Dredging? So how does that help?

sharpness said:
Sounds like your in the same situation then, and sort of puts the dredging debate of will they or won't they to bed, as without the machinery it's a non-starter.
When i was last in the boating game from 1985 to 1997 there was maintenance works aplenty including regular dredging. So you can imagine my surprise having returned to boating in 2012 to find more boats and therefore more money in the system than ever, and yet maintenance is non-existent. I can only assume this same crazy logic is applied to the Thames aswell.
Click to expand...

Probably be cheaper & quicker to put it out to tender.certainly methods have changed in the last 20 years. Bucket dredger is pretty much only seen in a museum now. Another job for http://www.boskalis.com/ probably one of the biggest names in the dutch dredging game.
 
In a bit of a Pickles (Eric the sandbag) !

All the plant and equipment was disposed of when the water companies were privatised.
Much of it lay rusting away for years before it was sold off.No money to repair, maintain or even use it.
When bits broke no money to fix.
The Medway was a classic example of the virtual abandonment of the waterways until funding started to reappear after years of neglect. Many improvements have been made over last ten years to the great benefit of ALL who enjoy the river.
Until now of course,the present administration was almost about to castrate the EA to appease its critics.
Well mother nature has stuck her oar in.
Lets see government wriggle its way out of this one.
 
Last edited:
Does not prove a thing,water depth could 6" in first picture and 6ft in second.A little selective look at limited period of rainfall to prove a case and bingo.
The levels have been flooding since time immemorial.Accounts of serious loss of life going back to the middle ages have being found.
Some more "facts" from the same webpage.
•What's your 'sex number'? Why are women still lying to men about it? 17 Feb 2014Telegraph
•The great oral sex debate: am I alone in thinking oral sex is not… 07 Feb 2014Telegraph
•The Linkdrop: do real men pee standing up? 14 Feb 2014Telegraph
•Top British actors who went to expensive schools 17 Feb 2014Culture & The Arts
•Brunette with 34C boobs? Congratulations you're 'the perfect… 07 Feb 2014Telegraph
•Wife buried husband under rockery to carry on claiming £57,000… 17 Feb 2014Telegraph News.

Real experts on hydrology and climate change and everything you needed to know about sex in the saucy sexy Telegraph.
Now we know were all the staff from TNOTW slithered off too :)
 
Last edited:
Mushroom2 said:
Not a Telegraph reader then OG? You obviously prefer the Sun.
Click to expand...
Difficult to be a fan of a paper that can't even get its facts right - but then , how many do?
Telegraph is repeating the GMB claims that 90 lock staff are at risk of losing their jobs, There are only around 60 full time lock and weir staff and less than 40 are "resident" in the lock side houses.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/w...ing-lock-keepers-would-put-lives-at-risk.html

Summer Reliefs and Summer Assistants are seasonal and not currently employed during the winter months anyway. When they are employed their duties are almost exclusively called for as part of managing the recreational use of the river - i.e. assisting boaters.

Also, isn't it time we got away from the notion that lock and weir keeping staff can prevent flooding? Once all the weirs are fully open, as they have been now for several weeks, there is nothing further they can do to control the river. The only exception to this is the management of the Jubilee River which clearly can be adjusted to control flow.

Don't get me wrong - I am fully in favour of the concept of resident lock keepers and have argued hard and long for their retention. Unfortunately, unless significant new funding is found, or government reverses its current policy of reducing grant in aid, it is hard to see how their numbers can avoid being affected by the need to cut costs.
 
oldgit said:
Does not prove a thing,water depth could 6" in first picture and 6ft in second:)
Click to expand...


Dave says it does :)

But silt has been cleared from the River Windrush in Mr Cameron’s Oxfordshire seat TWICE since 2007 to prevent a repeat of flooding seen there seven years ago.

And he told local paper the Oxford Mail: “(One of the) reasons why Witney has not flooded nearly as bad as last time is that this time dredging was being done under the bridge.”
Click to expand...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/flood-victims-anger-david-cameron-3156602
 
As a matter of interest back in the late 1990s the Greeks were buying up every Dredger big or small to take to Greece due to a change in Greek sand extraction laws. I had a minor role in this and also the purchases that were made in Poland.
 
