Why the case for building a Humber barrier is compelling

I READ an article on November 5 in the East Riding Mail with comments from Professor Dan Parsons from the University of Hull.

His only mention of a Humber barrier were to indicate its similarity to the Thames Barrier and that it would “cost a lot”.

A Humber barrier would be nothing like that of the Thames as it would have multiple functions, not just for tidal protection, bringing much more cost benefit.

Costing “a lot” needs quantifying properly. The cost of protecting livelihoods and homes is surely to be explored.

Huge sums spent on raising the 240km of the banks around the Humber Estuary have only offered “improved” tidal surge protection, not guaranteed, and ever increasing maintenance costs.

It is highly unlikely that the Environment Agency would want to change their 70-year policy of raising the banks, even though this could cause catastrophic disaster upon the bank’s failure.

Here are the multiple functions of the Humber barrier

1. A hydro electric scheme, the 6m tide offers huge potential

2. A safe, deep navigation route along the length of the Humber

3. A huge fresh water reservoir 4. Improved surface water drainage around the whole of the Humber Estuary

5. It offers a huge recreational potential

6. British flora and fauna would flourish

7. The barrier could also act as a filter, preventing pollution, including plastics in the sea.

8. A strip of land could be created between the city of Hull and the Humber for a major relief road.

The River Hull valley has never been more at risk of flooding today, than over the past 200 years.

The case for the Humber barrier is compelling.