrated by the picture of that house earlier, where the owner moved heaven and earth to try and protect his property. Fully protecting something, particularly really big somethings like public infrastructure, is often going to cost more than replacing/repairing them if something does happen, GGT. And you can talk about the lost "economic dollars" but that's an opportunity cost for what the money does actually get spent on and you're completely ignoring what that provides. Are there things which can and should receive more than they are? I'm sure there are, there's a whole lot of "things" out there to protect and prepare for. But overall, I trust and believe in all the bureaucrats and government entities in charge of them more than I do you and your constant hysteria.Huh?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
That was a British house.
Emphatically, yes. Just look at the Netherlands. They didn't make their 2500 year policies based on "economic policies" that would provide "opportunity" to private homeowners, insurers, realtors, or financial speculators. They treated "weather" events as threats to their very existence as a nation. Did we do the same with our below-sea level seaports (like New Orleans or Galveston)? No, we did not.Fully protecting something, particularly really big somethings like public infrastructure, is often going to cost more than replacing/repairing them if something does happen, GGT. And you can talk about the lost "economic dollars" but that's an opportunity cost for what the money does actually get spent on and you're completely ignoring what that provides. Are there things which can and should receive more than they are? I'm sure there are, there's a whole lot of "things" out there to protect and prepare for.
I object to your "hysteria" claim. But that pales in comparison to your "trust" in bureaucrats and gov't entities reliant on wealthy, special interest, lobbyist groups.But overall, I trust and believe in all the bureaucrats and government entities in charge of them more than I do you and your constant hysteria.
I have to hit Philadelphia tomorrow. I hope the storm doesn't hit it harder.
You hope a major city can handle another winter storm? Is hope part of your public taxation philosophy?
This is the first time that winter storms have names, like hurricanes, recognized by millions of people. Sandy was a doozy. Pax, Quintus, and Titus may have the same cumulative effects.
It should be. If you go overkill preparing for all eventualities (Flixy spoke above about 1/250 possibilities) then its most likely a complete waste. There are certain things which you simply can't realistically prevent and just have to rebuild if it happens.You hope a major city can handle another winter storm? Is hope part of your public taxation philosophy?
In our case, the possibilities are adjusted to the number of people living in the affected area, and the economic importance. Flooding some farmlands, not such a big deal, flooding Rotterdam and its harbour and industries, major deal.
Keep in mind the costs of the floods as well, as in your case you've had several multimillion euros floods within ten years, with at least two topping 1 billion IIRC, which makes it also economically smart to prevent the floods.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
We can't prevent normal weather events, but we can -- and do -- try to prepare for extreme weather events. The statistical possibilities have ramped up over time, with "100 year storms" occurring every decade, sometimes every couple of years. The predictive models have already changed....but our infrastructure budgets haven't kept pace.
Heck, the US now has more people than ever (about 1/6 of our population) living or working close to waters' edges, using structures built in the 40's that had a 50 lifespan. Forget 100 year storms....our infrastructure is so old it can't withstand annual storms.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that sea vs river flood is also taken into account in the calculation, since fresh water doesn't ruin farmlands but salt water does.
Also: http://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/file...prevention.pdf with regards to the economics of it. Haven't fully read it, but Rand's comment on 1/250 being too high, this was interesting:
and: http://hkv.nl/documenten/Costbenefit...lood_MK(2).pdfIn my experience, the concept of a 100 year flood leads to a lot of misunderstanding. First, I think that stating a norm in this way, while correct form a statistical point of view,
may overstate the sense of safety to the general public. Let me given a simple example. A 1%
level of protection means that the probability of a flood in any given year is 1%. The
probability that there is no flood in a given year is therefore 99%. The probability that there
is no flood in two consecutive years is .99 x .99 = .98. The probability that there is on flood
over 30 years is .99 to the power 30 = .74. So, the probability that at least one flood (that is,
one or more!) will occur within a 30 year period is 1 - .74 = 26%. So, when you buy a new
home in a 1% flood area with a 30 year mortgage, the probability that the home will be
swept away before you paid it off is 26%! To me, this sounds far more threatening than
saying that on average a flood will occur once every 100 years.
Second, and more importantly, a 1% safety level only says the probability that a flood will
occur within a given year is 1%, but not how severe this flood will be if it occurs.
Also shows a non-economically sound proposal in the paper, to show how calculations can be done wrong.5.1 1992: ‘River dike reinforcement criteria testing
commission’
Reason of this project was the finding of the 1977
Commission (called the Becht commission), which
recommended that river dikes be designed tot resist
water levels that would be exceeded with an expected
frequency of 1/1.250 [1/year]. While dike
improvements based on these standards were underway,
protests grew against their harmful impacts
on the landscape an natural and cultural values on
and along the dikes. In response, the Minister of
Transport, Public works and Water Management established
the ‘River dike reinforcement criteria testing
commission’ (also called the Boertien Commission
after its chairman) and contracted for the
research. (Walker et al, 1993). Primary objective of
the study was to identify policies that would provide
a high level of safety, would not cost too much, and
would preserve as much as possible of the existing
landscape, natural, and cultural values (LNC values)
along the rivers.
