I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to
simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as
far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains
etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked
due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to
simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as
far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains
etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked
due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?
Many new properties built on flood planes are not liable to flooding
because of drainage installed. The problem is the water that used to
wait on the flood plain has to go elsewhere, so someone downstream,
perhaps in an old house that has never been flooded is. So the answer
is do not allow any building on flood plains at all.

Broadback wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these -
like in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding
areas' and buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage
to simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your
flood protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a
5 meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed
as far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains
etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway
blocked due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?
Many new properties built on flood planes are not liable to flooding
because of drainage installed. The problem is the water that used to
wait on the flood plain has to go elsewhere, so someone downstream,
perhaps in an old house that has never been flooded is. So the answer
is do not allow any building on flood plains at all.

It's not often that I agree with the government, but in this case I
think I do, in that it is impractical in this case to prohibit flood
plain (note spelling) development.Most of occupied england is to a
greater or lesser extent on a flood plain of some sort. Arguably about
70% of London is. As is about 90% of the Cambridge and Lincolnshire fens.

The Fens have been subject to a well developed system of water control
for generations. Maybe there are lessons to be learnt.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Broadback wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts
of buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations,
and ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in
these conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these -
like in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding
areas' and buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage
to simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to
be stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your
flood protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a
5 meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed
as far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm
drains etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a
motorway blocked due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?
Many new properties built on flood planes are not liable to flooding
because of drainage installed. The problem is the water that used to
wait on the flood plain has to go elsewhere, so someone downstream,
perhaps in an old house that has never been flooded is. So the answer
is do not allow any building on flood plains at all.

It's not often that I agree with the government, but in this case I
think I do, in that it is impractical in this case to prohibit flood
plain (note spelling) development.Most of occupied england is to a
greater or lesser extent on a flood plain of some sort. Arguably about
70% of London is. As is about 90% of the Cambridge and Lincolnshire fens.

The Fens have been subject to a well developed system of water control
for generations. Maybe there are lessons to be learnt.




That is all very well as the water is being sent into the sea, this is
not practical inland, so others get flooded instead.

Broadback wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Broadback wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts
of buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to
foundations, and ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to
function in these conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these -
like in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding
areas' and buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit
damage to simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to
be stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your
flood protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what?
a 5 meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed
as far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm
drains etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a
motorway blocked due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?
Many new properties built on flood planes are not liable to flooding
because of drainage installed. The problem is the water that used to
wait on the flood plain has to go elsewhere, so someone downstream,
perhaps in an old house that has never been flooded is. So the
answer is do not allow any building on flood plains at all.

It's not often that I agree with the government, but in this case I
think I do, in that it is impractical in this case to prohibit flood
plain (note spelling) development.Most of occupied england is to a
greater or lesser extent on a flood plain of some sort. Arguably about
70% of London is. As is about 90% of the Cambridge and Lincolnshire fens.

The Fens have been subject to a well developed system of water control
for generations. Maybe there are lessons to be learnt.




That is all very well as the water is being sent into the sea, this is
not practical inland, so others get flooded instead.

No, it isn't. The fens are a system of interlinked 'fens' surrounded by
'dykes' (essentially ditches on top of earth banks)into which water is
either pumped (when the rivers are low, or from which water is allowed
into the fens to flood them, when water is high..thus only maintaining
the downstream parts of he land to a suite of flow rates that the actual
rivers can accommodate. Nearly all the land is actually BELOW river
levels, and MUCH of it is below seal levels too.

It is a system whereby houses are protected at the expense of flooding
the fens, if necessary. These act as short term reservoirs to absorb
peak flow, from whence the water is then pumped out in drier spells.

It's a sacrificial system: low grade grazing land - water meadows - are
the first to be allowed to flood, then arable land, and housing areas NEVER.

It works too.

The whole area is actually being pumped pretty much all the time. ASnd
is maintained by an authority whose job it is to physically open sluices
and flood areas if more important araes are threatened.

