Comment on: Dredging will save more than it costs
I strongly support the views of the MP for Bridgewater, and disagree equally strongly with several aspects of the above 3 comments. To call Mr Graingers article a 'rant' and 'stupidity at its utmost' is hardly a example of 'expert opinion'. An MP coming out in favour of his constituents when they are in dire trouble is labelled as 'a knee jerk reaction'.
CB thinks the people who live on the levels are 'stupid' because apparently, according to him, they are surprised when they are flooded. They have lived for more than 100 years with flooding from time to time and are used to coping, but this is different. The length of time which the water has been on the land is now 5 weeks and counting. The original drains before they were allowed to silt up cleared the grassland of water in 5 days. This is crucial if long term damage to the Environment is to be avoided. CB please note, more damage done to Environment if drainage not maintained. Also, no Badgers now on the Levels, all drowned!
MW please note, I have yet to see any Engineering judgement, especially from Mark Hansford who is a journalist, apart from the ex President of the Institution of Civil Engineers who of course favours dredging. As for the comment of RH! This displays a truly abject ignorance of hydraulic engineering. How about this one RH: you don't seem to be able to distinguish between a flood storage facility and a river whose whole function is to convey water. If you dredge the river it increase its CARRYING CAPACITY. As a good rough guide if you double the CSA you will double its ability to get rid of flood water and halve the time that the water lies on the land. Crucially,you must be able to take advantage of the Tidal cycle and the carrying capacity is absolutely vital if you are to get rid of more water than is reaching the Levels each cycle. This used to be the case before the Agency got rid of its plant for its scrap value in the 1990s.