In the study it was stated that a flood protection
policy is composed of two parts: a safety level, and a
strategy for improving the dikes and/or reducing the
water level of the rivers to provide the chosen level
of safety. The minimum safety level considered was
a level of 1/200 [1/year] and the maximum level was
the level of 1/1250 according to the Becht commission.
The diverse consequences (or impacts) of the
policies examined were estimated and were displayed
in a scorecard. The scorecard which summarises
the arguments of the committee is given in table
1.
The results show that the benefits through reduction
of projected flood damage greatly exceed the financial
costs of improving the dikes. The table
shows that the return on the M€l 75 (=375-300) that
it would cost tot build dikes to a safety level of
1/1250 instead of 1/200 is a present-value benefit of
at least M€ 994. The commission recommended to
maintain the safety-level in the river area on the
level of 1/1250 [1/year] and the government followed
this line.
The score table shows that, if monetary costs and
benefits are the only desiderata, even the 1/1250
safety level is less than what a pure financial
cost/benefit analysis would recommend. In the study
no higher safety-levels were regarded. Apparently
the decision makers considered a higher safety-level
not acceptable from other than economic (LNC values)
point of view. Our opinion is that it would have
been better to take this extra step to complete the
economic analysis. In this way the cost benefit approach
is not used in an optimal way to support explicit
and rational decision-making.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It's Philadelphia; a fairly broken city that's only recently begun to benefit from semi-competent management. I hope they filter the water properly, but that's not always the case.You hope a major city can handle another winter storm? Is hope part of your public taxation philosophy?
In this case, things turned out well and the union busting was a success.
Do you think unions are responsible for incompetent city management....and inadequate planning/prevention for extreme weather events?
Much of our crucial infrastructure is too fragile to tolerate 'normal' weather, let alone 'extreme weather'. Now we need to spend more on total replacements and re-building, because we underfunded maintenance/upgrades over the course of time. That contradicts any claim you make for being a budget hawk or "fiscally responsible".
I think my posting history is very clear that I do.
And if you find "success" in union-busting....how will that translate to better budgets, infrastructure spending, and lower taxes?
I heard a new term the other day: Pollen Vortex. It's a vegetative reaction to the "polar vortex" that brought extreme winter weather recently. Makes sense plants would want to scatter their sperm (pollen) in order to propagate, survival of the fittest and all that. The Spring blooming season has been delayed by a week or two....but that means flowers/trees will be on overdrive.
Last weekend temps were in the low 80's. My eyes were swollen, and I was sneezing. Way too early for pollen allergies, I thought. I found yellow/green residue on every surface, but put on my shorts and stored sweaters anyway. Then temps dipped below freezing....and birdbath water was turned to ice. Extreme weather changes confuses mammals, especially humans, and our wardrobes and HVAC.
Anecdotally -- As of this week's snow, Detroit broke it's all-time record for most snow in a winter season. This winter has SUCKED - worst I can remember since the 1980s for sure. But the kids loved it, so....
Regarding prep for a 100 year storm, I think the typical practice is to not prepare for it. The cost of hardening infrastructure against something that happens maybe every 100 years doesn't justify the benefit - for some - and certainly doesn't pass the political test. Hell, most places in the US hang their electrical and comm wires on poles so that in a winter ice storm whole regions lose electrical power for days in the worst possible season. How's that for storm prep? Sure is cheaper than burying them though.
Ok, but really what this is about is prep for Global Warming's promised increase in frequency of weather extremes, right? How we should deal with it is evaluate the risks as best we can with available data, on a location by location basis, and make prudent improvements to local infrastructure, building codes and zoning. I'd like to see river flood plains and coastal areas prone to hurricanes evacuated, but people pay lots of money to live by the water, and nobody listens to me anyway. We should also beef up our storm response capability, stage supplies and equipment regionally, etc.
What will we do? Up until the first really bad disaster spins out of control and upsets a lot of people, preparation will depend on what political entity tells the best lies. After the disaster, probably we'll get serious about it for a while.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Preparing for a once in a hundred years storm of course depends on the impact of said storm - for example sea flooding threatens major immediate damage, loss of life, and damage to farmlands. Snow probably has only short term and limited damage. It's a cost benefit analysis.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It should be, you mean. But it's not. Well, it is in a political sense --- the cost of pushing for policy that will leave you vulnerable to political attack vs. the benefit of being prepared for a bad storm at some point in the future.
And then there's corruption... a different cost/ benefit calculus altogether. Everyone knew that sooner or later a hurricane would destroy New Orleans. If I recall correctly, there was a lot of corruption associated with the federal funds allocated to the Army Corps' attempts to improve the city's flood control system, a project that was inadequately designed, sorely underfunded as it was, and planned over a time table that didn't match the risk at all.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Like I posted here earlier with links to relevant documents, over here it is seen as that, with some discussion about the cost analysis used.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
