On 28/02/2013 12:33, Anne Burgess wrote:
It seems to me that the people who should be paying for the
flood damage are the developers who build on flood plains,
haughs, watermeadows, inches, whatever you like to call them,
and the local authorities who give planning permission for such
developments.

That would not help people in older properties that get flooded,
but at least it would place the blame squarely where it belongs
as far as new building is concerned. It would also be a powerful
disincentive to future building on flood-prone land.

You are assuming that the houses that have been flooded recently were
built on a flood plain.

Around here, that has not been true. The house I live in now is on the
flood plain of the River Otter but has never been flooded.

What changed with the rainfall events of July, November & December 2012
was that houses which had never previously flooded were inundated by
surface water.

The village of Feniton was badly flooded and yet it is nowhere near a
river, and is on a slight hill well above any watercourses. The reason
for it flooding was run-off from nearby fields due to soils being
waterlogged.

Intensive farming methods and soil compaction are likely to be behind
the reasons why.

It also proved that many houses are more at risk of flooding than you
would have originally believed, and that the reasons are often more
complicated than just 'being on the flood plain'.

--
Nick G
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk