Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Bruce Banner

Flooding One Area To Save Another.

Recommended Posts

Just been watching a piece on the news about diverting flood water from an area with a lot of houses to another area with less houses. So you buy a house in an area not susceptible to flooding only to find out that the powers that be are diverting water from an area known to be susceptible into your area :rolleyes:.

The parallels with bank bailouts are obvious, take from the prudent to save the reckless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been watching a piece on the news about diverting flood water from an area with a lot of houses to another area with less houses. So you buy a house in an area not susceptible to flooding only to find out that the powers that be are diverting water from an area known to be susceptible into your area :rolleyes:.

The parallels with bank bailouts are obvious, take from the prudent to save the reckless.

FloodLawyers4U

Been involved in a flood that wasn't your own idiotic fault......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You couldn't make this up. Where in hells name has the leadership gene disappeared to. Thank God we are not in a WW2 situation with this lot.

The leadership gene appears to have mutated into the 'get elected at any cost' gene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been watching a piece on the news about diverting flood water from an area with a lot of houses to another area with less houses. So you buy a house in an area not susceptible to flooding only to find out that the powers that be are diverting water from an area known to be susceptible into your area :rolleyes:.

The parallels with bank bailouts are obvious, take from the prudent to save the reckless.

I notice there are no flood warnings downstream of Teddington Lock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been watching a piece on the news about diverting flood water from an area with a lot of houses to another area with less houses. So you buy a house in an area not susceptible to flooding only to find out that the powers that be are diverting water from an area known to be susceptible into your area :rolleyes:.

The parallels with bank bailouts are obvious, take from the prudent to save the reckless.

I saw the news just now.farmland was flooded to protect the town below. There was no mention of houses there being flooded but it may have been a different report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the news just now.farmland was flooded to protect the town below. There was no mention of houses there being flooded but it may have been a different report.

^^^ this

flooding flood plain further upstream no houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets face it even that guy that built that bank around his house increased the water level for somebody else. while he was pumping water over into the farmers field the farmer had every right to pump out his field into the guys garden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been watching a piece on the news about diverting flood water from an area with a lot of houses to another area with less houses. So you buy a house in an area not susceptible to flooding only to find out that the powers that be are diverting water from an area known to be susceptible into your area :rolleyes:.

The parallels with bank bailouts are obvious, take from the prudent to save the reckless.

I saw that earlier - extraordinary stuff! The poor chap and his daughter who were fine were effectively being told they were being sacrificed for the greater good. Like you say, it's society today in microcosm (stuff the prudent, save the reckless).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the news just now.farmland was flooded to protect the town below. There was no mention of houses there being flooded but it may have been a different report.

It was a different report. Can't find a clip, but what Bruce said is absolutely correct - this was one smaller area of housing not affected being flooded to potentially 'save' a bigger area that was definitely under threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the news just now.farmland was flooded to protect the town below. There was no mention of houses there being flooded but it may have been a different report.

It was! The one I saw, on BBC News, was about water being diverted from a large residential area to a smaller one, the people interviewed lived in the smaller one.

^^^ this

flooding flood plain further upstream no houses.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was! The one I saw, on BBC News, was about water being diverted from a large residential area to a smaller one, the people interviewed lived in the smaller one.

:rolleyes:

The floods will sink the government. I'll put money on it. Carney's even trying to shift blame for any halt in growth on the ******ing storms already. He hasn't even gone to bed yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you can worry about the wind :)

That's what trees are for!

I think anywhere that hasn't flooded by 1st March this year probably will be save in future (I know this could be famous last words).

Dependent on the EA maintaining the same defenses and not redirecting funds to the most vociferous of the currently effected areas in a flood defense based game of whack-a-mole dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Hampshire where I live the River Itchen is being partially dammed to flood farmland and create a temporary reservoir in order to take the pressure off the city of Winchester which is further downriver. The farmers who own the land were interviewed and seemed very happy with the arrangement, presumably warehousing water pays better than farming sheep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been watching a piece on the news about diverting flood water from an area with a lot of houses to another area with less houses. So you buy a house in an area not susceptible to flooding only to find out that the powers that be are diverting water from an area known to be susceptible into your area :rolleyes:.

The parallels with bank bailouts are obvious, take from the prudent to save the reckless.

Is this the article?

...... Caroline Camis, who lives in Meadow View, said agency staff had told a meeting of residents that five homes, including hers, would not be protected by a barrier that will be constructed in the centre of the road.

"Police from Sussex came yesterday and they said unfortunately our five houses have got to take the brunt of it and will suffer - and we're on the bad side - to save other houses in Chertsey," she said.

"At the moment, there's not a drop of water on our street - if they let nature take its course our house would not flood."

Ellie Mowen, her neighbour, added: "We're all quite annoyed because as you can see, there's five houses that are supposedly on the wrong side of this barrier.

"Some people are getting help and others aren't." ...........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-26168176

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets face it even that guy that built that bank around his house increased the water level for somebody else. while he was pumping water over into the farmers field the farmer had every right to pump out his field into the guys garden.

How much did he cause the water to rise by building a wall around his smallish plot of land. A fraction of a centimetre?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't even get a water system to help to avoid/minimise the flooding so how likely is it that any diverted water would end up where they say. Zero likelihood?

For sure it would be supposed to go to less populated areas but more likely it would end up flooding towns and cities.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't even get a water system to help to avoid/minimise the flooding so how likely is it that any diverted water would end up where they say. Zero likelihood?

For sure it would be supposed to go to less populated areas but more likely it would end up flooding towns and cities.

Pretty likely, IMHO. Their flood-modelling has apparently improved a great deal since 2007. That they chose to ignore professional advice up until now is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I ever buy it's going to be up a hill...

Nice views, can see all the going ons quite clearly....think of water like negative money flow, will find the lowest point the fastest way depending on how the intentional direction is forced. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.