There was something awe-inspiring about the scale of the disaster enveloping
Central England yesterday. From Pangbourne on the Thames to Tewkesbury under
the Severn, and a score of places besides, locals seemed overwhelmed by the
deluge of television reporters that had descended upon them. The luckiest
journalists stood on bridges with roaring rivers as a backdrop, the less
fortunate organised themselves a shallow lake or a watery road, the effect
often subverted by the kids on bicycles riding over the supposedly
impassable floodwaters. In Gloucester, by a large puddle, the BBC news was
securely anchored by Kate Silverton, wearing a distressed expression and an
even more distressed maroon waterproof. George Alagiah circled overhead in a
helicopter, rescuing no one.
The perils of this inundation were obvious. The BBC website carried one item
inviting the flooded to send their pictures “and moving footage” to a web
address, and another informing readers that motorists who had stopped to
photograph the floods had been slammed by the police for “endangering
themselves and other road users”. From Standlake in Oxfordshire (“where the
Windrush meets the Thames”) a reporter periodically stopped volunteers
filling sandbags so that she could interview them. Then there was the danger
of runoff from the concerned furrows of Silverton’s brow.
There is a rubric for moments like this, and it’s usually a slightly silly
one. “Chaos” refers to irritating disruption, not a state of anarchy; “tales
of human misery” don’t signify imminent death, but pensioners being taken
upstairs and given hot meals by volunteers; “a wall of water . . . expected
to roar down the Thames through the heart of England” is an abrupt rise in
river levels, not an inland tsunami.
But for once we have a really quite substantial natural calamity, more akin to
the Great Hurricane of 1987 than to the Not So Great Floods of 2000. Rivers
that local people have never heard of are bursting their banks from the
Welsh border to the Home Counties, covering substantial areas in a
reddy-brown soup of water, soil and God knows what.
My favourite question from yesterday came from the front of this paper,
asking: “The floods: what went wrong?” The answer, it seemed to me, was: “It
rained a hell of a lot.” But the query suggested another headline, this time
from a Sunday newspaper, announcing that the Government had been warned of
potential flooding as early as last Wednesday. So why, it was implied,
hadn’t they stopped it? An irresistible image came to mind of members of the
Government, led by Gordon Brown, lying down on river banks to block the
rising tide.
I have seen it suggested that ditches weren’t properly cleared, that pumps
were unavailable and that perhaps this would have been resolved had we only
appointed a minister of floods to coordinate everything (or, failing that,
to build an Ark).
All this is just possibly true. Perhaps some of the places now under water
would have been an inch or two drier had things been handled better, though
it could be that our demands for complete security from natural disaster are
overoptimistic. Maybe there are countries where no one ever gets flooded,
and there are no forest fires, avalanches, hurricanes, landslides or
tornadoes, or if there are, no one is ever inconvenienced by them. I doubt
it. I was struck by the mobile flood barriers for Upton-upon-Severn in
Worcestershire getting stuck in gridlock on the motorways – and which would
have been insufficient for the scale of the floods in that town even had
they arrived.
So much for the short term. What about medium-term prevention? Couldn’t we
spend enough on flood defences to ensure that almost any building in the
flood plain is safe? Or couldn’t we stop building houses in the flood plain,
in case we cannot construct good enough defences? The answer to these
questions lie in risk assessment. We don’t get flooded every year. Last
year, in fact, we had a drought. So how much ought we to pay to safeguard
ourselves against an occasional inundation? This week’s publication of the
housing Green Paper turned flood-plain building into the temporary “dominant
narrative” of housing policy. Everywhere it was as though the commentariat
were quoting that fabulous precautionary couplet from William McGonagall to
the effect that: “The stronger we our houses build/ The less chance we have
of being killed.”
You’d think we were talking about the Nile with its reliable flooding. But our
places are built in valleys and by rivers. The nervous Spaniard may have
built up hill, we, however, built down dale. Somewhere such as Tewkesbury,
surrounded by clue-bearing water meadows, was created on the flood plain,
and every 60 years or so, it floods. So should we spend billions on flood
defences and stop flood-plain building – incurring an inevitable extra
demand on green-belt land – because of this infrequent risk? Mr Brown, I
think, says no.
The Dutch, apparently, only permit developments where the risk is of one
serious flood every 10,000 years, whereas our Government is prepared to
build where the risk is one flood every century. If we think that’s wrong,
are we the British people willing to run the expense and non-financial costs
of Dutch levels of prudence? Might you not end up, as the British rail
system has done, extraordinarily safe at huge expense?
