Floods!

Now if all that extra water could be diverted to cool the power stations and then sent out to sea . . . Pity nothing is that simple.

Is that the one where people seem to want to go to live in wooden houses?
Seems mad to me, wanting to live that close to danger.

Cross off an s in defences?

Dungeness is built on a shifting shingle spit next to the sea. They seem to have defencess between the installation and the sea, but none at the sides or back which seems a tad short sighted imo

The problem with nuclear power stations is that they all have to be on the coast because of the amount of water needed in cooling.

When you say that a unified flood defence strategy is needed, that is exactly what the EA does.
Sea levels are also rising and communities in the UK will need defending.

The south coast has a vunerable nuclear installation which is in danger of flooding and this should be looked at as a matter of urgency imo.

Best we leave The Almighty out of this, don't you think

Oh, I'd better shut up, then hadn't I, and leave this discussion to a higher authority.

Oh course some flooding can be prevented, though obviously not from the sea. Coastal flooding and erosion due to exceptionally high tides and rising sea levels is a completely different matter.

But yes, the effects of increased rainfall can be mitigated by 'joined up' strategies involving the Government (of whatever flavour), the Environment Agency, The Forestry Commision, farmers, landowners, experts ( eg the Dutch), local communities and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

Then all we'll need will be a tsunami! I hope I am joking.

Well, I shouldn't think they are going to let Hinkley flood again. New houses are needed for all the workers building the new power station. They will have to put in flood prevention schemes, won't they, alongside any new building scheme, and build flood-proof homes.
As DH would say, in all probability along with a squadron of flying pigs.

The impression I get is that there is an awful lot of money in this country that is siphoned offshore without being taxed. The sort of billions that could easily pay for flood defence or prevention ( is it possible to prevent floods? It did not work for Noah or Canute- the Ouse is tidal) without taking money away from Bangladesh.

Good post Elegran

Yes, quite right thatbags, flood prevention not flood defence - what I meant when I said pro-action not reaction.

Blame and point-scoring is a waste of time and energy, on here and in politics.

energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/10/investigation-government-planning-thousands-of-new-homes-to-be-built-in-flood-zones/

You were saying?

I agree except I'd called it flood prevention, not flood defence. Maybe being picky about words but defence suggests to me that flood are expected whereas prevention suggests that we can prevent most if not all such flooding after heavy rain if we maintain river the water courses to cope with very wet weather such as we've been having recently.

Whatever, it all requires money to be spent on it.
This government is guilty of non-action. It gets reports, promises money and does nothing.
Except that Cameron goes and buys himself a new pair of wellies. I wonder what sort York requires.

A unified flood defence policy is needed, properly thought out and implemented, with consultation between all the various areas that are likely to be affected. It is no use defending your own town and sending the floodwater on down to the next.

Don't local authorities in Bangladesh have funds of their own? Taxpayers and benefactors of their own? Do the rich and well-to-do contribute to defending the vulnerable areas in their own back-yards? The impression I get is that there is enough money in some layers of Indian/Bangladeshi society to allow for conspicuous consumption, so is a proportion of that wealth being channelled into public works? (without corruption leading to poor materials and corner-cutting and thence to collapses and failures)

We blame our government for the failures of the flood defence system, do Indians or Bangladeshis also blame their government, and - importantly - are they doing something to force them to take action?

Sometimes flood defences exacerbate the problem further downstream; the Jubilee River is one instance and although the person in charge of the project was repeatedly warned of the consequences it went ahead with devastating results for the people further down the Thames.

Failure to maintain rivers, drains, failure to build properly to withstand flooding are all areas to be looked at. Regular planned maintenance, pro-action not reaction.

Does Bangladesh not flood?
How many Bangladeshi die in their floods compared to here?
What's a Bangladeshi life worth?

It was you, roseq, who said that all governments were to blame. I was just pointing out that the Labour government was spending more on flood defences than the previous government. This government does not spend more than the Labour government did.
In fact there was a new law to be brought in about it in April 2010, but it was put on the back burner.

so I do not think the Labour Party can be blamed for not spending on flood defences

Blame seems to be a word bandied around quite a lot, and it is a pity. Instead of squabbling over who did or did not do what, they should all be pulling together in what is becoming a national crisis.

Why is Simon Danczuk a first class idiot for suggesting more money should be diverted to help the UK flooding problems? Just wondering.

Quite right suzied
I remember that the last flooding resulted in a Somerset -v- Thames Valley contest (not so much on here that I remember).

".151
The government will continue to prioritise investment in flood defences. The
government’s £2.3 billion capital programme will invest in over 1,500 schemes to give 300,000
homes greater security from flooding by 2021. Flood defence maintenance funding will also be
protected, and DEFRA will work with the Environment Agency to generate 10% efficiencies by
2019-20 with all savings reinvested to better protect another 4,000 homes"

This is from the spending review. According to the government's flood review mentioned previously, one in six homes is threatened by flooding of one sort or another.

he amount from the government's spending review would not be enough to protect York, let alone Yorkshire. And ther's another four years to go before the end of this parliament.

According to the government's spending review on flood defence, 2014, there was a real terms increase in spending of over three quarters between 1997 and 2010, so I do not think the Labour Party can be blamed for not spending on flood defences.

"You might also argue against looking at capital spending alone, with some evidence that in practice there’s a “grey area” between capital and resource spending. For instance some projects to dredge rivers are funded from the capital budget on the basis that they’re large in scale, while dredging the same stretch of water the following year can be counted as routine maintenance spending.

In the past the government has pointed to total funding, not just capital spending, when defending its record on flood spending. This includes the resource budget. The government has pledged to protect the part of this budget that includes maintenance to flood defences, but it’s not immediately clear how the total resource budget will fare."

The problem of who funds what. The government can say it is spending lots on flood defences, etc., but the maintenance is left up to the councils, whose budgets are cut year after year.
The government is spending the same amount over the next five years as Labour spent over its last five years, yet the problems have increased quite dramatically.

There were places in the south of England flooded a couple of years ago. Nothing much done there either. Please don't make this a north/ south thing. There are plenty of deprived areas in london and the south where money not spend on basics. We are not all living in luxury in the south!