2015/16 Flooding- Mod Note in Post #1 and #89

Muckit

Hasn't been any talk on here bout this which l find unbelievable. Has to be alot affected. Perhaps they are not on boards!

Mod Note- An emotive topic but a couple of pointers for posting on this thread.

1- Don't be a d1ck.
2- This is not a thread on how to solve the issue, F&F is not the section of Boards for that. Discuss the topic and the effects on farming and your farmland or items in the news.

rangler1

Muckit wrote: »

Hasn't been any talk on here bout this which l find unbelievable. Has to be alot affected. Perhaps they are not on boards!

Reports I'm hearing are that farmers are putting huge effort into helping their neighbours and no sign of the pathetic government bodies that are obstructing maintenance of the rivers

Reggie.

No flooding here thank god. Only issue is ground is fairly soft due to our heavy land

Reggie.

rangler1 wrote: »

Reports I'm hearing are that farmers are putting huge effort into helping their neighbours and no sign of the pathetic government bodies that are obstructing maintenance of the rivers

Usual story

Sam Kade

If my place got flooded half of Ireland would be submerged under water.

MickeyShtyles

Went down over the weekend as it was my last week off.
Lotta farmland affected where I was but not any houses.

Hasmunch

Sam Kade wrote: »

If my place got flooded half of Ireland would be submerged under water.

Must have some acres Sam!!

Kovu

Nothing really bad as we live on a hill. The two cull cows got flooded out of one field for a couple of days.
Having said that, nobody has been to the outfarm area since the cattle were taken off. Which is beside a bog. Oh dear, better go visit it today.
Lot of reclaimed land seems to be the worst affected here, that and the whole area below the village where five car drivers decided that their cars could drive through skimpy Leitrim floods.

They couldn't.

_Brian

Kovu wrote: »

Nothing really bad as we live on a hill. The two cull cows got flooded out of one field for a couple of days.
Having said that, nobody has been to the outfarm area since the cattle were taken off. Which is beside a bog. Oh dear, better go visit it today.
Lot of reclaimed land seems to be the worst affected here, that and the whole area below the village where five car drivers decided that their cars could drive through skimpy Leitrim floods.

They couldn't.

had two fields flooded under maybe 10 inches for a few days.

Sam Kade

Hasmunch wrote: »

Must have some acres Sam!!

Not too many but they are high acres

Kovu

_Brian wrote: »

had two fields flooded under maybe 10 inches for a few days.

We have land that borders a major tributary of a river and some of that flooded, has gone down since but is still very high.
Our moorland used to flood but nothing happened there since we cleaned out the drains.

Capercaillie

I have 6 acres of fen which flood easily enough. Well flooded now. More worried about storms coinciding with high tides. My stone wall was destroyed in bad storms in 2014 (had stood for 200 years before that).

patsy_mccabe

Well I learned that, as the crow flies, Parteen Weir is over 12Km from Parteen.:rolleyes:

No excuse for the flooding in east Clare. The whole Shannon Estuary has high banks to protect from high level tides. Why couldn't they do the same with the old Shannon River between Parteen Weir and Limerick city. It's not that far, only about 15km.

Capercaillie

rangler1 wrote: »

Reports I'm hearing are that farmers are putting huge effort into helping their neighbours and no sign of the pathetic government bodies that are obstructing maintenance of the rivers

I assume you mean dredging rivers, maybe something different? There was a engineer on the radio (during the week) and he was of the opinion that dredging would only deliver negligible results. The Shannon drains a huge percentage of the Country and given the huge amounts of water that have fallen dredging the whole river would stall the floods for only a half an hour.

Milked out

Capercaillie wrote: »

I assume you mean dredging rivers, maybe something different? There was a engineer on the radio (during the week) and he was of the opinion that dredging would only deliver negligible results. The Shannon drains a huge percentage of the Country and given the huge amounts of water that have fallen dredging the whole river would stall the floods for only a half an hour.