As I said, my old house there was around 8 feet below river level. And
IIRC about 18" below means sea level. In bad rain times many of teh
areas between the dykes were (deliberately) flooded, but never 'our fen'
as that had housding on it.

On Jul 23, 7:09 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Broadback wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Broadback wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts
of buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to
foundations, and ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to
function in these conditions.

One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these -
like in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding
areas' and buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit
damage to simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to
be stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your
flood protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what?
a 5 meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed
as far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm
drains etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a
motorway blocked due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?
Many new properties built on flood planes are not liable to flooding
because of drainage installed. The problem is the water that used to
wait on the flood plain has to go elsewhere, so someone downstream,
perhaps in an old house that has never been flooded is. So the
answer is do not allow any building on flood plains at all.

It's not often that I agree with the government, but in this case I
think I do, in that it is impractical in this case to prohibit flood
plain (note spelling) development.Most of occupied england is to a
greater or lesser extent on a flood plain of some sort. Arguably about
70% of London is. As is about 90% of the Cambridge and Lincolnshire fens.

The Fens have been subject to a well developed system of water control
for generations. Maybe there are lessons to be learnt.

That is all very well as the water is being sent into the sea, this is
not practical inland, so others get flooded instead.

No, it isn't. The fens are a system of interlinked 'fens' surrounded by
'dykes' (essentially ditches on top of earth banks)into which water is
either pumped (when the rivers are low, or from which water is allowed
into the fens to flood them, when water is high..thus only maintaining
the downstream parts of he land to a suite of flow rates that the actual
rivers can accommodate. Nearly all the land is actually BELOW river
levels, and MUCH of it is below seal levels too.


is it not the case that when they first drained the fens those dykes
were below local ground level. the water drained into them and was
let out into the sea when the gates opened at low tide. then the
land slowly shrank (once drained) and became the system we have today
with the dykes and rivers typically above the surrounding land and
pumps being used everywhere.

Robert

As I said, my old house there was around 8 feet below river level. And
IIRC about 18" below means sea level.

You lowlander. We were a whole 3 feet above sea level.

On 23 Jul, 12:53, Broadback wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.

One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to
simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as
far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains
etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked
due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?

Many new properties built on flood planes are not liable to flooding
because of drainage installed. The problem is the water that used to
wait on the flood plain has to go elsewhere, so someone downstream,
perhaps in an old house that has never been flooded is. So the answer
is do not allow any building on flood plains at all.

Simple
Every house should have a massive pump installed behind a chimney
breast.
Then during times of flooding, a 4" diameter hose could clipped onto a
port at the side
of the chimney breast and water could pumped up thru the chimney and
spurted toward the nearest ocean. n.b. People living in Birmingham
would need
a very big pump.

Arthur

"Arthur 51" wrote in message
oups.com...

Simple
Every house should have a massive pump installed behind a chimney
breast.
Then during times of flooding, a 4" diameter hose could clipped onto a
port at the side
of the chimney breast and water could pumped up thru the chimney and
spurted toward the nearest ocean. n.b. People living in Birmingham
would need
a very big pump.

Given how high above sea level Brum is I don't think we need to worry about
getting it to the sea.
The rest of the country has already gone so we can just pump it anywhere we
like.

The Natural Philosopher wrote on 23/07/2007 12:18

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to
simply the garden.


I think I read recently that some houses in the Netherlands are built to
float. They have a bouyancy chamber, normally rest on separate
foundations, and rise between vertical rails if a flood arrives.

S.

Simon Morris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote on 23/07/2007 12:18

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage
to simply the garden.


I think I read recently that some houses in the Netherlands are built to
float. They have a bouyancy chamber, normally rest on separate
foundations, and rise between vertical rails if a flood arrives.

S.

That is...neat!


Of course you could build the whole housing estate on a giant raft...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Simon Morris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote on 23/07/2007 12:18

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage
to simply the garden.


I think I read recently that some houses in the Netherlands are built
to float. They have a bouyancy chamber, normally rest on separate
foundations, and rise between vertical rails if a flood arrives.

S.

That is...neat!


Of course you could build the whole housing estate on a giant raft...

As was Winchester Cathedral nearly 932 years ago, the wooden and stone
'raft' lasted almost 800 years before needing underpinning by William
Walker and 250 others who had to go under the foundations in diving suits.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think I read recently that some houses in the Netherlands are built
to float. They have a bouyancy chamber, normally rest on separate
foundations, and rise between vertical rails if a flood arrives.

S.

That is...neat!


Of course you could build the whole housing estate on a giant raft...

It might add a new meaning to the term "sink estate", should the
buoyancy aid get a puncture. ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood water
to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to simply
the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from sewage
pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as far as
possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains etc
actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked due to
bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?

Build all houses on 1 Metre stilts (including garages with a suitable ramp)

Make all external doors waterproof.

This would make all houses flood proof to at least 2 metres above road level
so long as the doors were not left open

Put the bedrooms downstairs so most of electrical goods would then be
upstairs
this also means that the downstairs windows can be smaller and higher up
further raising the waterproof level

It also has the benefit of reducing heating bills as the rooms which need
the higher temperatures are at the top of the house

Have electric and gas meters etc upstairs as well

Alternatively make all houses 3 floors where the bottom floor is just
concrete walls and floors with a separate electric circuit
Occupiers could use this for whatever they choose but possessions left there
would not be covered by house insurance in the event of flood

Tony

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:40:58 +0100 someone who may be "TMC"
wrote this:-

Make all external doors waterproof.

Some years ago there was film of big floods in Germany taken from
inside a building, it might well have been the parliament in Bonn
before it was moved to Berlin. What impressed me was that the water
was about 2m deep, outside the glass walls of the building. Inside
it was dry.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

TMC wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood water
to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to simply
the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from sewage
pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as far as
possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains etc
actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked due to
bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?

Build all houses on 1 Metre stilts (including garages with a suitable ramp)

Make all external doors waterproof.

This would make all houses flood proof to at least 2 metres above road level
so long as the doors were not left open

Put the bedrooms downstairs so most of electrical goods would then be
upstairs

You haven't seen my bedroom..;-)

this also means that the downstairs windows can be smaller and higher up
further raising the waterproof level


Good thinking..however most cavity walls are not actually that
waterproof..In germany they tank cellars with polystrene and surround te
masonry with a plastic membrane.

It also has the benefit of reducing heating bills as the rooms which need
the higher temperatures are at the top of the house

MM. Nice pount actually.

Have electric and gas meters etc upstairs as well


The 'read your meter from outside' boys will LOVE that one.

Alternatively make all houses 3 floors where the bottom floor is just
concrete walls and floors with a separate electric circuit
Occupiers could use this for whatever they choose but possessions left there
would not be covered by house insurance in the event of flood


Yup. Thats a typical german house with basement. My sisters one got
sewage spewing up through the toilets in there when they had a flood..
otherwise the basement comprised one minimalsist guest room with
ensuite,. storage for outdoor toys - bikes, lawnmowers etc etc, and a
huge laundry room and food storage room with a huge boiler in it.

Personally i think its a good arrangement- all the crap stuff is below,
and living stuff is up higher. Also a 3 storey building is more energy
efficient - more living area per unit outside wall.


Keep em coming.


Tony

Ensure rivers are kept free from debris and fallen trees - they ultimately
block bridge arches.

Dredge key parts of rivers to improve their capacity - so speeding the water
on its way to the sea.

Ensure all bridge arches are free of silt so that all arches can accommodate
a rush of water.


--


--
John

John wrote:

Dredge key parts of rivers to improve their capacity - so speeding the
water on its way to the sea.

The EA doesn't really like dredging. They feel that it's costly and the
rivers just start silting up again.

