 |
| RHL 15-2-14 |
Introduction
The Green approach is to view the Levels as an ecosystem,
thinking about the interaction of all the factors involved, from the
atmosphere, through the unique wetland with its rich biodiversity and its human
settlements right out to the Severn estuary; all have their part to play.
The solution to the serious and unusual flooding will not
come from any one pet project, be it tree planting or watercourse management.
There is no one single remedy, but a large number of works that need to be
done, and there is a need for effective co-ordination between the many players
and stakeholders, as well as massive financial investment.
Flood defences: the Government’s choices
At a time of unprecedented demand for Environment Agency
(EA) services, its budget is being cut.
The EA has lost 1,700 jobs (coincidentally the same as the
number of properties that has been flooded this winter). Morale is low in the
Agency.
Its budget will be cut by 15% (£656m in 2011-12 to £546m
2015-16)
300 flood defence projects have been shelved
.
Chris Smith, chair of the Environment Agency is paid £100K
pa for a 3 day week to defend these budgetary arrangements. His views on
dredging may be influenced by the costs of that operation.
The Government needs to understand the concept of “investment”,
that £1 spent on flood defences can save up to £8 in flood damage. To look only
at the bottom line of this year’s expenditure, as the Coalition has tended to
do, is an extremely foolish and blinkered approach that may prove to be
responsible for a significant part of the present difficulty. Money was found
and even created by Government to cover the self-inflicted wounds of the banking
system. The same must be done to address the injury to the real economy that is
being done by ill-considered Government economic policies.
Government must also understand that the outlay on flood
defences is a big job-creation scheme, which will help to reduce rural poverty.
 |
| RHL 15-2-2014 |
“Managed Retreat” Don’t give up already!
Some are saying that the Levels are a lost cause, that we
should let them go back to nature.
If fossil fuels continue to be consumed as recklessly as
this Government intends, and global warming continues beyond the present 0.8°C
above pre-industrial levels to +2°C and even +4°C, managed retreat from the Levels and many other areas
of the UK may well become necessary, but to talk about “managed retreat” at
this point in time is sheer defeatism.
It smacks of the common, illogical denier argument “Man-made
climate change is not happening, and if it is, it is too late to do anything
about it”.
Note that Owen Paterson as a “lukewarmer” holds the
unsubstantiated belief that the effects of +2C warming will be minor. His view
should be strongly challenged by all who interview him, in that we are seeing
the current flooding at only +0.8°C above pre-industrial levels. Paterson’s foolish belief
is driving his cutting of the budget of the Environment Agency and of Climate
Change mitigation work.
Clearly Paterson is not the right man to be Environment
Secretary. Cameron should sack him and put in place someone who accepts what
the climate scientists are saying.
The seductive call of “managed retreat” ignores not just the
plight of individuals who would lose their homes and livelihoods, but also the
huge value of the food produced on the Levels and the rich biodiversity that
would also be lost.
Climate Change
We do not say “This present flooding is specifically due to
climate change”, but we can say that it is consistent with climate science’s
predictions, and if global warming is allowed to continue, this kind of event
will become ever more frequent.
Basic physics teaches us that warmer air holds more water,
and climatology predicts that rainfall in a warmer world will be more intense.
This is confirmed by observations
.
Climate science predicts that increased flooding will happen
everywhere in the UK
,
and this prediction is borne out by what we are now observing.
Studies show that the events we are looking at in Somerset
are part of a trend.
The Jet Stream, which has been driving the succession of
storms we have experienced in January 2014, has been abnormally far south for
many months, and the rapid warming of the Arctic which is taking place is a
significant component of this abnormality.
Government should take the flooding that is happening in
Somerset and elsewhere as a wake-up call to take climate change seriously. This
will only happen if Paterson is replaced.
[see also: Is the flooding on the levels down to climate change?]
Responding to the flooding
There is no single magic bullet solution to the present (and
future) flooding, but rather a number of remedies that must be put in place
simultaneously. This is going to be costly, but this Government has to learn
that there is more to governing a country than trying to reduce the numbers at
the bottom line of a balance sheet, that there is a real economy and society
outside of the Westminster bubble.
This is not the time to argue which measure is better and
which is worse. It is not a case of either-or, but of both-and. Government must
accept that its lazy and parsimonious approach both to climate change and to
flood defences is in part to blame, and that it has a responsibility now to
supply adequate funds to remedy the situation.
Tree planting
Given that we must expect more intense rainfall, it is
important to manage the whole catchment area of the Levels.
Planting trees on uplands and hill slopes had a dramatic
effect on the hills of Pontbren
,
; a study showed that it reduces runoff by a factor of 67 times
. George Monbiot advocates this solution
enthusiastically
, but
unfortunately has adopted an either/or approach of trees
vis a vis
dredging. The realistic approach, given the severity of the problem, is
both/and.
Clearly this tree planting must be tested in Somerset as
soon as possible, although it must be accepted that the situation is different
in Somerset from that in Wales, since the ratio of hill to flat land is far
smaller in Somerset than in Wales.