Tell that to traders in bandon. Works stopped after 09 by fisheries board, actually had to put stuff back in the river, and flooded again this year with no insurance...

rangler1

Capercaillie wrote: »

I assume you mean dredging rivers, maybe something different? There was a engineer on the radio (during the week) and he was of the opinion that dredging would only deliver negligible results. The Shannon drains a huge percentage of the Country and given the huge amounts of water that have fallen dredging the whole river would stall the floods for only a half an hour.

Find that hard to believe, farmers know what happens to waterways that don't get basic maintenance, dropping the Shannon by half a metre would create huge capacity for the bad times. Their antics have drowned the corncrakes so water must a lot higher than when corncrake throve in the Callows

KatyMac

About 10 acres long a river flooded, gone down now. Another field is holding water in the middle I have to try and do something about it next year (was talking about it on boards earlier this year - going to try subsoiling).

Farmer Ed

Your heart would go out to that poor woman next to the boat on prime time last night.
They had been campaigning for 9 years to have the river cleaned. Instead of listening to them some bright boy in some authority decided to throw money at a consultancy firm to advise how to solve the problem. Low and behold the consultancy firm came back only last week and had found that the problem would be solved by cleaning the river!
Surely it's just common sense. If the drain in your sink is half blocked and you turn on the tap full belt. Of course it's going to flood your house. Ireland the last time I checked is pretty much all above sea level. surely the water should flow into the sea if the channels are big enough to take it.

I spoke to a farmer who after a lot of hassle managed to clean a river that was flooding his land. He told me it has worked a threat and now he even has fishermen coming back to him thanking him. Their telling him there was never more fish upstream since he cleaned the river.

Honestly this country is gone crazy with people objecting to everything. Between hype about health and safety and everyone afraid they might end up in court if they don't dot every i and cross every t. The country has become paralyzed.

zetecescort

Capercaillie wrote: »

I assume you mean dredging rivers, maybe something different? There was a engineer on the radio (during the week) and he was of the opinion that dredging would only deliver negligible results. The Shannon drains a huge percentage of the Country and given the huge amounts of water that have fallen dredging the whole river would stall the floods for only a half an hour.

sure if the drains on the farm can't cope with heavy rainfall what do you do? dig them deeper and wider to increase capacity. typical government ****e, how many agencies have responsibility for the rivers?

Capercaillie

rangler1 wrote: »

Find that hard to believe, farmers know what happens to waterways that don't get basic maintenance, dropping the Shannon by half a metre would create huge capacity for the bad times. Their antics have drowned the corncrakes so water must a lot higher than when corncrake throve in the Callows

Successive wet summer on Callow during early 2000 destroyed the Callows Corncrakes. The Corncrake were only present in the Callows due to the flooding. It prevented the meadows from being cut too early. Outside the narrow strip of Callow land where silage was cut early (like the rest of the Country) they were eradicated quickly. It was a rock and a hard place for them

zetecescort wrote: »

sure if the drains on the farm can't cope with heavy rainfall what do you do? dig them deeper and wider to increase capacity. typical government ****e, how many agencies have responsibility for the rivers?

There is a big difference between the amount of water in a flooded field and the Shannon catchment area which drains half the Country!

trixi2011

All floods water gone here now had about 100 acres under water at the hight of the storm. Lad in our disscussion group had 40 incalf heifers sweept away by the floods they were found over a few days over 20 miles down stream from the farm another lad has a 40 acre field covered in tons of stone after a river burst its banks. Both farms situated in cumbria

Bullocks

trixi2011 wrote: »

All floods water gone here now had about 100 acres under water at the hight of the storm. Lad in our disscussion group had 40 incalf heifers sweept away by the floods they were found over a few days over 20 miles down stream from the farm another lad has a 40 acre field covered in tons of stone after a river burst its banks. Both farms situated in cumbria

Did the heifers live ?