--
-blj-

The message op.tvxcoh1y0v1caa@thedell
from "Brian L Johnson" contains these words:

Dredge key parts of rivers to improve their capacity - so speeding the
water on its way to the sea.

The EA doesn't really like dredging. They feel that it's costly and the
rivers just start silting up again.

They are silting up anyway in the relatively slow moving sections in the
valley bottoms that have flood plains. The natural course of events is
for the rivers to constantly change their course gradually building up
the level of the valley floor with deposited silt. Once there are houses
on the flood plain dredging would be the only way to maintain historic
water levels at equal flows.

There are some things that can be done to shift the flood risk up or
down stream. Upstream of towns by introducing choke points to increase
flooding on the relatively inexpensive farm land and downstream by
relieving the natural choke points as suggested by John above.

--
Roger Chapman

Brian L Johnson wrote:
John wrote:

Dredge key parts of rivers to improve their capacity - so speeding the
water on its way to the sea.

The EA doesn't really like dredging. They feel that it's costly and the
rivers just start silting up again.

So's clearing a storm drain, but someone's got to do it. They proposed
chopping 60 million off the budget over the next 5 years and this lot
will end up costing at least 3 and a half billion. Typical.

Apparently the displaced, more southerly jet stream is going to stay
exactly where it is 'for the next few months' according to the Met
Office. Lovely autumn and possibly winter too coming up (not).

Brian L Johnson wrote:
John wrote:

Dredge key parts of rivers to improve their capacity - so speeding the
water on its way to the sea.

The EA doesn't really like dredging. They feel that it's costly and the
rivers just start silting up again.

Well sell the excellent gravel and sand to fund it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Brian L Johnson wrote:
John wrote:

Dredge key parts of rivers to improve their capacity - so speeding the
water on its way to the sea.
The EA doesn't really like dredging. They feel that it's costly and
the rivers just start silting up again.

Well sell the excellent gravel and sand to fund it.

I don't know about the value of the gravel, but the silt is extremely
valuable. If the EA is encouraging the sale of land to the Nat Trust
because the land is no longer suitable for arable purposes, that's because
the rains have washed the (extremely fertile) surface topsoil into the
rivers where it eventually finds its way into the Wash.

As you said in 'Another Thread', with the fens now all being below
sea-level, there's an ideal opportunity to build the surface up again with
landfill. Top it all off with dreged silt and sand to bring back the
fertility, and Robert's your father's brother.

--
-blj-

On 23 Jul, 16:42, "Brian L Johnson" wrote:
John wrote:
Dredge key parts of rivers to improve their capacity - so speeding the
water on its way to the sea.

The EA doesn't really like dredging. They feel that it's costly and the
rivers just start silting up again.

--
-blj-

The EA seem to be obsessed with "nature" topics and are bloody useless
at doing what they should be doing such as keeping flod banks
maintained, rivers dredged, costal groynes maintained and at least
keeping us at the defence standards the Victorians enjoyed.
There are too many suits and too few indians nowadays.
In my locality we used to have the Yorkshire Ouse River authority and
a few drainage boards mostly composed of farmers who "knew" the land
and its needs. Achieved much using manpower very simply and cheaply
instead of the current highly educated but largely innefective, highly
paid battery of staff with a plethora of expensive machinery.

cynic wrote:
On 23 Jul, 16:42, "Brian L Johnson" wrote:
John wrote:
Dredge key parts of rivers to improve their capacity - so speeding the
water on its way to the sea.
The EA doesn't really like dredging. They feel that it's costly and the
rivers just start silting up again.

--
-blj-

The EA seem to be obsessed with "nature" topics and are bloody useless
at doing what they should be doing such as keeping flod banks
maintained, rivers dredged, costal groynes maintained and at least
keeping us at the defence standards the Victorians enjoyed.
There are too many suits and too few indians nowadays.
In my locality we used to have the Yorkshire Ouse River authority and
a few drainage boards mostly composed of farmers who "knew" the land
and its needs. Achieved much using manpower very simply and cheaply
instead of the current highly educated but largely innefective, highly
paid battery of staff with a plethora of expensive machinery.


