|
|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
gil Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 18409
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6540 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
gil Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 18409
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 08 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
Why is slowing down the flow a good thing (apart from preventing erosion, presumably)?
If the flow slows as it passes through my land, the burn will overflow and flood, possibly reaching the house. It would seem to be in my interest for water to pass through the property and out the other side as fast as possible. Is this a sensible assumption ? There is far more room for the waters to spread out once the burn reaches open fields.
And apparently, the eddies set up by fallen wood etc can erode the bankings, which are quite high, partly having been artificially raised on the field sides for flood prevention, and partly because there is quite a difference between average depth of the water (12-18"), and depth of the burn when it is in spate (4-5').
This is all probably not very ecologically sound. Where it flows through my land, the burn is changing from being a fast-flowing, steep watercourse off the hills down a glen / gully to where it meets the upland floodplain, whwre it would (left to its own devices) meander about, creating oxbow lakes etc, and fertilising the fields with silt and sediment washed down from the hills.
However, the flat land in the valley (not that much of it) is these days viewed by my neighbours as crucial ground for silage and hay production, and they have over the years done various works to prevent flooding, including raising the bankings, straightening the course of the main river and feeder burns, and dredging/widening.
I know, I know .
What to do ? |
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6540 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|