project - Member
Strange how basic physics, show that the larger the opening/pipe/vessel the more fluid that will flow down it, and as all rivers are tidal that means the tidal water goes out twice a day, allowing the flood water a speedier flow.
So, in that case, the fact that the Tone and the Parrat at Burrowbridge, where they meet, are each around twenty-four feet narrower than they ought to be, thus constricting their flow by 40%, means that dredging would allow them to carry very much more water from the flooded area. That point also happens to be the furthest point inland the the river is tidal, around seventeen and a half miles, and the Severn tides wash a lot of silt back up, but dredging allows greater fresh water flow which helps stop the silt from settling. But not completely.
The EA's position is that dredging is damaging to certain wildlife, like some fresh-water shellfish, and thus should be stopped, which also helps their desire to return the Levels to salt-marsh, making it a wetland suitable for migrating birds.
Ignoring the fact it's been a place people have lived and worked for centuries, their ideology trumps people's lives, and whichever government is in power takes that advice, because that's what governments do.
The fact that the advice is skewed is beside the point.
A tidal gate at the mouth of the Parrat, to help prevent silt being washed back up has been on the agenda for years, as I understand it, but that would go against the wetland principle.
It would only cost £4million, which the EA say they haven't got, but that didn't stop them spending £22 million turning the Stert Peninsula into a bird reserve, again over-riding the needs of locals.