Hear bloody hear.

"Initiatives" "Consultations" "Workshops" "Official Inquiries" "********!".

Just pay some people to go round and DO something.

We came upon a couple of chaps who were fiddling about with a ditch...
'what you up to?'

'Oh? we are making sure the road gullies to this ditch are clear'

'Oh, well when I walk up here in winter in me wellies, I usually kick
them myself to clear the crap out and drain this bit of road'

But of course we have a tory council, so money is spent on public
services, not on public servants.

No, we don't have gay lesbian shelters, or rape crisis centers, or park
and ride schemes, or bendy busses that are simply mobile traffic
blockaders, or traffic congestion caused by traffic calming chicanes, we
just have, for the most part, postmen that deliver the post, refuse
people who empty the bins, and occasionally even when we haven't put
them out, walk up the drive and collect em..roads that are not great,
but are passable, not too many road signs, almost no speed cameras..
farmers who go out and cut their hedges and clear dangerous trees
without involving the council at all, and dredge their ditches because
its their bloody land and they know exactly how to keep it at just the
right moisture level for their crops, and so on and so forth.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What do you think?

Stop using wood and plaster in the downstairs construction.
Paint all the downstairs with polyurethane so you can clean it.
Have the floor on jacks so you can lift everything up by a meter or so at
the flick of a switch.
Use house boats.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:18:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to
simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as
far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains
etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked
due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?

==================================
I suppose the government could order every householder to install a 'sump'
in the garden with a minimum capacity of (say) 1000 gallons. The technical
details of routing rain water into the sumps could provide some of our
Town Hall staff with a useful challenge.

A small street of 50 houses would take 50,000 gallons off the street
drains.

Cic.

--
===================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
===================================

"Cicero" wrote in message
news
I suppose the government could order every householder to install a 'sump'
in the garden with a minimum capacity of (say) 1000 gallons. The technical
details of routing rain water into the sumps could provide some of our
Town Hall staff with a useful challenge.

A small street of 50 houses would take 50,000 gallons off the street
drains.

Insignificant.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:40:44 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Cicero" wrote in message
news
I suppose the government could order every householder to install a 'sump'
in the garden with a minimum capacity of (say) 1000 gallons. The technical
details of routing rain water into the sumps could provide some of our
Town Hall staff with a useful challenge.

A small street of 50 houses would take 50,000 gallons off the street
drains.

Insignificant.


OK : Give us a figure that would be significant.

DG

Cicero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:18:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.


One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to
simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as
far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains
etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked
due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?

==================================
I suppose the government could order every householder to install a 'sump'
in the garden with a minimum capacity of (say) 1000 gallons. The technical
details of routing rain water into the sumps could provide some of our
Town Hall staff with a useful challenge.

A small street of 50 houses would take 50,000 gallons off the street
drains.

Cic.

That is interesting also. A way to store an utilize rwainwater..coopled
with a wind pump to use for e.g. toilet flushing...split plumbing eh?

On 23 Jul, 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.

One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to
simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as
far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains
etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked
due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?


Loos to be upstairs. Any downstairs ones to be fitted with a big
ballvalve to cut them off if flood is imminent (to prevent the crp
flowing out the bog into the house)

Bank the land so the houses run along the top of the banks, roads
along the lows. Sloping gardens are the price. Offroad garden parking
next to the house would make life easier and greatly reduce vehicle
flood damage.

Doors could be atop dwarf walls where flooding occurs to low level
only. This would interfere with wheelchair access requirement though.

Ground floor used for garage and shed space only. This is similar to
houses on stilts, as in practice people would frequently enclose the
stilt areas and use for low value storage. Sacrificing the car isn't
ideal, but would be a big improvement on today's flood damage costs.

Electric wiring all to be above the flood line.

Fully washable furniture, eg plastic

Deepen rivers for greater water flow.

provisions to get furniture upstairs in flood to minimise damage.
Maybe an electric stair hoist?