I've recently found the 2009 Environment Agency Lower Thames Strategy Study SEA Environmental Report. This is a 265 page report but I have extracted just five pages - 18 to 22 - which outline the various flood risk management options considered from "Do Nothing" through dredging, bank works and community protection measures.
http://www.tmba.org.uk/downloads/extractEnvironmentalReport2009.pdf

One short extract states:
Bed Re-profiling all or part of Reach 3 and 4
This approach includes bed re-profiling of the River Thames (deepening the bed by 1-2 metres) over a
length of up to 24km in Reach 3 and 15km in Reach 4. On its own this achieves less than diversion
channels can, particularly in larger floods. A lesser extent of river bed re-profiling could contribute to higher
standards of protection in conjunction with other approaches.
Click to expand...
Presumably "bed re-profiling" = dredging but 1-2 metres ???!!!

If you fancy the whole 265 pages you can download it here: http://www.jubileeriver.co.uk/Complete_SEA_Environmental_Report.pdf
 
Last edited:
oldgit said:
Does not prove a thing,water depth could 6" in first picture and 6ft in second.A little selective look at limited period of rainfall to prove a case
Click to expand...

Had you taken the trouble to read the article you may have noticed that local residents quote earlier levels of rainfall.

The two pictures show that the river channel has silted up.

Bridges are required ( presently by the non-dredging Environment Agency ) to have additional area available for floodwater.

As the article clearly states and what disturbs affected residents is that the channel has not been cleared.

The side arches are not clear in the recent picture whereas they are in the 1960s picture.

This lack of dredging is echoed from one end of the country to the other with flood affected local residents similarly incensed by the unaccountable Environment Agency’s abandonment policy.
 
2Tizwoz said:
Had you taken the trouble to read the article you may have noticed that local residents quote earlier levels of rainfall.

The two pictures show that the river channel has silted up.

Bridges are required ( presently by the non-dredging Environment Agency ) to have additional area available for floodwater.

As the article clearly states and what disturbs affected residents is that the channel has not been cleared.

The side arches are not clear in the recent picture whereas they are in the 1960s picture.

This lack of dredging is echoed from one end of the country to the other with flood affected local residents similarly incensed by the unaccountable Environment Agency’s abandonment policy.
Click to expand...

Always read any link that somebody has taken the time and trouble to find and post.
All you need is to find some money. ?
 
david_bagshaw said:
Probably be cheaper & quicker to put it out to tender.certainly methods have changed in the last 20 years. Bucket dredger is pretty much only seen in a museum now. Another job for http://www.boskalis.com/ probably one of the biggest names in the dutch dredging game.
Click to expand...

Or put all navigation's under the control of CRT who are big enough to be heard at Westminster and contract the Dutch to manage maintenance.
The EA have been receiving public money for 20+ years and not done the job, why should I believe they will start now?
The same issues affect many rivers and frankly they are not up to sorting the problem that they have created.
 
macnorton said:
Or find an organisation that is not as wasteful, I would like to know what percentage of EA income is spent on admin? 70%?
Click to expand...
Here are are few figures (from www.InsidetheEnvironmentAgency.co.uk )
A few recent key stats for the Environment Agency:
• £395 million on wages (£592 million incl pensions) vs £219 million on capital projects + £20 million on maintaining rivers
• £5 million spent on redundancies but permanent workforce increased from 10,701 to 11,177 in the past year
• The real employment levels at Environment Agency actually stood at 12,252 people (temps and contractor personnel)
• Budget and staffing levels that rival French, Danish, German, Swedish, Austrian and Canadian Environment Agencies COMBINED
• Directors at the agency declined bonuses but 38 managers shared a pool of £334,000
• Past two years, 14 employees left with six-figure cheques, some in excess of £150,000
• Spending on maintaining culverts and channels to help the flow of watercourses dipped by £1.3 million last year
• £3.6 million was trimmed off the budget to build or improve embankments that protect communities from floods
• Environment Agency spent hundreds on 'equali-tea' gay awareness mugs... and £30,000 on gay pride marches
• Spent over £250k from 2011 to mid-2012 on meetings at private venues, despite having over two dozen offices around the country
• Nearly 7,000 vehicles (plus trucks) - more than one official vehicle for every two employees
• Environment Agency bosses spent £2.4 million on PR alone (excluding staff wages) but refused £1.7million dredging in Somerset
• Single water abstraction licence for Avoncliff costing £152 cost the taxpayer ~£611,000-£1.5 million
• A £2 million Environment Agency case ended with a fine of just £1,000
• 20-25% of business travel costs lost to fraudulent cases costing an estimated £1.8-£4.5 million
• Significant number of man-hours lost in abuse of flexi time, home working and annual leave


This organisation is as silted up as our rivers and needs an equally good clean out.
 
