The recent flooding.A point of view.

CJL said:
Disposal costs of dredging -

Landfill tax £65/tonne
Landfill gate fee £20/tonne approx

Landfill Directive bans liquids and sludges being accepted (Europe wide directive) so pretreatment of sludges (aka dredgings) now required for all loads.

So £65+£20=£85/tonne PLUS pre-treatment costs plus transports cost £2-3/mile.

This assumes the level of pollution caused by boaters and discharges into the river is not too high and does not require still further treatment to reduce contamination levels - again this is another cost.

Nobody will pay extra licence fees or property taxation so no further dredging. You can't have it all your own way.

CJL
Click to expand...
Following floods in Morpeth in 2008 the E.A. dredged the river. The gravel was sold to Tarmac.
 
534l4rk said:
I posted in another thread that I was trying to get the Thames valley rainfall figures for this year and those for 2003. I have now compared the rainfall for December 2002 and the first 2 weeks of January 2003 with that of December 2013 and the first 2 weeks of January 2014. The data used was from monitor stations in Oxford and Reading. It is interesting that the December rainfalls for both years were very similar. However, the rainfalls for the first 2 weeks of this year were over 3 times those of 2003. Irrespective of the benefits or otherwise of the Jubilee river the levels reached at Wraysbury, Penton Hook and Shepperton were slightly less than in 2003. In view of the greater rainfall it is my opinion that the E.A. lock keepers/weir controllers have managed the levels below the Jubilee well.
Click to expand...

As I said in the other thread there was more rain leading up to the event in 2000 than in 2003 but the flooding was worse downstream than in 2000.

I too think it was well managed this time in comparison but perhaps it was badly managed in 2003, hence the slightly lower levels in this event downstream, the exception is Ham Island where it is reported as being worse.
 
oldgit said:
Weather bods have been predicating our climate will get more extreme for some time.
Simply not possible to prevent future flooding of this nature and future deluges could be worse.[
Click to expand...

We cannot prevent the rain but we can limit the extent of the flooding except in the 1 in 65 year exception, the JR is the proof of this. Now we need the lower Thames flood alleviation strategy set in motion before the much heralded deluge. This will of course be constructed at the lowest end of the river first and then work up river this time, ending in Datchet

It is a shame that these areas suffer some of the worst flooding but must wait longest for the solution to reach them but I think all upstream areas will benefit to some degree by the river and weir improvements downstream and of course the bypass channels.





[[/QUOTE]
 
oldgit said:
You are going to need more cash to carry out this work.
The EA is losing about 500K-1M from its budget this year alone.
A levy on all riverside dwellers and a raising of boat licence fees would be a good indication of how the people who will benefit most from the work feel about funding it.
Click to expand...

I thought the PM just told us we are going to spend more money then ever on flood alleviation?
 
Gavi said:
I pay them £1k per year already....
Click to expand...

Down here the same sum gets you 8 locks,10 (ish) staff and 25 miles of water.

Up there its £2.73 a day for 100 locks ? 200 staff and 150 miles of river...a blimming bargain :)
 
Last edited:
oldgit said:
Down here the same sum gets you 8 locks,10 (ish) staff and 25 miles of water.
Up there its £2.73 a day for 100 locks ? 200 staff and 150 miles of river...a blimming bargain :)
Click to expand...
Great info Fred - NOT!!!
100 locks? Actually 45. 200 staff? More like 100. 150 miles? Close-ish - actually around 123.

As for the money itself...... the Medway licence fee is calculated on length only (not length x breadth as on the Thames) and the maximum charge per annum is currently £325.63 for any craft over 11 metres.

On the Thames that money would cover a boat approx 20 sq. metres - say a 25 foot cruiser with 2.5 meter beam. A typical 11 metre boat with say 3 metre beam would cost around £560 and there is no maximum - the bigger the boat the higher the licence fee - unless you have a boat over 80 sq.mtrs in which case there is a reduction in the sq. meter cost for the excess.