One should note here that the prices of floods themselves have risen. Those of
1947 set the country back £300 million at today’s prices. Yesterday the
Association of British Insurers estimated this year’s floods as costing a
rather round £2 billion. It could be that we simply can’t afford not to
spend the necessary money on flood protection. Even so, I can’t help
recalling that, back in the mid1990s, the people of Shrewsbury opposed flood
defences that were recommended by the Environment Agency, because they would
have been too physically intrusive. They would rather, they said, live with
the risk.
That, at least, was a grown-up discussion, in which citizens weighed up the
chances of a catastrophe against the price of guarding against it. It
suggested the improbable day when we might see a sodden householder tell a
TV reporter that yes, she had lost half her furniture, but, on balance, it
was worth it.
"reduce the population" - what on earth are you suggesting michael wilson?
i'm fed up of this blame culture, promoted by the media - you just don't know what difference any extra money would have made... next year it might flood even worse, rendering any knee-jerk extra investment in defenses just as useless as the ones we've got!
how much is enough?
Matt, Atlantis, England
It was we are told King Canute who failed to stop the tide or proved that even he could not.Whichever, to spend billions upon billions to secore low lying areas and rivers from flooding is equally futile, nor is it relevant to quote the Dutch who live in a continental country with the sea on one side only from the tides of which dykes provide protection. Overfflowing rivers are a different problem.
I do not know how many miles of river we have but to build dyke on both sides amongst most of the length of all of them is just mindbogling.If we must build on flood plains we must use suitable architecture which raises the buildings and roads above flood level. Equally ridiculous.
After this experience it is unlikely to happen. It will be too difficult or extortionately expensive to get insurance and who will buy a house which is uninsurable.So forget government spin and back to the drawing board.
George Herbert, Bournemouth, Dorset
we are fast becoming a third world country. have we had a concert etc etc for our BRITISH flood victims come on BRITIAN pull together for BRITIAN XXXXXXX
jo mangham, worksop, notts
The generous nature of the British Public has always been in our hearts and felt deeply in our pockects for when disater strikes, Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia to name but a few have felt the benefit enormously directly from our pockets. We even contribute to the EU disater funds that was distributed on the last EU disaters. Whether it be Floods, Drought, Famine or an Earthquake, we have always looked into our hearts and offered support.
I seem to remember the time when Britain announced aid to the Sunami vitims, after other Countries pledged aid, that ours would be the highest offered.
Yet today we find our situation very much different and in need of help & assistance, yet I dont see or hear anyone offering this much today. I dont see the EU, Pakistan or Indonesia bearing gifts of support, returning the favour............Remind me next time they call for aid.
Michael , Caversham, Berkshire
Dear Editor,
With the unusually heavy rain causing flooding over the UK, for the severity we must look at other factors such as most of the main sewers are old even Victorian, with all the millions of houses,flats, conversions that have been built since(just look around where you live) all going into the same inadequate sewers and on top of that the vast amount of drainage from motorways, all the water eventually ends up in the rivers and waterways which are all so silted up through years of neglect they can't cope. It was just a catastrophe waiting to happen. Its time polticians realised that charity begins at home.
What will happen in the future with the plans to build millions of more houses, most on known flood plains.
D.Jones
D Jones, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex
Minister for Housing, Yvette Cooper when asked about building on flood plains stated that when certain safety features were built in to houses then it would be acceptable. She quoted 10 Downing Street as an example, saying that this too was bult on a flood plain and that the Thames Flood Barrrier was its safety device. Well she might like to have a word with the residents of South Essex and Nort Kent who will benefit from the surge tide when the barrier is closed against a very high tide. another example of a minister talking about something they do not understand and with no grasp of the situation. The population of these areas deserves more from a minister who obviously cares not a jot where all this extra water goes,as long as its not London.
Cal, Rochester, U/K
What irritates me is that it’s such a waste of a vitally important resource. We oscillate between drought and flooding, without recognising that proper drainage and water storage would solve both problems. But I think it unlikely that the privatised water utilities would be prepared to invest the necessary amount to build reservoirs or underground storage facilities. They would much rather build desalination plants.
