@RussellB1ggs@The_WMA They wanted to put a reservoir in there for that exact reason but couldn’t as there is no clay bottom to it. I agree completely with your vision for the gaywood river but you never come up with a viable solution. Unfortunately all you seem to do on here is moan.
@RussellB1ggs@The_WMA Yes I know but I don’t understand why you are applauding one and hating on the other when the method and reason behind doing so are the same. I agree it’s a chalk stream but that doesn’t take away the drainage boards responsibility of flood prevention. What’s your solution then?
@RussellB1ggs@The_WMA You can clearly see that in your pictures of lower Medway that they have had a weed bucket through there cutting the reeds etc out of the middle channel. Why is there no need to be cutting it? The drainage boards primary role is reducing flood risk
@RussellB1ggs@AnglianWater@EnvAgencyAnglia@The_WMA You seem to be bashing the EA, WMA and IDB for the condition of the river without offering a realistic solution. As much of a dream as it would be to have meanders and lakes etc, it really wouldn’t be as simple as that
@RussellB1ggs@AnglianWater@EnvAgencyAnglia@The_WMA Regarding the restoration downstream of bawsey, how would you create meanders and lakes when the landowner farms it? From there it was engineered to have a primary function of transporting as much water as possible, therefore weed cutting from that point is essential
@RussellB1ggs@AnglianWater@EnvAgencyAnglia@The_WMA But If the landowners adjacent to the river pay drainage rates and want to use it for arable purposes, you can’t let the river overflow in high rain events and flood the farmland. Surely the fields next to the river can only be a floodplain at the landowners discretion.