tadcaster bridge collapsed

[Johny Walker]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiskIv-7YHKAhVCDg8KHdZ-AMYQqQIIIDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-35195153&usg=AFQjCNGy3ZlgHt_6bilKdegymbTTqLL9Kw&sig2=nyOZu9Z4hbCblrngiRmg1A

[R Mac]

Wow!! and a suspected gas leak as well.

[Kveldssanger]

Mad, 'aint it!

 

I do sometimes wonder how much man is responsible for these floods being so significant, however. Building on flood plains, engineering rivers, altering land-use upstream, downstream, and so on. Nonetheless, my heart does go out to those impacted, as their lives really have been turned upside-down.

[skyhuck]

When will the idiots in charge accept that dredging is at least part of the solution to these problems, its just common sense, if the gap under the bridge is reduced by silt the volume of water that can pass under is by definition reduced.

[shavey]

When will the idiots in charge accept that dredging is at least part of the solution to these problems, its just common sense, if the gap under the bridge is reduced by silt the volume of water that can pass under is by definition reduced.

 

 

Totally agree with you great post

It will take 50 official people at least 20 meetings and enough analysis to bore you too death and this time next year too come up with your answer :thumbup:

[Kveldssanger]

When will the idiots in charge accept that dredging is at least part of the solution to these problems, its just common sense, if the gap under the bridge is reduced by silt the volume of water that can pass under is by definition reduced.

 

[R Mac]

Mad, 'aint it!

 

I do sometimes wonder how much man is responsible for these floods being so significant, however. Building on flood plains, engineering rivers, altering land-use upstream, downstream, and so on. Nonetheless, my heart does go out to those impacted, as their lives really have been turned upside-down.

 

I believe it plays a significant part, wet land drained so that it no longer absorbs water which it then releases gradually is one thing, straightening rivers effectively shortens them so there's less space for the water and the volume of water travels too far too quickly and isn't absorbed before it reaches a bottlenext, result? flooding.

[Johny Walker]

When will the idiots in charge accept that dredging is at least part of the solution to these problems, its just common sense, if the gap under the bridge is reduced by silt the volume of water that can pass under is by definition reduced.

 

people have been saying this for yrs ,but it falls on deaf ears

[simonm]

If the uk government stopped sending hard earnt taxpayers money abroad in aid relief and spent it on flood defence in our own country it mite not be half as bad!

[eggsarascal]

I agree that some dredging would help but, where does the dredging start and in turn finish?, remembering there isn't a bottomless pot to pay for it.

 

By dredging the more populated areas (save more homes) you run the risk of flooding more properties down stream.

 

Oh, and dredging rivers may give more capacity but, it also allows water to travel faster to lower lying ground. Double edged sword, me thinks.

 

The SUDS (sustainable urban drainage system) policy drives water to river in a delayed slower action, via soaking pools / areas, but it cannot work in rainfall that far exceeds expectations.