But, seriously, why should landowners be given more of taxpayers money to plant trees than the actual cost of doing so ?. It's beneficial to the landowner too to have more trees. They reduce water runoff and could alleviate flooding.
Wouldn't it be better to remove all the IHT benefits from owning farmland and replace with credits for long-term environmental improvements like rewilding and planting trees, reestablishing (drained) boggy land ?.
Usually this involves a choice. Grow crops, rear livestock etc. or take taxpayers money in exchange for some perceived taxpayer benefit. Initially it was targeted at European overproduction on some commodities. Notably milk/wine lakes and cereal mountains were managed by putting some land into *set-aside* and paying dairy farmers to go out of production. I don't know how they dealt with wine lakes but undoubtedly somehow.
Overproduction is not currently a major issue but European production costs are generally higher than elsewhere in the world and the CAP has morphed into compensating growers for low market prices. Not immediately obvious but if you give someone a sum of money for each acre/head in production they can continue in business.
I do not know if/why such benefits should be paid to those land owners who are not producers unless it permits lower rental charges.
Capital tax reliefs link to land ownership so there must be some political advantage.
Moorland maybe. You don't see water running off fields where I am. Perhaps thin soils over rock only fit for growing heather and Sheep.
Pass. Establishing trees is an expensive business and the return hard to pocket.
Here you go..
We have water runoff. Lowland clay which is several metres thick. At least... we didn't get to the bottom of it.
Andy
OK.
This is terminal glaciation Hertfordshire! If is isn't sand/gravel it must be chalk or hoggin.
Pluvial runoff can occur but is extremely rare; once in 50 years perhaps.
I'm curious about the mechanics where tree planting is going to reduce runoff. I can see trees extracting moisture which would be replaced by moderate rainfall but surely a deluge is going to run down hill whether there are trees there or not?
I think it has been shown to work on steep hillsides, probably with thin soil, in the Lake District at least. I have no idea how. We live in a small, narrow valley on slate with little soil on the steep valley sides, and the small stream which passes through our garden seems to fill quicker (an hour or two rather than overnight) since they felled a mile or so of fir plantation above us.
When I say above, I mean upstream, we're in established Oak wood.
I certainly see water runoff, About 1.5 meter boulder clay over chalk. The fields are land drained tho so the runoff is in terms of huge pipes dumping water into a tributary of the Stour...
No clay?
No. Leaf mould acts like a sponge. It's the fibrous nature of it compared with compacted clay...
Patches of yellow clay on high ground and river marl in the valley bottoms. The upper chalk mostly gone apart from the Chilterns. Where I live was said to be a lake where a finger of ice blocked the valley.
OK. Isn't clay found in horizontal bands? I don't really see a few inches of leaf mould storing that much water. But I accept it is better than loose arable soil in terms of puddling and eventual down hill movement. I'm no geologist but I have spent a lot of my life gathering Hertfordshire diamonds:-)
>
AIUI there are other effects. Eg tree roots make channels which make it easier for water to soak in.
A few inches is enough to store a few inches of rain!
That makes a massive difference delaying the rain run off. Also trees drip for ages as the canopies hold water too.
One hot day a week would normally be ok... My CH does a 70 degree water anti legionella cycle one day a week.
It doesn't necessarily reduce runoff - just dramatically slow it down. In addition the tree roots and undergrowth act as a filter stopping soil erosion. Deforested hillsides in many places in the world result in mud slides and serious soil loss.
The problem with flooding isn't necessarily the total amount of water but it all appearing at the same place at the same time.
I did research- apparently the main thing is that trees absorb and transpire more water from deeper, so that when it rains the ground is much less saturated. That makes sense as my tree laden acre always is far soggier in winter when the trees have no leaves
And te ground round the big field maple is bone dry in summer.
yes. The fact the the rain gets stored temporarily on leaves in the crown, and the ground is sucked dry already by the tree and the leaf mould is extra storage means that less rain comes off in total *and* its significantly delayed.
The local brook shows massive peak flows after heavy rain from all the field run off.
yes, ta: once a week it is. I've logged my memory fault :(
Right.
Agricultural payments are being moved to *public good* investments, re-wilding, carbon capture, improved access etc. I don't see l land owners being very enthusiastic about planting trees on any productive land but we will see how it goes..
Is that built-in, or something you have added? I don't recall seeing that option (although my boiler is a few years old now).
Its built in on mine (Vaillant Ecotec 624+ system boiler) - not sure how easy it is to configure if you only have basic controls hooked up to it. though.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required