So, as usual, we have no strategic thinking, just crisis management.
rob, London, UK
David Aaronovitch hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. He's just a "political commentator" and is simply using other people's misery to air more of his stupid opinions. I doubt if he has any managerial experience - let alone in water or emergency management, yet here he is, the worlds greatest expert telling everyone how to do their jobs. The fact is plenty can be done about what happened - and will be done - by people who actually do something useful in our society rather than just use every crisis to stir things up and scoff from the sidelines.
Jim, Coventry,
Cull the straw brained councillors who approve new developments on "flood risk" land. My local village, Stanstead Abbotts, flooded when I was 16, and I delivered emergency supplies to householders by tractor.
In the last 30 years more than 400 houses have been built in the village - where the flood was highest. Madness or Corruption?
Richard Prior, Bucharest, Romania
James in Adelaide - You and those who do not want to understand the global warming concern miss (deliberately?) the most simple point. Each extreme weather event in itself indicates nothing of a trend. You need to take a step back and think with some perspective. On doing so you would realise that when each month and year goes by, we hear it was record-breaking for some reason, whether heat, cold, drought, flood etc.
What is significant is that these "records" and extreme weather events are becoming ever more frequent. It doesn't take much thought to realise that this does indicate a worrying trend. It we be great if we could blissfully accept Aaronovitch's assurance that such flooding won't happen for another 100 years, but I think even the most ardent optimist would find it hard to accept this, or his assertation that Britain's railways are "extraordinarily safe".
Some years ago the precautionary principle made sense to everyone. Why have some commentators forgotten it?
Joe, London, UK
We're busy finding hilarious ways of living without running water in the hope of a slot on a 24/7 news channel. But, in global terms, this isn't much of a disaster. Horrible for the people more directly affected than we are and mildly irritating for us having to remember not to flush the lavatory every time one visits because the cistern has to be refilled from the rain water butt. But chaos? I don't think so...
Brian Hughes, Cheltenham, UK
From the mouths of babes wisdom not water floweth.May I draw your attention to the often well grounded kernal of truth at the heart of most nursery rhymes?
Doctor Foster went to Gloucester in a shower of rain....and we all know the outcome don't we?
David Drew, Kirkby in Ashfield, Nottignahmshire
The deluge of 1912.....who was responsible for that?
Mind you - daft to build all these houses - nowhere for the rain to soak....we're just too crowded. Time to start seriously looking at reducing our population long term but as a start, we should put a "Full" sign up at our ports so that no one gets in - no matter where they come from.......and start deporting a few!
Phil, Preston,
St Swithin’s Day, if it doth rain
Full forty days, it will remain
Yonder see the storm clouds forming
It's medieval gobal warming
Bill, Surrey, UK
The problem with risk assessment is that we are treated simply as statistical objects and the possible human cost is generally difficult to include in a statistical study. So long as it doesn't happen to you, you're fine. Another problem is that history, past and recent, show that governments are usually much too late in taking action. And, like the disaster today, really only act when disaster has already struck. What will they do if the 'perfect disaster' ever hits London?
The real question is if we made the wrong bet, are we happy to lose the huge amount it entailed? That is, are we willing to cough up the huge sums needed to repair the damage to the economy, homes, families and infrastructure if government has taken the risk and disaster strikes has it has done now?
Dick, Durham, Uk
Tewkesbury has, apparently, not been so badly flooded since 1947.
If anyone cares to visit Tewkesbury Abbey, one can see clearly the tide marks well up the main stone columns, from previous floods, over many years, centuries, even.
No mention this time of the Abbey being flooded, although, of course, this is a disaster for those affected, for whom we feel for.
Other factors which have not been discussed are the regular extensive draining of the uplands in recent years, from where this water comes, nor the failure to dredge rivers, which was done in the past., or the fact that there might even be high tides at sea (What price the proposed Severn Barrage?) which would stop this water getting out.
Lack of joined up thinking and not enough knowledge of past practices are contributory factors; blaming Global warming and 'exceptional events' just isn't good enough.
John, Clitheroe, UK
The scale may be unusual, but places such as Tewkesbury and Upton do not flood once every 100 years, or even 50 years, they flood most years. Yet the buildings are the standard Barrett boxes that are built up and down the country, no thought to reducing the damage that a major flood may cause.
Through the demands of shareholders the infrastructure is deglected as it doesn't maximise profit on the required timescale.
The road and rail network fail when they are most needed.
