A break from the case - floods, groundwater, and a rant!

I came across this article in The Guardian that is very interesting in relation to groundwater but really angered me so much I had to bring it to your attention.

The interesting stuff is that the Northerners rely on surface waters for their freshwater while the Southerners mostly rely on groundwater aquifers. Though we have had extensive rainfall, because this has been in the North and not the South, the South faces a risk of drought if we don't get enough rainfall before the summer.

The second half of the article is where I got annoyed, specifically with Allen Jenkins as his tone in this article is very dismissive of natural flood defenses:

“..... we have not come across hard evidence that [Lord Krebs] is right. Restoring upland peat bogs is not necessarily going to protect [places such as Tewkesbury],

“There is little evidence that changes in the way we maintain the uplands would have helped reduce the impact of the [rainfall of] the last few weeks. There is little documentation that shows that planting trees or blocking drains or removing sheep would or would not have reduced flooding. "

 “It is probably true that there is an impact in the run-off. But rewilding is beneficial, [so] why not [do it]? But it needs to be done carefully and with evidence.”

I do understand what he is getting at when he says we need more research, but I don't agree with his sentiment that changes in how we maintain and manage the uplands will have little to no effect! I think restoring peat bogs will be effective, Exeter University have found that peat bogs reduce water leaving Exmoor during heavy rains! So I don't understand why he says the evidence is not there. Because, albeit preliminary, it is. 

Also I feel a bit of common sense is needed: we have dramatically altered our upland and lowland landscape - England was once completely forested, we have dredged and straightened river channels, drained marshland, built on floodplains, purposefully kept areas altered (for an example see George Monbiot's article here). Of course we are going to be seeing it exacerbate climatic situations.

I would like to draw your attention to the town of Pickering:

To prevent flooding the town of Pickering implemented in the hills above the town 167 leaky dams made of logs and branches, and added 187 smaller obstructions made of bales of heather that would allow normal flow but slow down high flows. They also planted 29 hectares of woodland and built a bund (embankment) to store and slowly release floodwater. For the grand total of £2 million as opposed to a £20 million concrete wall running through the center of town. Their defenses held, and the town which had previously suffered huge devastation from flooding remained dry.

A leaky dam above Pickering. Source: Pickeringblog

Here is Pickering's website with a video on their flood defences.

I feel Allan Jenkins should have said that more research is needed on an area to area basis to determine which combination of strategies would reduce flooding. For some areas we may find that no environmental measures would have reduced the impact, because of their location. I strongly believe we need to work with nature rather than continue to blindly construct flood defenses around urban areas without a thought to what is happening/ has happened to the wider environment.