Proposed flood defences - Rivelin allotments at risk?

At what point in history do we "conserve" something as dynamic as a river valley.

For 1000 years plus has not been "natural" due to direct human interference.

For 2000 years plus has not been "natural" because of climate and therefore species change.

For 10000 years plus has not been "natural" because of our position in the current Ice Age.

What is this unnatural "wild life corridor" which allows invasive species to destroy native habitat?

Why do we want to remove periodic inundation and scarifying which is so beneficial to the ecology of a stream and its valley?

Local "environmentalist" pressure groups with their emotive and short sighted attitude can directly lead to even more environmentally destructive flood events than was necessary, both locally and downstream.

"Environmentalists" must learn that in the man made environment of Rivelin Valley it is us that have to take on the responsibility of the management of the system. We cannot "cherry pick" the nice things. We have to take responsibility for the management of the catchment and be answerable when we get things wrong as in 2007.

At what point in history do we "conserve" something as dynamic as a river valley.

For 1000 years plus has not been "natural" due to direct human interference.

For 2000 years plus has not been "natural" because of climate and therefore species change.

For 10000 years plus has not been "natural" because of our position in the current Ice Age.

 

What is this unnatural "wild life corridor" which allows invasive species to destroy native habitat?

 

Why do we want to remove periodic inundation and scarifying which is so beneficial to the ecology of a stream and its valley?

 

Local "environmentalist" pressure groups with their emotive and short sighted attitude can directly lead to even more environmentally destructive flood events than was necessary, both locally and downstream.

 

"Environmentalists" must learn that in the man made environment of Rivelin Valley it is us that have to take on the responsibility of the management of the system. We cannot "cherry pick" the nice things. We have to take responsibility for the management of the catchment and be answerable when we get things wrong as in 2007.

Humans are natural, their interaction with rivers and forests is what nature wants.

We may think it is unnatural but we are still one of mother nature creatures and everything we do naturally comes from it.

70% of Rivelin allotments are un attended and rat infested anyway BRING IT ON

I don't think rivelin really needs it.

Every car is made with an emergency brake but I don't know anyone who has ever used it for an emergency, they only use it for parking. That proposed dam for rivelin is less needed than serious flood preventions in lake district. So typical for government to spent that money on experiments where it is not really needed instead of where the real problems are.

Had a lovely walk down there last week.

I am convinced this is not required. I have lived overlooking the Rivelin Valley all my life and am in my sixties.

On the day of the floods in 2007 had had to get back home to Crookes from Rotherham. Went round over the Strines to avoid the flooding. Came down the A57 about 6.0pm.

From the top of the A57 the water was running 2/3 feet into the road. By Hollow Meadow it was 6/8 feet into the road. By The dams the road was a river a foot deep. A line of traffic was following a forty foot lorry that had a bow wave higher than the cab.

My point is the issue on that day was not water at the bottom of Rivelin Valley but at the top. That is where the flood defences are required. A few hundred mini dams further up the valley would be less intrusive and be a lot cheaper. The mini dams could have an open sluice that allowed for normal flow, any extra would build up in the dams.

Also large field Endcliffe Park to be used as flood defence and embankments built

It seems that some initial decisions have been made: you have to read quite a long way down this article to find the information, but it looks like the Wolf Wheel is now safe, but Roscoe is still under consideration:

http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/schemes-to-protect-city-from-flooding-take-a-step-forward/

yes- they are investigating feasibility. Determined to go ahead?

its the least popular of all floodareas suggested. (interestingly its so big its legally classed as a resevoir as is the loxley one)

its incredible that there is no mention of suggested alternatives that were put in the consultations that they utilise derelict land along the Don/the derelict Hepworth site or even the fields further up the valley.

Could be that they are working with ARUP on this- ARUP do big dams and SCC wants to get in with big multi nationals and doesn't question and challenge enough. (no surprises there )

is this a stupid idea I have, but why cant the money be spent on re-instating the old dams to take the excess water for storage.

is this a stupid idea I have, but why cant the money be spent on re-instating the old dams to take the excess water for storage.

Indeed cit looks like there are a lot of better options.

What the council want is stupid and dangerous.

why ???. can you explain.

Sorry - I mean that the council's plan for a dam there is stupid and dangerous not yours.

Had misread your post and replied without my brain engaged -please accept my unreserved apologies. I have ammended my entry.