Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Logic call

Letters

Your debate (NCE last week) was illuminating. It highlights the gulf between the straightforward logical approach of civil engineers and the political approach of managers on behalf of government.

On the one hand is sensible but dry logic noting that anything is possible albeit failing to justify the arguments economically or socially. On the other are slapdash but emotionally appealing statements apparently linking 'it is impossible to guarantee flood protection' with 'flooding is inevitable'.

Of course flooding is not inevitable - if in doubt ask the Dutch. But flooding may be inevitable at the current rate of expenditure on flood defence.

It is sad that the very civil servants responsible for flood defence do not make clear the difference between what is possible and what they believe is affordable. Perhaps they are anticipating the future political need to ascribe the inevitable flooding to inadequate engineering rather than inadequate funding.

Adam Wilson (F), 92 Tarvin Road, Littleton, Chester CH3 7DF

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.