uk floods.

[rugeleyboy]

OK its a really bad thing especially if your house , business or school is flooded and i really feel for anyone in that position.......... but my question is,

why do a lot of people blame the government? it cant be their fault houses were built on flood plains? or the house builders and local councils from many years ago didn't anticipate building bigger drainage systems as houses would be built of postage stamps in 50 years time?

please don't think i am having a go at anyone, i just need to understand why its the government's fault?

many thanks.

[Oneeyedvic]

I guess it would be that the government spend the money on flood defences: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5238342 .stm

We currently spend around �500 Million on flood defences.

Compare this to something like the war in Iraq or even how much is being spent on propping up Northern Rock

[Le Chat]

The council and the government of 'now' have the responsibility to protect their citizens. The floods of last summer should have made the government spring into action to avoid this happening again. I don't know about all the areas but a friend who lives in Yorkshire says that nothing has been done.

[Kathyan]

Am I right in thinking that they have stopped dredging rivers like they used to do years ago, but they don't do it now because of the cost? Surely it would be cheaper to do this than pay out for the flood damage?

[shaneystar2]

When my area was flooded a couple of years ago it was the fault of the water company .Bad maintenance on pumping stations and gullies so overgrown with grass and so full of silt there was nowhere for the water to go except into peoples properties.Antiquated sewers and drains that should have been replaced years ago .... they are too interested in making profits for their shareholders than doing what they should be doing .Who privatised them ? Government .

[New Judge]

Some of the things you mention most certainly are the fault of government. Maybe not this one, but government nonetheless.

It is the fault of government that large numbers of houses were (and continue to be) built on flood plains. Local authorities (who provide planning permission for such developments) operate under devolved powers and guidelines from the central government.

Furthermore, where councils have seen fit to deny permission in some instances, the developer has appealed to the government�s Planning Inspectorate and the council�s decision has been overturned.

Our predecessors knew that building on flood plains was a bad idea. We obviously knew better and thought the notion was outdated or old-fashioned.

Having said that, no system of defences can adequately protect areas at risk during periods of heavy rainfall such as we have had recently. In the same way that mankind will not control the climate (no matter how much tax they add to your petrol or flight ticket, or how many �carbon credits� we buy and sell) to try to tame the elements so completely is futile.

In the eleventh century England had a king called Cnud. He tried to explain that not even he, the king, could control such matters.

Nobody believed him either.

[saxy_jag]

If you're in rented housing, granted, you probably don't get much choice in where you live.

But I am amazed that any intelligent person (and if you have the nonce to be able to work in a job that can support a mortgage) would choose to buy a house on a flood plain. That people do, and thus keep these developers in business ... well ...

[dustypuss]

do you think that the possibility of flooding should be given to a house buyer my house flooded this year until i got the Internet i dont think i would have ever though that my house was on a flood plain . Its the first time in living memory that it has flooded . the environment agency web site gives it a 1 in 71 chance of flooding . shouldent this info be given out by the search

[Loosehead]

The building on flood plains is of course asking for trouble, howvever the real cause of this problem goes back to, and as a Tory, I'm ashamed to say, the privatisation of the water companies. Generally privitasation is good, however not for national utilites. Shaneystar has touched on the problem. The whole country had a network of various systems of rivers(dredged regularly), culverts, aquaducts pipes etc, who's job it was to deliver water to the reserviors. These have fallen into disrepair and are failing in their primary task. The effect of which is flooding and perversley drout! So we have water everywhere but we still issue hosepipe bans. The water companies primary function is now profit for shareholders so it is unlikely to change. Climate has it's ups and downs and there have always been floods but what is needed in a wet country like UK is effective systems of water distribution to run off areas and reserviors etc. So it's is ultimately a governementally caused problem.

[New Judge]

Quite right, loosehead.

The privatisation of the water industry was the one of the biggest disgraces of modern times. We all need water and we all need roughly the same amount of it each. How a civilised country can consider charging its people for water and sewerage services at all, let alone allow the industry to fall into the hands of spivs, many of whom have sold out to foreign concerns, is completely beyond me.

Like you, loosehead, I think generally privatisation brought many benefits to some industries, but water is not one of them. Water and sewerage services should be funded from general taxation.

[youngmafbog]

You can't have water for free, no one would turn a tap off or repair a leak. We'd all have lovely green grass though, well those of us in the South who have a lawn that is.

I still think it is difficult to blame any Government, afterall did they force anyone to buy these properties? No of course they didnt and anyone who had a basic schooling knows about flood plains and in most cases they are pretty easy to see - Clue, is there a river ?

[New Judge]

It used to be virtually free.

My father�s water rates in the 1950s were 2 (old) pence per week and his weekly wage was about �8 per week. I know this as I have a copy of his 1950s rent book. I make that 0.1% of his income.

My water rates are currently a little over �350 per annum. For someone on a reasonable salary of, say �18,000pa this represents almost 2% of their income � twenty times the amount my father paid.

There is no reason why domestic water should not be provided out of general taxation. It would not matter if people left taps on or left a leak unattended (though I cannot see anybody doing this in their home � only water companies are profligate where leaks are concerned). The water thus wasted would be returned to the water table.

Many things provided out of taxation are abused by a few, but nobody suggests abolishing them. There could be a case for introducing a charge to use water for gardening and swimming pools. But there is also a case for providing a two-tier water system. All water is provided at drinking standard, but more than 99% of it is used for cleaning, flushing the toilet and washing.

There are many things provided by the taxpayer that are simply unnecessary but nice to have. Water is essential and it should be provided out of central funds. It needs more thought.