Birdnuts

rangler1 wrote: »

Find that hard to believe, farmers know what happens to waterways that don't get basic maintenance, dropping the Shannon by half a metre would create huge capacity for the bad times. Their antics have drowned the corncrakes so water must a lot higher than when corncrake throve in the Callows

Most of the problems on the Shannon are related to the amount of peat silt and water pouring off Bord Na Mona's peat harvesting operations that cover a vast area in the midlands. This is raising both the river bed and water levels in the Shannon unnaturally. Even the local IFA reps in East Galway have mentioned this as a key issue. Since BNM themselves are getting out of the peat business soon, these exhausted bogs should be restored, which will then allow them to act again as natural sponges and filters during heavy rainfall events/periods, thereby solving the problem of peat siltation etc. in the river.

Birdnuts

Milked out wrote: »

Tell that to traders in bandon. Works stopped after 09 by fisheries board, actually had to put stuff back in the river, and flooded again this year with no insurance...

Alot of these issues can be tackled with a little commonsense and the study of best practice EG. The Camac river and its feeders used to flood Clondalkin regulary. They tried a load of stuff that didn't really work and caused other problems locally. Eventually they looked at more modern approaches in other countries. One was restoring floodplain function upstream of vulnerable towns. This lead to the CC installing 3 large holding/attenuation lakes in Corkeagh Park upstream of Clondalkin. When the rivers flood, the water goes into these wetlands instead of the town. This has worked a treat and there has been no flooding issues in the community since. There is no reason why such measures cannot done in other parts of the country. It is also much cheaper and less disruptive than building large expensive flood walls or the cost of regular dredging etc

trixi2011

Bullocks wrote: »

Did the heifers live ?

Last i herd they had found 36 of them alive

mattP

Sam Kade wrote:

If my place got flooded half of Ireland would be submerged under water.

Hill farming isn't all bad

rangler1

mattP wrote: »

Hill farming isn't all bad

Local IFA office here is organising voluntary help for the floods, so if your live near flooding and want to help, contact the local office in your area there'll probably be fodder needed too

Farmer Ed

mattP wrote: »

Hill farming isn't all bad

The good news is most of this country is above sea level. I had lunch on a farm in Holland that was something like 15m below sea level and I don't think it ever gets flooded. The really good news is that water will naturally flow down a hill, I would think the first thing we need to look at is what is blocking it from flowing.

Capercaillie

Birdnuts wrote: »

Alot of these issues can be tackled with a little commonsense and the study of best practice EG. The Camac river and its feeders used to flood Clondalkin regulary. They tried a load of stuff that didn't really work and caused other problems locally. Eventually they looked at more modern approaches in other countries. One was restoring floodplain function upstream of vulnerable towns. This lead to the CC installing 3 large holding/attenuation lakes in Corkeagh Park upstream of Clondalkin. When the rivers flood, the water goes into these wetlands instead of the town. This has worked a treat and there has been no flooding issues in the community since. There is no reason why such measures cannot done in other parts of the country. It is also much cheaper and less disruptive than building large expensive flood walls or the cost of regular dredging etc

Holland taking that approach as well. Vast areas of wetlands being restored. Haven't heard one mention of this approach in media in Ireland!

Farmer Ed

Most of Holland is cutaway bog. If Holland was to take the Irish approach the country would not exist.

Reggie.

rangler1 wrote: »

Local IFA office here is organising voluntary help for the floods, so if your live near flooding and want to help, contact the local office in your area there'll probably be fodder needed too

Let me know about the fodder rangler. Should manage a few bales. Where to bring and that

kowtow

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Honestly this country is gone crazy with people objecting to everything. Between hype about health and safety and everyone afraid they might end up in court if they don't dot every i and cross every t. The country has become paralyzed.

When will they get it?

This is Ireland, never mind dredging the river bed.

We're too busy digging out the banks

rangler1

Reggie. wrote: »

Let me know about the fodder rangler. Should manage a few bales. Where to bring and that

They just said probably need some last night, Trying to clear water at the moment, then they'll how much is salvageable, Department have given an amnesty on movment testing and slurry spreading......so someone in there has a bit of cop on
I'll get back to you, thanks for the offer,

feartuath

6 acres under water for the last two weeks ,the bottom strand of electric fence is still under water.

