Looking for a convenient scapegoat for the recent floods the government has hit upon global warming. This is particularly convenient as it is linked indirectly to the environmental argument for high fuel taxes.

The supposed chain of reasoning is that the wet weather which caused the flooding is the result of global warming which is in turn cause by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, including petrol and diesel. The inference is that punitive taxes are a disincentive to burning fuel which caused global warming, the unusually wet weather and the flooding.

The problem with this cause and effect argument is that as wet as the weather has been, it has not been as extreme as the flooding. And, it was only about five years ago that water shortages during a drough were blame on the phenomenum.

This is not to deny that flooding is caused by too much water in one place at the same time. But it is "the one place" and "at same time" that are the real culprits.

Urbanization has naturally tended to develop where the natural flow of rivers is restricted. And the same urbanization in terms of concrete and drainage up river has resulted in rain water moving on down river to those restrictions more rapidly than it naturally would.

From the earliest of times people have tended to congregate around bridges, fords and easy place to ferry across rivers. This is simply because a crossing attracts traffic, traffic is a necessity of commerce, and vice versa.

In terms of geography river crossings tend to occur where river valleys are narrow, and river banks and bottoms are hard. This is naturally where the flow of water down a river is most likely to be restricted. And once the town has been built, in the interest of flood control the flow of water is further restricted by building up the river banks and other flood control measures.

This, of course, does not eliminate any water. The water that might otherwise have passed on builds up above the man enhanced restrictions, often finding other and more destructive ways through.

The bigger the town grows, the more flood defenses are built, the more the same amount of water is restricted, and the more damaging the flooding is when it does occur.

The surging of the water is, of course, the other side of the same coin. Others further up river wanting to rid themselves of the water as quickly as possible invest in concrete and free flowing drains. And indeed farmers have probably opened up their share of foot drains to the same end.

Farmers living and utilizing the river banks between towns where ones salvation is another damnation might be forgiven for being amused by this futility. By and large they have learned to expect flooding and accommodate the risk in their seasonal activities.

But they may, however, be drawn into the conflict when the penny drops as to how the problem should logically be addressed.

This is, of course, by restricting the flow of water between urban areas, down river from where it is necessary to drain and up river from where urban flooding can be expected. Inevitably the restriction in flow will be planned for rural areas where the population density is low and the economic damage caused by the storing of surges by flooding will be minimized.

The political challenges of accepting this are manifold. Those who have been flooded are only likely to be satisfied by physical evidence of improved flood protection where the flooding occurs. Conservationalists are likely to oppose anything that modifies the environment whether it be the building of dykes in rural areas or the disruption of flora and fauna by occasional flooding behind those dykes.

And farmers are likely to resent yet another unsolicited intrusion on their property, businesses and lives. This is probably the least of the challenges. The reality is the immense wealth of urban society could well afford the compensation necessary to accommodate farmers and other rural dwellers.

As flood victims are only likely to view solutions in terms of urban flood defense, farmers are likely to continue to watch as unrestricted water flows from one flooded town to its next victim, with bemusement.

November 8, 2000