Flooding and lessons from USA

I know it's sad for those whom recently have lost possessions in the floods, but then again it's a simple fact - if you own a property near to a river or on a flood plain, even an old flood plain, then you have to expect that sometime in your lifetime your property may be flooded.

Not unsurprisingly every time a flooding incident occurs the politicians are out in force, talking of "shocking scenes of flooding"(copyright David Cameron). And demanding that more defenses be built to protect properties.

But is building more flood defenses the long term answer?

In the USA they have long realised that this is not the answer.

"Flooding remains the most common and one of the most costly categories of natural hazards in the United States. Historically, the United States has relied on structural mitigation, insurance, and disaster relief to mitigate the harm done by floods. However, experience has shown that structural mitigation and related policies can fail to protect lives and property while also contributing to the degradation of the riverine environment."

The above from River Ecology and Flood Hazard Mitigation.

As it seems likely due to 'global warming' we will see extreme weather more often, we need to get a grip of development within flood plains. First of all because of the environmental damage that is does, and secondly because of the high cost in the long term of doing so.

What we really need is a Environment Agency with real teeth, that can have the powers to stop damaging development in flood plains, or developments that would be likely to contribute to damage in flood plains.

But realistically that's not going to happen is it? - can you see any of the main stream parties with enough backbone to legislate for that?

As for existing properties, the answer is seems is to work with nature, and i.e. allow for controlled flooding, which is after all a natural occurrence, and allow low lying farm land to be flooded, with compensation to the farmer, in order to reduce the flow of the river. As the above paper says:

Given these features of flooding and the policy responses to floods, we recommend that federal agencies address flood hazards by using one or a combination of the following techniques, listed in descending order of desirability:

1. Avoid the risk.
2. Minimize impacts of risk.
3. Mitigate risks.
4. Indemnify or insure against loss; compensate.

Risk avoidance is at the heart of Executive Order 11988’s mandate; if this executive order were more effectively implemented, our recommendation would be implicitly adopted, with risk avoidance becoming the preferred tool. Currently, however, federal agencies seek primarily to mitigate and indemnify, not to avoid risks whenever possible.

Which is more or less the situation also in the UK.

Water is essential to life, and not some commodity to be traded to the highest bidder.

At a basic level there are many things we can do without and there are some things essential to life. Water for instance, without which none of us would be here.

So the idea that we should profit from this essential natural resource is in my opinion wrong.

But why are we talking about selling water for profit? - that'll be down to a perceived shortage of water in Southern England. Now you could blame a lack of rainfall for this current crisis, however I'm more inclined to blame to privatisation of  water companies.

It's a simple equation after all - spend on infrastructure or pay a dividend to share holders?

Now we know that water companies in South England have being spending a lot improving their network - but I ask you would they have done so if it weren't for Ofwat, and should they have spent much more?

Take Thames Water as an example, which as reported by Metro newspaper:

"Thames Water, one of seven companies imposing a ban from Thursday, loses 665million litres of water a day.

The country’s biggest supplier, with 8.8million customers, tops the first leak table of British water companies based on figures from industry regulator Ofwat. Its 25.7 per cent leak rate is five times higher than the five per cent that will be saved by the hosepipe ban.

Thames’ leaks would fill Wembley Stadium every 36 hours.

The other six providers banning hosepipes – Southern Water, South East Water, Anglian Water, Sutton and East Surrey, Veolia Central and Veolia South East – had an average leak of 17.7 per cent.

The total amount of water leaked by water firms in England and Wales – 1,226billion litres – would fill Lake Windermere, England’s largest lake, four times a year."

In other words a lack of forward planning, a lack of sufficient investment in infrastructure and a simple case of profits and shareholder dividends trumping all other considerations.

Not that consumers can exactly escape the blame, no doubt we could all do things to reduce our water consumption, but a hose pipe ban is rather silly. A recent test on Radio 4 showed that when washing a car, a hosepipe if used with an attachment, actually used less water than someone using a watering can.

But back to Wales, and the idea that we should profit from water by selling it to those in need. Apparently we should treat water the same as we do oil, and profit from the very simple fact that because Wales is on western side of the UK and hence has more rainfall than counties to the south and east of England.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't supply water to them counties in need of water; to make up for the water that leaks from their system, or to wash cars or water gardens, however it's not as easy as that.

There's the cost of doing so, Nigel Annett, Welsh Water's managing director, told BBC Wales it was possible but the cost was "truly prohibitive".

And this also assumes that we in Wales have sufficient storage of water. Alun Attwood, water resources manager of Environment Agency Wales speaking to BBC Wales, said the idea of whether there was enough water in Wales to support a national water grid, or large-scale transfers across the border, was something that needed to be considered in much more detail. Mr Attwood said: "Our recent forecast suggests that because of the limited water available in Wales - and already some rivers are at their sustainable limit in terms of how much water can be taken from them without affecting the environment - it means that there might not be enough water to provide surplus water, or further water to England."

In other words it would cost too much and we haven't enough water storage or any sufficient spare capacity to supply others, without our needs and that of the environment being put at risk.

Of course the logical conclusion to an argument that Wales should make the most of this natural resource is too maximise potential, and to do that you'd need more storage, either by increasing the size of existing reservoirs or by building new reservoirs. And I doubt anybody is really suggesting that are they?

When it comes to rubbish, were on top of the pile.

Well done all of us, Council staff and the hardworking binmen of Anglesey, who work for Verdant.

Once again; as reported in the Daily Post today "Latest figures from Environment Agency Wales show Denbighshire and Isle of Anglesey Councils have used the least amount of their allowance to divert biodegradable waste away from landfill." - we are showing the rest how it should be done.

I know it can be bit confusing at times - do they take this container or not?

And it can be hard for the elderly - but guess what I do, I offer to take the out the bins for them, I think its called being neighbourly.

Not forgetting that "the council can arrange a ‘fetch and return’ service for disabled residents or those who are having difficulty wheeling their bins to the collection point."

To find out more go to Council website - Household waste collection

Proud of Anglesey and the people of Anglesey!