The talk about lessons to be learnt, nothing will change. If as suggested rainfall will become more intense then this may merely be a taster of what is too come.
How would the government react if/when this happens to London. which is itself on a floodplain.
MArtin O'Loughlin, cheltenham,
In 1962 Manitoba began construction of the Red River Floodway in response to the Winnipeg Flood of 1950. Critics called it "Duff's Ditch.". It was completed in 1968 and none too soon -- the floods returned in 1969 on the same scale as previously. But the Floodway worked, and has ever since.
Moral: spend the money. You may just as well; all over the world people live in flood plains, and that will never change.
TJ Cassidy, Arlington, Virginia, USA
There should be a relatively straightforward answer to building in areas with a flood risk - build appropriately. If you go along the Thames in Henley, there are properties built right up to the river, but which have a boathouse as the lower floor. Various people interviewed over the last few weeks who have been flooded in the past have ensured that their lower floors have been made flood resistant - solid floors, tiled walls, power points at waist level etc.
It would help if insurers allowed you to insure against flooding to a particular depth - ie you insured against flooding of more than 3 feet for example.
If we need to build in the floodplains, put the houses on stilts, or garages on the ground floor, with living accommodation on the 1st floor and up.
Joel, Harrogate, North Yorkshire
Excuse me ! but why is there no mention here of the EU ?
Why can the French claim & receive money from this big protector, when they had serious floods a few years back, but no mention of the Brits doing it ?
Er, or would it be that this is one of the wavers that Tony Blair accepted ?
The British tax payer has been forking out cash for years to the EU, get some of that cash back , in assistance now & grants to build the much needed defences.
Maggie Millington, Brittany, France
the goverment won't stop homes being built on the floodplain.
it's up to the public to vote with their feet.
buying a home? - get a homebuyers report.
if the report says you are on a floodplain, walk away - no matter how pretty, no matter how far from a river.
If you're happy to get flooded once every 50 years then disregard the above- but personally once is more than enough - the stress of watching my neighbours getting washed out while I lucking escaped was bad enough.
alan lovedog, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England
i think that the nanny state has raised a breed of critters whose life is to be free from stress, from reality in fact.
yes, we have had floods: and its terrible that homes are not habitable presently.
however, ppl living in these beautiful areas have fantastic views, and walks for eternity: surely there are down sides to every aspect of life.
where is the backbone of a nation who suffered rationing?
we seem to want protection from every named and unnamed category of hazard: its time to join the real world i think: not money, not million pound projects can guarantee a safe and predictable life, but i'm afraid that governments will promise anything if they think they can win elections and keep fat cats in fattedness.
newsmen/women are wetting themselves with glee in reporting a disaster: however, many ppl on the pictures seem to be trying not to let the situation get them down: well done to those who can smile in the face of adversity: it's what life is all about.
peepys, london, uk
imagine(silly me) spending the cash spent in Iraq on drains and flood defenses, and making it compulsory to build all buildings likely to flood on stilts like simple natives do in India and Africa. it would provide garage space and the car would be the only item lost in the event.
ken moody, sheffield yorkshire, england
We could always take a leaf out of our American friends' book and carry firearms in order to survive the floods(as suggested in numerous posts on yesterday). Maybe then we could shoot the oncoming waters? That would teach them!
Harry, Leeds, UK
Oh James - whilst natural disasters ARE inevitable, the scale and frequency of them is changing - due to climate change.
An official scientific study, released today, has shown how often and to what scale these freak events occur naturally, and how often with human intervention - it has concluded, irrefutably, that the floods we are experiencing are down to human impact on the climate and are NOT simply down to Mother Nature.
Perhaps more frightening than the floods is people's unwillingness to listen and accept that climate change is happening and having an enormous impact on the world. I guess it's easier to sit back, take no responsibility, and do nothing.
HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE FROM AROUND THE GLOBE DO YOU NEED??!!
Anne, London,
"So should we... stop flood-plain building – incurring an inevitable extra demand on green-belt land – because of this infrequent risk? Mr Brown, I think, says no."
But given that Mr Brown is nowhere near as stupid as John Prescott, how can this be? Ominous talk of green-belt land is a red herring here; the government is committed to building on that too.