Make all external doors waterproof.

this also means that the downstairs windows can be smaller and higher up
further raising the waterproof level

Good thinking..however most cavity walls are not actually that
waterproof..In germany they tank cellars with polystrene and surround te
masonry with a plastic membrane.

Applying (polystyrene) foam cavity insulation in wet form could
greatly improve water resistance and crack sealing. What is needed is
not necessarily waterproofness, but rather to limit water ingress to a
rate that can be pumped out with little or no damage.


Have electric and gas meters etc upstairs as well

The 'read your meter from outside' boys will LOVE that one.

New meters can send the readings along the mains wires, avoiding the
issue and reducing operating costs.


Have the floor on jacks so you can lift everything up by a meter or so at
the flick of a switch.

A simpler related idea is to have a hook in the ceiling above all
water damageable items (perhaps require a matrix of heavy duty hooks
in the downstairs ceiling), plus a rope attached to each item thats
usually tucked under the item out of sight. In event of impending
flood, put rope over hook and haul it up. 30-60 minutes work would get
all the major items strung up under the ceiling, thus gaining around
5'-6' extra height.

I dont know whether it could be made possible to use a floating floor
to reduce damage. I'm very doubtful but who knows.

Requiring new flood-prone house owners to keep a dinghy would take a
lot of pressure off emergency services. Perhaps it need be nothing
more fancy than a sheet material covered foldable.

another option is to require all building materials below the expected
floodline to be floodproof. Eg tiled walls rather than plasterboard,
ditto floors. Perhaps there would then emerge a market for kitchen
units with bottoms & sides made of fully waterproof board.

A British Standard for floodproof goods would be a real motivator. Any
goods sold with this on, the buyer would know would survive a flood.
This could very much stimulate the flood-proof goods market. The BS
could cover more than one possible way to achieve floodproofness.

Grant PP for multistorey structures, maybe 3 and 4 floors, with large
garden areas. If a building has say 4 floors, the land around it can
be divided into 4 areas, so each householder has their own garden.
This way the flats are a bit more house-like, and more people might be
tempted to buy into medium rise flats.


NT

In message . com, at
08:08:02 on Mon, 23 Jul 2007, remarked:
I dont know whether it could be made possible to use a floating floor
to reduce damage.

Lots of people on TV seem to have floating floors; and pretty damaged
ones as far as I could tell...
--
Roland Perry

wrote:
On 23 Jul, 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought it might be interesting to discuss this..

Issues as I see it revolve around preventing water ingress to parts of
buildings 'below high water mark' potential damage to foundations, and
ability of basic services, particularly sewage, to function in these
conditions.

One solution that has occurred to me in the past, is to surround
residential areas with levees. Roads and so on are built on these - like
in the fens..some areas are set aside as 'allowable flooding areas' and
buildings are within pumpable zones.

Another option is to simply build on piles, in order to allow flood
water to gaily rush by underneath ('Hello Sailor!') and limit damage to
simply the garden.

It is not possible AFAICT to not 'allow' flooding: the water has to be
stored somewhere, or else downstream rises will be massive. Your flood
protection is someone else's overtopped levee.

Utilities like power and water supply should be proof against what? a 5
meter flood?

Likewise any sewage works should also be high enough, and run from
sewage pumps to prevent overtopping. Sewage systems should be sealed as
far as possible to prevent sewage and flood waters mixing.

I am not clears really as to how much issues like blocked storm drains
etc actually impact on generalised flooding. However a motorway blocked
due to bad drainage is a disgrace.

What do you think?


Loos to be upstairs. Any downstairs ones to be fitted with a big
ballvalve to cut them off if flood is imminent (to prevent the crp
flowing out the bog into the house)

Bank the land so the houses run along the top of the banks, roads
along the lows. Sloping gardens are the price. Offroad garden parking
next to the house would make life easier and greatly reduce vehicle
flood damage.