I cleaned all the drains and river this year but as no one else did all it allowed was water to enter my place.
The only good thing is it is in AOES 1 as species rich grassland.

Markcheese

Milked out wrote:

Tell that to traders in bandon. Works stopped after 09 by fisheries board, actually had to put stuff back in the river, and flooded again this year with no insurance...

Hasnt helped that a lot of things got built on ground that used to flood but now doesnt , waters gonna go somewhere..

Milked out

Markcheese wrote: »

Hasnt helped that a lot of things got built on ground that used to flood but now doesnt , waters gonna go somewhere..

I agree but that's done now, using that as an excuse and doing nothing isn't right either.

Muckit

Milked out wrote: »

I agree but that's done now, using that as an excuse and doing nothing isn't right either.

l don't think anyone is using this as an excuse. It's just a statement of fact. Maps would have 'liable to flooding' marked on them. Site tests are carried out. Yet we've ended up with buildings being built on food plains. They themselves might have been ok as engineered to accommodaye this but as markcheese rightly said 'the water has to go somewhere. Traditionally this extra water was accommodated by bogs and flood plains.

Now due to BnM peat harvesting on open expanses of bog and fllod plains becomig obsolete, all the extra water has nowhere to go only flood the next available area and wreck havoc on people's homes and businesses that would never ordinarily have been affected.

Milked out

Muckit wrote: »

l don't think anyone is using this as an excuse. It's just a statement of fact. Maps would have 'liable to flooding' marked on them. Site tests are carried out. Yet we've ended up with buildings being built on food plains. They themselves might have been ok as engineered to accommodaye this but as markcheese rightly said 'the water has to go somewhere. Traditionally this extra water was accommodated by bogs and flood plains.

Now due to BnM peat harvesting on open expanses of bog and fllod plains becomig obsolete, all the extra water has nowhere to go only flood the next available area and wreck havoc on people's homes and businesses that would never ordinarily have been affected.

Phrased that badly, you are correct it is unlikely to be used as an excuse but at the same time the authorities are doing nothing about it, when they know full well the cause of it. They gave the permission for that kind of building. In bandons case work done in the river may alleviate the problem or even the suggestion of creating a flood area to take the water in these events as someone but in a previous post but nothing has been done. I know the issues along the Shannon are much more extreme and difficult to remedy bit something will have to be done

Farmer Ed

Muckit wrote: »

l don't think anyone is using this as an excuse. It's just a statement of fact. Maps would have 'liable to flooding' marked on them. Site tests are carried out. Yet we've ended up with buildings being built on food plains. They themselves might have been ok as engineered to accommodaye this but as markcheese rightly said 'the water has to go somewhere. Traditionally this extra water was accommodated by bogs and flood plains.

Now due to BnM peat harvesting on open expanses of bog and fllod plains becomig obsolete, all the extra water has nowhere to go only flood the next available area and wreck havoc on people's homes and businesses that would never ordinarily have been affected.

I agree that building houses on flood plains was pretty stupid. But now that it has been done surely the channels in the rivers have to just be made big enough to take the water.
I can't see how the cut away bog has any real effect. In this weather bogs would be so saturated, the water would just run straight off any. There seems to be a lot of emotive arguments out there about anything like this as a result then nothing gets done largely because the politicians don't have the balls to risk upsetting anyone.

Birdnuts

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I agree that building houses on flood plains was pretty stupid. But now that it has been done surely the channels in the rivers have to just be made big enough to take the water.
I can't see how the cut away bog has any real effect. In this weather bogs would be so saturated, the water would just run straight off any. There seems to be a lot of emotive arguments out there about anything like this as a result then nothing gets done largely because the politicians don't have the balls to risk upsetting anyone.

Thats were restoration comes in - you fill in the drainage channels and the area stops losing water and silt. This allows the bog to grow again and start functioning again as a natural sponge. There's a handfull of succesfull projects like this already in the country. They just need to be expanded and scaled up.