Paul Danson, Birmingham,
The Victorians knew how to build in flood-plains. I live in Oxford, and have had roaring torrents at both ends of my road for the last three days. But none of the houses in the road have ever flooded because we've all got flood cellars. Every house, instead of having a solid wall of earth between the foundations, has a big hollow space beneath the house, about four foot deep. There's about 20 inches of water in it at the moment, but the whole road is dry. If you're going to build houses in the flood-plain, then build houses that can cope with floods, rather than trying to prevent rivers flooding (which famously doesn't work).
Carolyn, Oxford,
Articles like this highlight why Britain is no longer great , we used to be a can-do country with people who could and would . Now people just say it' s not worth the effort as who can tell if it would make a difference ...
Take a look at London and how many rivers and streams had to be redirected in order for it to work as it does now ... the Fleet is a good example .
What we need are forward thinkers ... Oh dear .
Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,
The environment agency, and a well known east anglian based insurance company have published maps of areas at risk from flooding. The homework has, apparently, been done. It is up to residents, surely, to make themselves aware of the risk, and act appropriately.
If the areas currently under water are not on the Environment/insurance agency's map then they have not done their homework, however, I think the vast majority of areas are identified as being at risk.
Check the maps, and if the risk is there, it doesn't take much effort to prepare appropriately. There are cost effective ways to reduce, if not prevent, flood water damage - surely not a government task.
Just a thought, how many council/social housing estates have been flooded?
Jimd, Norwich, UK
When I moved to Essex nigh on 30 years ago, I lived in a house right next to the river Crouch. It was of non standard build, i.e. mostly wooden and it was on 8 inch beams with a garage and workshop underneath. On several occasions I had a dinghy tied to the base of the stairs to get out of the garden to the road. Now the years have gone by and recently I walked down the river bank where I used to live. All these houses on stilts have gone and been replaced by big expensive houses of conventional build. I have no doubt that they will be flooded several times. It is down to the planning officials now. For goodness sake, they need to forsake their rigidity and allow unconventional builds to accommodate the environment they are built in. It is possible to build on flood plains providing you are allowed to build the right type of house. Our forefathers managed, after all , these Essex weatherboard type houses have been around for hundreds of years.
patricia carr, Preston,
Spending by the Environment Agency was cut back by Mr.Brown and the Treasury so less has been spent on building flood defences.
I remember a comment on the floods in the North that the flood drains should have had at there maximum level six feet of silt,they actually had sixteen feet.Maintainance had been cut back by the government.
We seem to have an idea that we can always muddle through,fine every so often,but if there is climate change(be it man made or just cyclical) we should be prepared.It seems we are not.
Nigel Wheatcroft, Wimbledon, UK
As a stout Yorkshireman I would love to agree with John about southern bias but it simply is not true! The BBC news was introduced regularly from a bridge in Catcliffe whilst other reporters seem to spend days in Toll Bar.
David's article is spot on.We must find someone to blame for the weather.
John, Sheffield, Yorkshire
We are the victims of our stupidity, today's generations magically forgives others sins, believes they have inherited wisdom, and finds it difficult to understand why homes get flooded. (I think the bible in its simplest translation, alluded to building a church on rock not on sand,)
It is possible to build on flood plain, but the cost is increased in terms of providing adequate drainage.
No todays headline will be swept up with the remainder of tomorrows' chip papers and this Government will stumble through to the next issue which will become that day's, "Issue to Fear".
We have learnt from previous generations, we have learnt to ignore history.
Praise indeed to Mr Cameron, not in touch with his party and now thankfully out of touch with this country.
Tom Edwards, Taunton, Somerset
There does appear to be a lot more press coverage about the floods in the South. The top BBC journalists in waterproofs didn't seem to manage the journey to the North a few weeks ago, when similar floods happened there.
John, Manchester,
Two years ago the insurance companies were worried about subsidence due to the drought!
The Uk media will always overkill all news ,it sells newspapers and the must blame someone.Property with river or sea views fetch premium prices due to the public wanting to have nice views. The taxpayer cannot fund defences when the crisis only might happen every 100 years.
The UK public after all dont like paying taxes.
Bill Rees, Pieusse, France
Reduce the population and build on hills.
michael wilson, bidache, france
Thank God we haven't been hearing much talk about why the flooding is all due to global warming. According to local conspiracy theorists in Australia we can blame climate change for everything from the Boxing day tsunami and droughts to Hurricane Katrina and floods or even every cold day in winter and hot days in summer. Finally, an article which seems to accept the inevitability of natural disasters.
James, Adelaide, Australia