On the levels themselves, greater use of willow will help to
lower the water table. Willow can be used as biomass source of renewable
energy.
Monbiot argues that the EU Single Farm Payment encourages
farming at the top of watersheds, and will obstruct the planting of trees
.
Our Green MEPs should investigate this claim, and if it is borne out, should
make it a matter of high priority to change the EU law, and the Green Party
prospective MEPs should complain loudly at this piece of EU nonsense, to show
that we are not EU poodles, but that we really mean it when we say that we
support membership of the EU, but that we also want to reform it.
Watercourse management
Polders can be used to hold water back in the higher reaches
of a stream, using designated areas that can be filled at times of peak water
flow, and then emptied when the peak is passed. This is a historic technology
on the Levels as in many other places, but it is time now to review the system,
perhaps with a fresh view by experts from the Netherlands.
Soil structure
Intensive farming practices reliant on man made fertiliser
are more prone to runoff and siltation downstream than organically farmed
soils, which have a fibrous structure that can absorb more water. Therefore
organic farming methods should be encouraged upstream of flood-prone areas.
Dredging
Regular dredging of the rivers was stopped about 20 years
ago. It is very likely that cost-cutting was at least one of the motivations
for this decision. Local farmers and residents are very strongly in favour of
restarting dredging. The Environment Agency (EA) is reluctant to agree, and is
bringing some spurious arguments to bear, possibly because they are averse to
the cost of dredging.
The main argument is that it will only increase the capacity
of the Levels by a small percentage. This is true, if the situation is viewed
statically, as if it were a bath. But viewed dynamically, as a flowing system,
it is blindingly obvious that a river 6’ deep can carry more water away to the
sea than one 6” deep.
Presumably the EA holds records of river depth, but if they
do not, anecdotal evidence from an angler suggests that the river in some places
has changed from 15’ deep to 5’ deep.
The second main argument is that dredging one area can cause
problems further downstream. This contradicts their argument that dredging
makes little difference, but the obvious answer is that dredging must start downstream
and work upstream.
The third argument is that there are “pinch points” that
dredging cannot assist. There are hydrological workarounds for this specific
problem, which centre on speeding up the water as it passes through the pinch
point.
The weakness of these and other arguments that are put
forward suggest that they are rationalisations, designed to cover up the cut in
funding that has been imposed by the Coalition.
Pumping
During the present crisis, the cost of the pumping operation
has been £100,000 per week. Pumps are needed all year round to keep the Levels
clear, since much of the area is below
sea level.
Since diesel fuel is expensive and likely to become more so
in future, it would be sensible to look at the feasibility of installing wind
pumps to cope with regular pumping requirements, and hold the diesel pumps in
readiness for emergencies.
Electric pumps could also be used, and could be set to run
only or mainly when National Grid is in surplus.
Holding back the tides
There is a need for sluice gates (called clyse or clyce in
Somerset) that are normally open to allow river water to flow out to sea, but
that close at high tides to stop sea water from flowing back upriver.
Discussion of where to put the gates date back to 1939. It is time to stop
talking and start building.
In the medium turn, a Bridgewater Bay Lagoon, as well as
generating renewable energy, could be used to lower the sea levels at critical
times.
Communities and Householders
Local communities have, as might be expected, already
displayed huge solidarity and resilience, in coping with extremely difficult
conditions.
There is more that householders can do in flood proofing
their houses and land with dykes, skirts and flood boards, rewiring the houses
so that the electrics are not vulnerable to water, and using solid flooring.
All of this costs money, and central government should help with these costs,
as part payment for their part in the tragedy.
A small token effort from households is to buffer the rains
with generous use of water butts which are drained when the rains have eased
off.
Solid drives and patios can be replaced with materials that
allow rain water to pass through into the ground.
Planners
It is obvious that we should stop building on flood plains,
but it continues to happen. One reason is that building on greenfield/forested
uplands is more difficult and costly, and would create a planning furore. We
desperately need housing, but the dilemma imposed is acute.
One solution is to go for new houses built on stilts.
Coordination between Agencies
There are a number of organisations involved in responding
to floods, including Local Authorities, Environment Agency, Internal Drainage
Boards, the National Farmers Union, Wildlife Trusts, and the Forestry
Commission. This is a recipe for confusion and failure. Clear coordination is
necessary.
How can we afford flood defences?[This update added Feb 7th]
This question begs the converse: How can we afford not to?
We can put a cost on lost homesteads and farmland, including the value of the
food it produces year on year, but how can we put a price on the biodiversity,
and the impact on regional and national morale of simply letting a large area
of beautiful and historic land go to ruin?
Somerset is just one instance of a huge national problem. Government
is just now waking up to the realisation that we are going to have to carry out
major flood defence works throughout the British Isles.
Flooding is a crisis, but crisis consists of both danger and
opportunity. The danger lies in defeatism, in retreat, or in half-measures. The
opportunity lies in a big stimulus to the national economy stemming from a
major flood defence effort.