PS: As for bad planning on flood plains - its still happening. Just outside Naas on the Blessington road, a planning application has gone if for over 70 houses in a field where 2 streams meet, and which much of is currently under water. This is just upstream of the town and yet it was still re-zoned for houseing a few years ago. You don't have to be an expert to work out what will happen if it goes ahead!!

Farmer Ed

Birdnuts wrote: »

Thats were restoration comes in - you fill in the drainage channels and the area stops losing water and silt. This allows the bog to grow again and start functioning again as a natural sponge. There's a handfull of succesfull projects like this already in the country. They just need to be expanded and scaled up.

PS: As for bad planning on flood plains - its still happening. Just outside Naas on the Blessington road, a planning application has gone if for over 70 houses in a field where 2 streams meet, and which much of is currently under water. This is just upstream of the town and yet it was still re-zoned for houseing a few years ago. You don't have to be an expert to work out what will happen if it goes ahead!!

A bog will only act as a sponge if it's dry. Even a sponge can get saturated.
I don't know why people are so apposed to cleaning the rivers. Apparently in places where it has been done fish numbers upstream have never been better. It's a win win situation for everyone.

Birdnuts

Farmer Ed wrote: »

A bog will only act as a sponge if it's dry. Even a sponge can get saturated.
I don't know why people are so apposed to cleaning the rivers. Apparently in places where it has been done fish numbers upstream have never been better. It's a win win situation for everyone.

Cleaning rivers is only a stop gap measure unless the underlying issues are sorted out. Every river is different too and ones with a shallow gradient like the Shannon, dredging will only do so much, especcially if other issues as outlined in this thread are not dealt with.

As for bogs - a healthy bog has an enormous capacity for holding water. In the dry months it discharges water at a steady rate which allows it to soak up excess water during wet periods.Its been proven that the loss of water during these periods is hugely reduced compared to surrounding land. Secondly an intact bog will not have a silt discharge problem which is a major issues on the Shannon with regards to the current flooding. There was a Hydrologist outlining all of this on local radio recently and his analysis of the situation was very impressive.

Farmer Ed

Birdnuts wrote: »

Cleaning rivers is only a stop gap measure unless the underlying issues are sorted out. Every river is different too and ones with a shallow gradient like the Shannon, dredging will only do so much, especcially if other issues as outlined in this thread are not dealt with.

As for bogs - a healthy bog has an enormous capacity for holding water. In the dry months it discharges water at a steady rate which allows it to soak up excess water during wet periods.Its been proven that the loss of water during these periods is hugely reduced compared to surrounding land. Secondly an intact bog will not have a silt discharge problem which is a major issues on the Shannon with regards to the current flooding. There was a Hydrologist outlining all of this on local radio recently and his analysis of the situation was very impressive.

I have some bog on my land and believe me it's not soaking up and water today . Sure it does after a spell of dry weather, but once it's saturated it's saturated.
The idea we don't have enough drainage to take away flood waters to me is just as logical as saying. Right my kitchen sink is blocked so I'll just trow towels on the floor to soak up the water and when that fails I'll just go and live upstairs. Sure if your OK with that it might work. But what if you live in a bungalow?

Birdnuts

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I have some bog on my land and believe me it's not soaking up and water today . Sure it does after a spell of dry weather, but once it's saturated it's saturated.
?

It depends on how intact and how large the bog is - if it has drains dug into it or is used for turf etc. its capacity for water retention is much reduced as such activities dramatically reduce the cover,growth rates etc. of sphagnum moss and other plants that are the basis of a healthy bog(not to mention the obvious reduction is moisture absorbing peat). A virgin bog or actively growing bog with a restored hydrolgy will do a much better job that one that is compremised by drainage or removal of surface vegetation.

Farmer Ed

Birdnuts wrote: »

It depends on how intact and how large the bog is - if it has drains dug into it or is used for turf etc. its capacity for water retention is much reduced as such activities dramatically reduce the cover,growth rates etc. of sphagnum moss and other plants that are the basis of a healthy bog(not to mention the obvious reduction is moisture absorbing peat). A virgin bog or actively growing bog with a restored hydrolgy will do a much better job that one that is compremised by drainage or removal of surface vegetation.

