posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:46 AM
While it would stop homes from being flooded if they were built on stilts or had protective levies, there would still be the problem of getting to and
from those homes.
You don't just build houses to withstand the flooding, but the whole infrastructure - raise the roads, put in drainage so the water runs off etc. The
do it very well
The additional height would also raise the cost of construction.
Given the high price of homes already, the extra work required would be negligible and also offset by reduced premiums. Most of the price you pay for
a home is for the land - the actual building is relatively cheap to construct.
Even now, they only build homes with a single layer of bricks, not double lined layers that they used to.
I don't understand why the Government doesn't mandate better construction regulations, not just for flooding, but as you state insulation and even
renewable power gen, with windmills/solar panels etc.
The councils should not be granting planning permission for homes in flood plains. It's that simple. But there is the "housing shortage" that we
have had for the past 30 years. They need to build 1200,000+ homes each year just to create homes for those displaced by immigration.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with building on flood plains or by rivers, just so long as you plan for it and not just slap down 500 new
Barrett clone homes which are the same as you find in developments at no risk.
I'm afraid the halfwits are those in government and the rightwing press who believe that conservation projects and the failure to dredge rivers are
the reason for the floods. They're not: the wettest winter on record and living on flood plains (there's a clue in the name) are.
There are many ways in which we can mitigate flooding and help wildlife and the environment. Dredging is not one of them, and politicians and
journalists are the last people we should be listening to here.
Except that drudging provides for a faster running current which is capable of handling more volume and, by definition, mitigating flooding. This is
plain common sense and science and is indisputable.
Rivers clogging with silt will spread out more even when not faced with additional volume. Geologic principle 101.
Logically, one cannot disagree with what you're saying, but it seems the
scientific community is that given the exceptional amounts of rain, dredging would have not made a whole lot of difference - don't forget, we have
the benefit of hindsight so it isn't entirely fair to judge the EA on it's actions based on advice given previously. No one could have predicted the
sheer volume of water dumped on us over this Winter.