PROTECTED for centuries by the sea from the depredation of Europe's various despots, the English are, unsurprisingly, rather fond of their little channel. History has taught them to see it as something benign, like a faithful dog—unlike the Dutch, for instance, who have been encouraged by experience to look out to sea with trepidation.

Where defences are built to keep seawaters out of homes and offices, flood planners prepare for just a little unruliness. They build the walls high enough to withstand the biggest flood expected every 200 years (or 100 years for walls along flood-prone rivers) but no higher. The Dutch build their dykes to withstand the worst storm that nature is likely to throw at them for 10,000 years.

Yet three fresh reports suggest that Britain would do well to start thinking like its neighbours. In the first, the Environment Agency gave warning that the risk of flooding in London is increasing as sea levels rise. It reckons that at least £4 billion will have to be spent strengthening the Thames Barrier protecting the capital. Separately, Sir David King, the government's chief scientist, said floods are the biggest immediate threat to Britain from global warming.

More worrying, though, are the conclusions of a study of flood defences by the National Audit Office, a spending watchdog. It reckons that only half of such systems are in “good” or “very good” condition, despite the fact that last year some £176m was spent maintaining them and £162m on building new ones. The Environment Agency says it needs an extra £150m a year to keep them all in serviceable shape.

That may be money well spent. The government estimates that £1 spent on protection saves at least £6 in damage from flooding. Insurers, meanwhile, are buying their own protection. In April Allianz issued a $150m (£75m) bond that lets it pass on the risk of, among other catastrophes, the flooding of London.