You are most likely correct after a spell of dry weather. It's the same principle as using a dry cloth to soak water. But a wet cloth won't soak anything. The problem is in the current situation we find ourselves in the bogs would have been well and truly saturated long before now and could not soak up anymore water anyway
Ultimately I go back to the analogy of a blocked sink. It seems you are defending the policy of not cleaning rivers on environmental grounds. Yet the fact is our waterways are choked up and it is clearly not good for fish our humans.

Miname

Birdnuts wrote: »

It depends on how intact and how large the bog is - if it has drains dug into it or is used for turf etc. its capacity for water retention is much reduced as such activities dramatically reduce the cover,growth rates etc. of sphagnum moss and other plants that are the basis of a healthy bog(not to mention the obvious reduction is moisture absorbing peat). A virgin bog or actively growing bog with a restored hydrolgy will do a much better job that one that is compremised by drainage or removal of surface vegetation.

If the whole country was a big I doubt it would hold the water we have seen flooding ground. Drainage is the main thing that needs sorting but the issue with that is the cost and there wouldn't be enough pats on the backs for the politicians that would spend their counties budgets getting each section sorted.

Farmer Ed

Miname wrote: »

If the whole country was a big I doubt it would hold the water we have seen flooding ground. Drainage is the main thing that needs sorting but the issue with that is the cost and there wouldn't be enough pats on the backs for the politicians that would spend their counties budgets getting each section sorted.

I think they need to start at the sea and work their way back. Otherwise you are only pushing the problem down river. It might be expensive but it's not rocket science.

Farmer Ed

Farmer Ed wrote: »

You are most likely correct after a spell of dry weather. It's the same principle as using a dry cloth to soak water. But a wet cloth won't soak anything. The problem is in the current situation we find ourselves in the bogs would have been well and truly saturated long before now and could not soak up anymore water anyway
Ultimately I go back to the analogy of a blocked sink. It seems you are defending the policy of not cleaning rivers on environmental grounds. Yet the fact is our waterways are choked up and it is clearly not good for fish our humans.

Your analogy fails when more water is entering the sink than can possibly be drained.

More than half of my father's land was underwater last week - up to a meter in places I reckon. We flood regularly but usually it isn't that bad.

Some of the mitigation works have probably made the flooding worse - a bridge upstream was widened to allow more water through to reduce flooding there. All it did was to move the water down to us more efficiently.

I understand that people don't like their land being flooded but one of the ways of keeping water out of towns and villages is to flood farmland - our own included.

Farmer Ed

Deleted User wrote: »

Your analogy fails when more water is entering the sink than can possibly be drained.

More than half of my father's land was underwater last week - up to a meter in places I reckon. We flood regularly but usually it isn't that bad.

Some of the mitigation works have probably made the flooding worse - a bridge upstream was widened to allow more water through to reduce flooding there. All it did was to move the water down to us more efficiently.

I understand that people don't like their land being flooded but one of the ways of keeping water out of towns and villages is to flood farmland - our own included.

That's the point I just made if the sink can not take the water you have to increase the size of the drain.
And again I just made the point that is backed by your point. You have to start at the sea and work your way back. Otherwise you only push the problem down river.

I guess it is a very different approach to the one I would take - I would slow the water down and keep it in bogs, fens, turloughs and let it drain at it's own pace into the sea.

The alternative is I guess a lot of intervention with dredging, deepening, widening to get the water to the sea as quickly as possible.

Capercaillie

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess it is a very different approach to the one I would take - I would slow the water down and keep it in bogs, fens, turloughs and let it drain at it's own pace into the sea.

The alternative is I guess a lot of intervention with dredging, deepening, widening to get the water to the sea as quickly as possible.

I heard a lad from ICSMA on the telly the other night. He was saying we need to get the water away as quick as possible, Farmers need to remove hedges/trees to assist the water been drained away:eek:
An interesting article in the Guardian about flood control:
http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/magazine/flooding-trees-and-rewilding