Khaki Posted 26 August , 2013 Posted 26 August , 2013 I am curious to know how long it took to bring the flooded area's back to being productive farmland following the war's end. I would have thought that salt water would have made the land sterile for quite some time. khaki
themonsstar Posted 28 August , 2013 Posted 28 August , 2013 Hi Khaki I cannot help you with your question however, I hope this panoramic colour postcard shows you some of the areas that were flooded. Roy No2 No3 No4 No5 No6 No7 No8
Scalyback Posted 28 August , 2013 Posted 28 August , 2013 What a fantastic postcard. I know noting on the topic so await more information.
centurion Posted 28 August , 2013 Posted 28 August , 2013 Not something with a simple answer it appears, the classic phrase "it depends" comes into play More damage is done by flooding , drying out, re flooding etc etc than water just standing. But if the water is drained and the land re flooded several times using fresh water (say by blocking river outflows) this increases recovery rate. Gypsum can be used to treat the land as this breaks down the salt but this is relatively expensive. Salt tolerant grasses can be planted and the land used for low grade grazing whilst it recovers. It all depends on what you do, how much resource you can input etc. The reclaimed land in Lincolnshire where part of my family comes from quickly became very rich agricultural land after once being sea bed.
Khaki Posted 28 August , 2013 Author Posted 28 August , 2013 Thank you for the replies Roy and Centurion, I agree with Scalyback, great postcard, sorry to post such an open ended question really, but it sort of occurred to me when I was thinking of war damage and reoccupation of those zones. I suppose that the drainage system of Flanders that had been shattered by shelling also took some time to be restored. khaki
centurion Posted 28 August , 2013 Posted 28 August , 2013 Inundations have been a regular feature of warfare in the 'low countries' since the 16th Century. In the 17th Century (1638) the French were besieging St Omer. The Spanish built a dike at Watten causing a flood that washed away the French siege works. In the early 18th Century Marlborough was involved with flooding in the Dunkirk to Ypres area. The canals and other waterways were built with sluices for flooding and draining strategic areas quite rapidly. These I think were further back than the area where shell fire disrupted the field drainage systems (creating the terrible mud at 3rd Ypres etc) so that the inundations could still have been emptied quite quickly.
cdr Posted 28 August , 2013 Posted 28 August , 2013 Maybe 'In Flanders flooded fields'by Paul Van Pul can help here? In the Yzer floodings the assistance of the local sluicemasters was very important. The continuous possesion of the Sluicecomplex was very important. Carl
Guest Posted 28 August , 2013 Posted 28 August , 2013 Not sure, but there might be something in The Yser and the Belgian coast if not, it's well worth a ' swatch ' anyway? Mike
hazelclark Posted 28 August , 2013 Posted 28 August , 2013 Thank you for the replies Roy and Centurion, I agree with Scalyback, great postcard, sorry to post such an open ended question really, but it sort of occurred to me when I was thinking of war damage and reoccupation of those zones. I suppose that the drainage system of Flanders that had been shattered by shelling also took some time to be restored. khaki I am glad you did as it is something I have always wondered about. H.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now