Doors could be atop dwarf walls where flooding occurs to low level
only. This would interfere with wheelchair access requirement though.

Ground floor used for garage and shed space only. This is similar to
houses on stilts, as in practice people would frequently enclose the
stilt areas and use for low value storage. Sacrificing the car isn't
ideal, but would be a big improvement on today's flood damage costs.

Electric wiring all to be above the flood line.

Fully washable furniture, eg plastic

Deepen rivers for greater water flow.

provisions to get furniture upstairs in flood to minimise damage.
Maybe an electric stair hoist?


Make all external doors waterproof.

this also means that the downstairs windows can be smaller and higher up
further raising the waterproof level

Good thinking..however most cavity walls are not actually that
waterproof..In germany they tank cellars with polystrene and surround te
masonry with a plastic membrane.

Applying (polystyrene) foam cavity insulation in wet form could
greatly improve water resistance and crack sealing. What is needed is
not necessarily waterproofness, but rather to limit water ingress to a
rate that can be pumped out with little or no damage.


Have electric and gas meters etc upstairs as well

The 'read your meter from outside' boys will LOVE that one.

New meters can send the readings along the mains wires, avoiding the
issue and reducing operating costs.


Have the floor on jacks so you can lift everything up by a meter or so at
the flick of a switch.

A simpler related idea is to have a hook in the ceiling above all
water damageable items (perhaps require a matrix of heavy duty hooks
in the downstairs ceiling), plus a rope attached to each item thats
usually tucked under the item out of sight. In event of impending
flood, put rope over hook and haul it up. 30-60 minutes work would get
all the major items strung up under the ceiling, thus gaining around
5'-6' extra height.

I dont know whether it could be made possible to use a floating floor
to reduce damage. I'm very doubtful but who knows.

Requiring new flood-prone house owners to keep a dinghy would take a
lot of pressure off emergency services. Perhaps it need be nothing
more fancy than a sheet material covered foldable.

another option is to require all building materials below the expected
floodline to be floodproof. Eg tiled walls rather than plasterboard,
ditto floors. Perhaps there would then emerge a market for kitchen
units with bottoms & sides made of fully waterproof board.

A British Standard for floodproof goods would be a real motivator. Any
goods sold with this on, the buyer would know would survive a flood.
This could very much stimulate the flood-proof goods market. The BS
could cover more than one possible way to achieve floodproofness.

Grant PP for multistorey structures, maybe 3 and 4 floors, with large
garden areas. If a building has say 4 floors, the land around it can
be divided into 4 areas, so each householder has their own garden.
This way the flats are a bit more house-like, and more people might be
tempted to buy into medium rise flats.


NT

Good creative thinking here. Like it.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:08:02 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Electric wiring all to be above the flood line.

Although I agree with much this is debatable. Electric cables work
fine under water and provided the fittings are above the water
level, or submersible ones are used, the electricity system can
continue as normal.

I doubt if many in towns would welcome overhead supply poles being
put into the streets.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:08:02 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Electric wiring all to be above the flood line.

Although I agree with much this is debatable. Electric cables work
fine under water and provided the fittings are above the water
level, or submersible ones are used, the electricity system can
continue as normal.

I doubt if many in towns would welcome overhead supply poles being
put into the streets.



Indeed. Many supply cable are run below a permanent water table. Of
course replacing telephone cables with fibre would make them more resilient.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:14:07 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:08:02 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Electric wiring all to be above the flood line.

Although I agree with much this is debatable. Electric cables work
fine under water and provided the fittings are above the water
level, or submersible ones are used, the electricity system can
continue as normal.

Hmm, maybe there's a danger that moisture will get into the
fittings by some sort of wick effect up the outside of the cables?

I doubt if many in towns would welcome overhead supply poles being put
into the streets.

You know, I'm picky about street furniture and stuff, but I hardly ever
notice the power poles when I'm in the US. They typically seem to be
wooden and a lot higher than UK equivalents, so aren't as noticable (plus
the roadsides are generally tree-lined, but there's not always the space
for that in the UK!)

