The recent floods have been assisted by the governments policies on land drainage, usually put in place to make it easier to raise grouse for shooting or improve farmland.
For example, Walshaw Moor was purchased in 2002 and has ‘suffered’ burning and draining, which allows for more grouse to be raised – and therefore shot at a cost running into thousands per shooter per day in season. But, much like the application of new methods of agriculture that caused the dirty dust bowl in 1930’s midwest America, drying out mature moorland does have a knock on effect which we are now paying for.
In 2011, the government body Natural England launched a prosecution of the estate, citing “illegal works” on the moor. The estate was charged with 45 offences, 30 of which involved building allegedly unauthorised drainage channels. It denied all criminal activity. In 2012, as Mark Avery documents in his book Inglorious, something very odd happened. After £1m had been spent on the case it was suddenly dropped. Instead, Natural England struck an agreement with the estate under which the owner of Walshaw Moor would be given £2.5m of public money, in the form of a special package of enhanced farm subsidies, to carry on more or less as before, without reversing what were alleged to have been illegal works.
Avery’s freedom of information requests seeking to discover why this astonishing reversal took place have been repeatedly blocked, so there is no definitive explanation. But we know that the minister responsible at the time, Richard Benyon, is himself a grouse moor owner, and was lobbied over this period by the Moorland Association, which represents other grouse moor owners. We have no way of knowing whether these facts are related, and I cannot make a direct connection between the management of Walshaw Moor and the present flooding of Hebden Bridge. But there’s little doubt that the management of grouse moors tends to increase the risk of flooding.
Though grouse moors stretch the definition of agricultural land to breaking point, they remain eligible for public money in the form of farm subsidies. In 2014 as essential public services were hacked back, the government quietly increased the money to which they are entitled by 84%. Maximising the number of grouse means treating the moors as if they were giant chicken runs, draining the land, eradicating predators and competitors and burning the heather to stimulate the young shoots on which grouse feed. If the proles downstream are flooded out of their homes, really, who cares?
In addition:
Farm subsidies everywhere are conditional on the land being in “agricultural condition”. This does not mean any actual farming has to take place there – only that it looks like farmland. Any land covered by “permanent ineligible features” is disqualified. What does this mean? Wildlife habitat. If farmers don’t keep the hills bare, they don’t get their money. Scrub, regenerating woodland, forested gullies, ponds and other features that harbour wildlife and hold back water must be cleared. European rules insist that we pay farmers to help flood our homes.
The British government wants to deregulate dredging and channel clearance, to allow farmers to shift water off their land more quickly. It was instrumental in destroying the proposed European soil framework directive, which would have reduced flooding by preventing the erosion and compaction of the soil.
I’m guessing that friends of the government benefit either way – they get a grant or subsidy to help clear moorland to help them breed grouse to be shot for megabucks, or they get to profit from rebuilding programmes to repair flooded towns and infrastructure allocated by their friends in power.
Or am I being paranoid?
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/29/deluge-farmers-flood-grouse-moor-drain-land
By: duxfordhawk - 7th January 2016 at 13:02
It does seem the weather is becoming more “Freak” over recent years and it’s also worth noting that this year is an El Nino year which throws things in to chaos anyway. The one thing that seems certain is that over last few years freak weather events have become more common, maybe its natural trends, maybe it’s global warming who knows.
Personally I think the story of whether the government mismanaged things and made the wrong cuts is one for another day, but I what is important now is that we learn to adapt to such situations for the future. We have houses being built in areas prone to flood, these houses should all be built raised up off the ground so if area floods less damage is done.
Also it may sound horrible to say it but maybe some towns and villages will need to be abandoned if the risk of flooding is too high. It seems as humans we always try to fight mother nature instead of adapting to it like other animals do, it doesn’t seem to work for us so maybe we need try another way.
I suspect after this winter lessons will be learnt and investment will go into the areas flooded, the only trouble is what happens when another area suffers same situation?, the money available for this is not endless and somethings will be judged economically rather than emotionally which will leave a fair few people upset and angry. All I can say is a feel for everyone who has been effected and I hope the weather is kinder for the rest of 2016.
By: snafu - 31st December 2015 at 18:13
The weather always seems to be the worst (although sometimes the best) since records began. The earliest records – whilst not necessarily being that old – do go back quite a few years (ie not always past a hundred years but occasionally as far as back as the industrial revolution and before) which means that there is a fair record to be consulted; it might be said that with the last few years becoming some of the worst (or best) on record and once in a lifetime events happening every decade or so there might be causes to be discovered from things that are happening (or have happened) now.
By: Pen Pusher - 31st December 2015 at 12:18
It’s the Met Office fault for giving them names.
Brian
By: Moggy C - 31st December 2015 at 11:13
According to the bulk of posters on Facebook it appears all to be the Prime Minister’s fault (Or ‘Cameron’ as they call him in such a public school way whilst sniping at ‘toffs’)
But then, according to them, everything is his fault so no reason why the rain shouldn’t be.
Moggy
By: AlanR - 31st December 2015 at 11:07
Could just be the result of “freak” weather ?
Which seems to be happening more frequently.
By: John Green - 31st December 2015 at 10:44
However much we wriggle and squirm, we can’t buck nature in full flow. By adopting good practice we can mitigate but, that’s about it.
Delightful place Cumberland but, situated to the west of the Pennines, very wet. It isn’t the place that I’d choose to live if I had an aversion to getting my feet wet.
East Anglia on the other hand, is by comparison dry, but perhaps not the place to live if you don’t like winter polar winds howling down the east coast from the Arctic.
As with many aspects of life the answer is perhaps to distribute free condoms and plant trees !
By: Meddle - 30th December 2015 at 22:57
The flooding we are seeing is the result of poor land management, in part. Sadly and predictably the angry right have already decided that any flooding event is solely the result of the lack of dredging of rivers. It is well understood that forestry and mixed grassland is a good barrier for runoff. If you remove these, which has happened extensively across the UK, then there is little to attenuate the water from heavy rainfall, and it ends up surging into rivers. Upland sheep farming, which is a disastrous waste of money in the North of England anyway, will have contributed significantly to the flooding we are now seeing. Short-sighted planning and development that sites buildings on low-lying areas are also to blame. Finally, man’s arrogant belief that you can permanently canalise water ways and build hard infrastructure up to the waters’ edge is also to blame. The over reliance on old drainage methods and infrastructure doesn’t help either.
Dredging rivers only serves to make rivers navigable for larger vessels. As a means of flood prevention it won’t help that much, as you simply change the profile of the river and create a little bit more space for water. Dredged rivers with a U profile tend to fill up rather like a bucket, and when the water exceeds the capacity of this channel it then floods the place dramatically and suddenly. This is why these rivers tend to ‘burst their banks’ rather than simply expand and slowly flood a restricted area. Modern flood defenses tend to mix hard infrastructure, such as physical gates and barriers, with soft infrastructure, such as retention ponds, planted verges and ditches and the creation of two-stage river profiles. in the case of the latter, a second area of land immediately adjacent to the river is planted with a mixture of species and, in the event of rising river levels, absorbs water and provides a second area for flood water retention.
By: sticky847 - 30th December 2015 at 22:41
Just because yr paranoid does not mean yr wrong!
Had a quick google of the book mentioned, seems very interesting, there certainly seems to be a conflict of interest at least.
Sign In
December 30, 2015 at 6:34 pm