This organisation is as silted up as our rivers and needs an equally good clean out.
Click to expand...
I doubt its any worse than many other government departments/quangos

Frankly, I am only interested in trying to make sure the bit we are concerned with functions well and is adequately funded - and I wish I could get more support from those with a direct interest, i.e. the licence payers.

Unfortunately most seem convinced that nothing will change so nothing will change.
 
macnorton said:
Or put all navigation's under the control of CRT who are big enough to be heard at Westminster and contract the Dutch to manage maintenance.
Click to expand...

It has only been proposed that the navigation responsibilities could be transferred to C&RT - presumably that infers that flood and coastal risk management will remain with the EA/Defra?

However, C&RT now has one overwhelming advantage compared to EA Thames users - C&RT effectively has a contract with Government for guaranteed levels of funding for many years to come. It also has total freedom to raise new funds via public appeal and whatever other avenues they might identify.

We Thames users have no such contract. Even the Customer Charter I and others spend so much time discussing is nothing more than aspiration and there are no sanctions available if it is not met. Government can increase licence fees without our consenting and can also decide, as it is presently doing, to reduce the level of public purse funding.

We need, and I mean NEED, some form of contract that provides both us and government with a clear understanding of who pays for what. Just a simple £1 from users = £1 from government would be a start.
There also needs to be a service standard against which budgets can be set and managed to delivery. Do we NEED lock side assistance or do we WANT lock side assistance? Either way it costs and is by far the most challenging aspect of the Customer Charter discussions.
 
:confused:

Well to dredge or not to dredge? might depend upon ones understanding of the natural effects of river and rainwater when combined?

Just seen an interview, here on SW News, where a former EA person claimed to have been instrumental in the decisions taken back in the 1990's (?) by EA NOT to dredge, as the rivers have very little downward run towards the sea, so any 'up river' dredging would not help the rainwater entering the rivers to drain sea wards (downriver).

Well, it bgrs belief, that such lack of understanding of natural river flow, and why it flows the way it does, is held in the apparent hands of those without the necessary understanding to do the job :o:(
 
Your efforts on behalf of Thames boaters are noted and respected by many of us in other regions. Here in the EA Anglian region it is similarly left to a few individuals to try to secure the best outcome for navigation with an ever-decreasing pot of money, not exactly helped by a navigation authority that appears determined to always waste half of whatever is in that pot.
We do have a formal contract with the EA in the Anglian region, known by another name as the Anglian Water Authority Act 1977. Part of its purpose was to facilitate and promote recreational navigation on the Eastern rivers in return for introduction of an annual licence fee. The Act requires the Navigation Authority to maintain the navigation channels to the same standard as they were in 1976. The EA's reluctance (and in some cases downright refusal) to meet its statutory responsibility and deal with shoaling, as it has over at least the last 10 years, continues to cause problems for boaters, including serious damage to stern-gear and being unable to safely use lock landing stages (remember, we have no lock-keepers). Our aspirations are rather more basic - an unobstructed navigation channel a few feet deep. The basic function of maintaining navigable depths is ignored whilst vast sums are spent on desirable but inessential capital projects purely to make good headlines. Then we are told there is no money. If, many months (or years) after problems are reported, money is eventually found by begging unspent funds from other departments within EA (yes, that's the crazy way their budgeting works!) then the depressed mussel or some other inhabitant of the shallows then has his say to stop the vital work at the expense of the frustrated licence-payer.
The over-riding problem is not a regional one but a national one and the funding issue is only part of it. The real problem is the total unsuitability and incompetence of the Environment Agency as a navigation authority due to the way it is established, despite the fact that many individual navigation officers try their best.
Nevertheless, keep trying!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top