The lines running from poles to individual houses aren't as nice on the
eye, though.

Thinking about it, some of the power in the village here in the UK is
above-ground too and not really noticable - no different from overhead
phone lines, after all.

I suppose the sensible thing to do would be to combine streetlamps,
telegraph poles, and power poles into one wherever possible, so that
there's less clutter at ground level.

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:14:07 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:08:02 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Electric wiring all to be above the flood line.
Although I agree with much this is debatable. Electric cables work
fine under water and provided the fittings are above the water
level, or submersible ones are used, the electricity system can
continue as normal.

Hmm, maybe there's a danger that moisture will get into the
fittings by some sort of wick effect up the outside of the cables?

I doubt if many in towns would welcome overhead supply poles being put
into the streets.

You know, I'm picky about street furniture and stuff, but I hardly ever
notice the power poles when I'm in the US. They typically seem to be
wooden and a lot higher than UK equivalents, so aren't as noticable (plus
the roadsides are generally tree-lined, but there's not always the space
for that in the UK!)

The lines running from poles to individual houses aren't as nice on the
eye, though.

Thinking about it, some of the power in the village here in the UK is
above-ground too and not really noticable - no different from overhead
phone lines, after all.

I suppose the sensible thing to do would be to combine streetlamps,
telegraph poles, and power poles into one wherever possible, so that
there's less clutter at ground level.

cheers

Jules

Wait till you fly model planes Jules.

You will notice those poles.

BTW the reason why the overhead supplies and phone lines are
diminishing, is because they are LESS reliable than undergrounded
ones..Yeah, even in ducts full of water.

Its easier to waterproof a joint that ISN'T flapping in the breeze as
well, and there aren't many tipper lorries and tree branches falling a
meter below soil level.

Biggest danger is diggers and heavy traffic..

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:33:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Wait till you fly model planes Jules.
You will notice those poles.

I don't see many model planes flying down high streets though

Getting a model plane would be fun. Building my own would be more fun.
Crashing it would be less fun

BTW the reason why the overhead supplies and phone lines are
diminishing, is because they are LESS reliable than undergrounded
ones..Yeah, even in ducts full of water.

Hmm, true.

I suppose we'll all just have power beamed straight into our homes soon
anyway

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:26:15 +0100 someone who may be Jules
wrote this:-

Although I agree with much this is debatable. Electric cables work
fine under water and provided the fittings are above the water
level, or submersible ones are used, the electricity system can
continue as normal.

Hmm, maybe there's a danger that moisture will get into the
fittings by some sort of wick effect up the outside of the cables?

In general water climbs less than a millimetre were it encounters
cables and then stops, just like it climbs when it meets other
things such as the walls of test tubes (where the effect can be seen
easily). If it climbs more then this is because there are two
closely spaced things to allow wicking, such as an inner and outer
sheath of a cable. If that happens then the cable is damaged.

Of course if that does happen then the little bit of moisture would
just run out of the bottom of many standard fittings.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wrote in message
ups.com...
Loos to be upstairs. Any downstairs ones to be fitted with a big
ballvalve to cut them off if flood is imminent (to prevent the crp
flowing out the bog into the house)

That would conflict with the Building Regulations that mandate a loo on the
entry level (Part M) :-)

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:08:02 -0700, wrote:

Doors could be atop dwarf walls where flooding occurs to low level
only. This would interfere with wheelchair access requirement though.

Which is precisely why almost all the requirements of Prat M should be
binned (along with Prat P)

Level access is, to the vast majority of the population a complete
abomination. Or, more simply put: If you're a cripple, then pay or
use your insurance payout to have your house converted, but don't
inflict your ****ty design 'improvements' on the rest of the
population.

I don't want sockets halfway up a wall, light switches in a similarly
stupid place and a door threshold that means the inside of the house
floods at the slightest hint of surface water outside. If I ever get
in such a state as to need any of the above will someone get me ****ed
and send me on a short stagger along a railway line.


--