Still agree the licence fee is bloody good VFM though ! :D
 
Last edited:
boatone said:
Great info Fred - NOT!!!
100 locks? Actually 45. 200 staff? More like 100. 150 miles? Close-ish - actually around 123.

As for the money itself...... the Medway licence fee is calculated on length only (not length x breadth as on the Thames) and the maximum charge per annum is currently £325.63 for any craft over 11 metres.

On the Thames that money would cover a boat approx 20 sq. metres - say a 25 foot cruiser with 2.5 meter beam. A typical 11 metre boat with say 3 metre beam would cost around £560 and there is no maximum - the bigger the boat the higher the licence fee - unless you have a boat over 80 sq.mtrs in which case there is a reduction in the sq. meter cost for the excess.

Still agree the licence fee is bloody good VFM though ! :D
Click to expand...

£2.75 will buy you
7 fags
2.5 litres of petrol
60% of a boaty magazine
3 hours in your local authority car park plus £60.00 for the fourth.
1.5 ice creams at your nearest lock.
Nearly an entire coffee at your local Starbucks
Approx 3 mins time in the workshop of your local AUDI dealership.(Do not ask :))
Not much at your local chandlery
and b ...all at your Volvo dealership.
 
And don't forget your Medway license will let you visit the pampered classes on the Thames for free.

If you could time it so that it followed the big flood event you could enjoy the devastation heaped on the communities downstream, now that would be good value.
 
I expect there is a perfectly logical explanation that eludes me, but when they know that possible flooding is coming why don’t they get rid of some of the water in the numerous gravel pits that line the Thames?
Pumping some of this water into the river in advance would artificially lower the water table giving the forecast rain somewhere to go…wouldn’t it??

Probably missing something glaringly obvious :o
 
prof pat pending said:
I expect there is a perfectly logical explanation that eludes me, but when they know that possible flooding is coming why don’t they get rid of some of the water in the numerous gravel pits that line the Thames?
Pumping some of this water into the river in advance would artificially lower the water table giving the forecast rain somewhere to go…wouldn’t it??

Probably missing something glaringly obvious :o
Click to expand...

Theres a lot of gravel pits near me and the level of these doesn't seem to change much during heavy rain, I don't think any surface water runs into them, the river which is only metres away in places of course rises dramaticaly as its fed from numerous tributaries, streams etc.... I don't think they would hold enough to make much difference.
 
There are loads further up in Oxfordshire, apparently the land Oxford is built on is too permiable for flood wall to work
He said, not actually knowing where you are :o

He explained building a flood wall to try to defend parts of the city would simply not work because the ground under Oxford is very permeable and so water would just seep beneath.
Click to expand...
http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news...rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

But I guess if you can pump it out of a pit, you can pump it back in again?
Perhaps a cheaper solution than £160,000000 flood defence channels
 
Last edited:
prof pat pending said:
I expect there is a perfectly logical explanation that eludes me, but when they know that possible flooding is coming why don’t they get rid of some of the water in the numerous gravel pits that line the Thames?
Pumping some of this water into the river in advance would artificially lower the water table giving the forecast rain somewhere to go…wouldn’t it??

Probably missing something glaringly obvious :o
Click to expand...

I guess it's all down to volumes - take a foot out of a gravel pit, how long would it take for that length of water one foot deep to go past you at the current rate of flow - not long, I would say, and even 6 foot or twelve foot..... and it's running past us 24/7!

And then if they are like ours they rise and fall with the water table, which has only in the last week really started to come up.

And two of them are currently part of the river, about three or four feet up on normal non-flood levels. Hey, do you think I can charge someone for storing their water? Must be the EA if they can insist on a licence for a boat in a marina!!
 
In gallons/litres, probably yes, but then the flow rate is ....... quite a lot - an hours worth if you drained 'em all??!!

Interesting project for a Civil Engineering student! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top