It is true that there is a large price tag on flood
defences, a price that has been magnified by past inaction, for instance in
stopping dredging 20 years ago, but there are also valuable lessons to be
learned in Somerset which can be applied elsewhere.
First, flood defence is an investment. Money spent on flood
defence saves on money spent cleaning up after floods, with a ratio of 1:8 in
some areas. The ratio will vary from area to area.
Second, must the money be borrowed from banks and financial
institutions, worsening the deficit?
Maybe some can be borrowed. There might be an advantage to
borrow from some of the banks which have been part-privatised as a result of
the 2009 crisis. Banks like RBS might be strengthened by lending to a project
that will stabilise our country and ensure its prosperity.
The Green Investment Bank might be an appropriate source of
loans.
Application of Green Wage Subsidy
(where JSA is converted into a subsidy for socially and environmentally
beneficial work) to the new employment entailed in flood defence schemes will
significantly reduce the wage bill, at no cost in the short term, to the
Government. In fact there is a significant overall financial benefit from
increasing employment levels with GWS
.
Wages for labour will appear as a cost on a simplistic,
financial balance-sheet approach to economics, but viewed as part of an entire
economic, ecological and social system,
work creation, especially if it has the kind of beneficial results that flood
defence schemes have, should be seen as a benefit.
Finally, it is irrational for the Government to have to
borrow at interest from the very banks that it has, over the last five years,
rescued by providing some four hundred billion pounds. If it is correct to
rescue financial institutions from a
disaster of their own making, it is also correct to rescue the very land and
people that the Government exists to serve. Therefore the Government can create
the money needed to complete the flood defences. So long as the work is carried
out efficiently and well, the money created will be converted into real value,
and therefore such creation will not be inflationary.
If such a solution is conceptually too radical to be
acceptable to the present Government, the money can be issued instead as low
interest loans to the contractors.
In conclusion, flood defence work has to be done. If a thing
is physically necessary, Government has the power to make it financially
possible.
Steart Head
From Wikipedia (retrieved Thursday, 06 February 2014)
The Steart peninsula has flooded many times
during the last millennium. The most severe recent floods occurred in 1981. By
1997, a combination of coastal erosion, current sea level rise and
wave action had made some of the defences distinctly fragile and at risk from
failure. As a result in 2002 The Environment Agency produced the Stolford to
Combwich Coastal Defence Strategy Study to examine options for the future.[1] In
July 2010, the Environment Agency presented
a plan to convert the peninsula into wetland habitat,[2]costing £17–20
million.,[3] which
includes land purchase costs of £5–7 million. It will be the largest wetland
habitat creation scheme in England.[2]Work began on the
programme in May 2012.[4]
In May 2012 the Environment Agency
began construction work to create one of the UK’s largest new reserves for
wildlife. Over 400 hectares of the Steart Peninsula will be turned into wildlife-rich habitats including saltmarsh and
freshwater wetland. These habitats provide vital feeding and breeding grounds
for wading birds and wildfowl. Importantly the scheme will also provide better
protection for Steart village and Stert Drove against flooding. There will also
be improved access for people with disabilities, horse riders, cyclists and
walkers with new panoramic viewpoints and wildlife observation hides.
Basically, the defence
of the Steart Peninsula as a whole was not cost effective, so the EA has
retreated, allowing the creation of a wildlife wetland.
It cannot be said that
the conversion of Steart has in any way contributed to the present flooding.
There is concern that
the banks at the mouth of the Parrett could shift in future as a result of the
change. This might need dredging.
It is more likely that
there is local criticism from a Conservative MP based on the fact of millions
being spent on wildlife, but little on dredging.
One part of this wetland will be paid for as an “offset”
for development on wetland by the Port of Bristol Authority. This is a separate
issue, and does not bear directly onto the flooding problem.
Conclusions
- The
2014 flooding of the Levels is expected to be repeated and become more
intense if global warming is not addressed seriously.
- That
means that Owen Paterson must be replaced with a Minister who accepts
climate science.
- The
Green Party repudiates “Managed Retreat” as an immediate solution to the
Levels.
- Government
must accept that its budget cutting must be reversed, and that there is
more to running a country than minimising the bottom line of a balance
sheet.
- Green
MEPs shall find if EU laws inhibit tree planting, and if so, will work to
change the law.
- The
problem must be addressed as a whole, implementing many solutions at once,
rather than concentrating on one to the exclusion of others. Tree
planting, watercourse management, dredging, a tidal sluice and no more
building on flood plains must all be included.
- A
properly funded approach is needed, with new money, recognising the
cost-effectiveness of flood defence, an emphasis on coordination between
the bodies involved.
This
brief discussion was prepared by Richard Lawson, Press Officer for North Somerset Green
Party, at the request of Molly Scott Cato, lead South West Green Party
candidate for the May 2014 European Elections.
Any
errors are the responsibility of Richard Lawson
Ffi
01934853606
Thursday, 06 February 2014
