Do anyone has thought that instead of investing resources in fighting rising levels, it may be cheaper and safer constructing in the long run on higher terrain (england has many country parts),
Here's an idea - stop building on flood plains! Some time ago I heard how one English council approved planning persmission on a flood plain. The councilor explained that "we had to balance risks", or somesuch nonsense, in defence of the decision. The logic totally baffles me. If you look on an Ordnance Survey and it says "flood plain" then guess what - the area is liable to flooding. Really, is it that difficult to work out?
I'm not saying that all flooding problems have such simple-minded solutions - just that, you know, why do something that you know is going to be a problem?