Flood solutions

Of course when the waters are rising, threatening homes and lives everyone wants a solution right now. The trouble is that there are no short term solutions to this much water. A shortage of long-term thinking got us into this mess in the first place. We can only hope that more short-term ‘problem solving’ does go on to make things worse.

Yes, in the short term if you dredge rivers you can move more water through them at a faster rate. However, what that does is causes more erosion to banks. There are two consequences here – eroded banks are more likely to give way in face of higher water pressure, which means an increased risk of flooding. All that eroded material goes into the river, silting it up, so you have to keep dredging to keep this under control. By destroying the natural ecology of the river you create an ongoing problem that you then have to keep throwing human solutions at, or you get more floods.

All of our problems here are really of our own making. We’ve built on flood plains. We’ve drained wetlands. We’ve laid down non-permeable surfaces (tarmac, concrete, buildings) and this means water is moving faster. The faster water flows out of our towns, the more likely it is to cause flooding. Once upon a time we had flood meadows, and marshes to soak up the excess, and water could seep in where it landed to a far greater degree. Our collective approach to development has caused this problem.

If we insist on ignoring these basic facts about how water moves through the environment, all we are going to do is invent ever more expensive flood protection schemes that do not deliver protection.

If we build on flood plains, we will get floods in those areas. If we destroy wetlands, we lose capacity for managing water. Yes, right now flooding is a big issue for farmers, but we need a totally different attitude to the value of those flooded fields.

Heavy rain isn’t going to magically go away. We need long term solutions to the underlying problems, not political quick-fixes that just move the problem down to the next town downstream, or the next generation, or some other unfortunates who inherit double the damage and an exorbitant bill. We need to start recognising there is a direct relationship between what people do, and what happens in our environment.

If you’d like to take action to do your bit and prevent flooding, and you have any garden space, consider creating a rain garden... more information here. 

Environmental offsetting

It’s amazing that someone with as tenuous as grasp on natural sciences as Owen Patterson could be our environmental secretary, taking decisions about the future of nature in the UK.

Apparently he thinks its ok to chop down ancient woodlands for development, if you do some offsetting some other place. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25599249 As though all you need to do to replace ancient woodland, is plant a few trees.

Perhaps Mr Patterson has never seen a wood? Clearly he’s never read anything more complex than ‘may contain trees’. Ancient woodland is so much more than the trees. It is a habitat. All manner of things live there. Birds, insects, animals, plants that are not trees. Ancient woodland has different flora to younger woods, and that flora is precious. None of these things magically relocate just because you planted some other trees for them. In many ways the most important thing about ancient woodland is not the purely the trees, but the complex interplay between fungi in the soil, and the trees. The life below the surface of the woodland floor is as important as the bits you can see. Quite possibly more so.

Woodlands are not separate from the land they stand on. They have grown up over hundreds, sometimes thousands of years in relation to the shape of the land, the flows of water, the underlying geology. Nothing is replaceable. Every wood is unique, and none should be chopped down carelessly for the sake of a fast buck for a few already overly-rich individuals.

Woodlands are our heritage. We should leave them intact as best we can for future generations. It is Owen Patterson that needs removing for development, and for the good of our countryside.

Where do we build?

Photo: Ruscombe by Mike Gallagher

Most Greens have an instinctive aversion to building on greenfield sites. There are many good reasons for this – protecting our farmland, our green spaces, protecting habitats and wildlife and preserving the green belt. All of these in turn contribute to quality of life for all. However, there are times when it might make more sense to develop a greenfield site. Here are some examples.

When the infrastructure is better able to support it. Greenfield development where there are good local transport hubs, and good local resources already in place may make more sense than adding pressure to places where the road networks cannot take any more cars, where there are no schools, and no medical services, for example.

When the greenfield site is not much of a habitat. Arable farmland may look green, but may also be quite barren in terms of resident wildlife. Conversely, not all brownfield sites are devoid of wildlife. Locations reclaimed by nature can be rich with wildlife. We have a lot of sites in Stroud that are technically brownfield, because they have the ruins of mills on them. Some of those have become valuable habitats for otters and kingfishers. Old buildings are also potential roosting sites for bats, owls and other endangered creatures. Our old railway lines have re-wooded and, are valuable habitats and leisure spaces.

We might also want to think about the visual impact of development, about who is going to be affected by it, which views will change, and how it will impact on communities. In rural settings, we need to think about whether additional build could help to keep local schools open and other local resources viable and in place.

The government is championing new build as the solution to our country’s financial difficulties. The Green Party does not believe that covering the countryside in tarmac and brick represents a good solution. We have to balance quality of life against financial gains. We have to think about what is needed. While we aren’t keen on development for the sake of development, we are dedicated to doing our best to make sure that we get the right things in the right places for the right reasons. That means looking at the evidence on the ground rather than letting wild speculation and unfounded imagination guide the way.