Agricultural areas in Thailand face drought threat

[webfact]

Agricultural areas face drought threat

By PRATCH RUJIVANAROM 
THE NATION

 

The Mun River passing through Buri Ram’s Satuek district is running much lower than usual yesterday due to drought, exposing the bottom section of the bridge’s pillars.

 

160 reservoirs low on water; farmers told to avoid crops needing heavy irrigation; worries rise for dry season.
 

FARMERS are being urged to store as much water as possible and carefully plan their farming needs, as most areas in the Northeast and some parts of the North and Central areas will have no water for agriculture during the coming dry season.

 

 

With the rainy season ending within the next 20 days, the Royal Irrigation Department (RID) yesterday raised concerns about a possible drought and water shortage in many parts of Thailand, after the agency’s Smart Water Operation Centre revealed that 35 reservoirs across the country have stored water below 30 per cent of capacity, and 95 reservoirs have water at 30 to 60 per cent of capacity.

 

 

A total of 160 reservoirs are running low on water, nine of which are large reservoirs in the North, Northeast and Central areas of Thailand. They include Thap Salao Dam in Uthai Thani province (28 per cent), Mae Mok Dam in Lampang province (34 per cent), and Ubonrat Dam in Khon Kaen province (36 per cent).

 

Due to the looming water shortage in the upper part of Thailand, RID director-general Thongplew Kongjun stressed that the department’s local offices in the northern, northeastern, eastern, western, and central provinces were now prioritising collection and storing of water in the reservoirs to the maximum extent possible during the remaining part of rainy season. The resources will have to last for the entire dry season from mid-October until May 2019,

 

Among the areas of concern, nine provinces in the lower part of the Northeast – Khon Kaen, Maha Sarakham, Roi Et, Kalasin, Chaiyaphom, Nakhon Ratchasima, Buri Ram, Surin, and Srisaket – are experiencing the most serious shortage of water, with 53 out of 160 reservoirs with low water resources situated in these provinces.

 

Thongplew said the RID had already strategised a water management plan for the upcoming dry season. In reservoirs with stored water below 60 per cent of dam capacity, the water discharge for agriculture will be limited to save water for domestic consumption and to sustain the ecology. Where reservoirs have less than 30 per cent of water stored, irrigation for farming will be completely ceased to ensure sufficient water for residential and business sectors.

 

Thongplew is urging that residents of these provinces use water wisely to avoid a shortage. Farmers are being asked to shift to crops that consume less water, or avoid farming during the dry season so as to prevent crop damage and financial loss to the agricultural sector.

 

Sutat Weesakul, Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute director, said that based on the long-term weather forecast, he expected that Thailand would face more arid conditions than usual at the peak of the dry season in the first months of next year, due to a strong El Nino in the Pacific. He suggested that farmers store their own water and refrain from growing a dry season rice crop so as to minimise the impacts of the upcoming drought on their farm.

 

 

Also yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister General Chatchai Sarikalaya went to Ubonrat Dam to observe the water shortage in Khon Kaen. He shared that he was most worried about the water situation in Ubonrat and Lam Nangrong dams, as their available stored water was extremely low due to a lack of rainfall in the watersheds feeding these dams during this past rainy season.

 

Chatchai ordered the RID to revise the optimal reservoir rule curve for every dam in the country to match the changing climate and water situation each year, so as to prevent future errors in the water management plan.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30356138

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-10-10

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

RID director-general Thongplew Kongjun stressed that the department’s local offices in the northern, northeastern, eastern, western, and central provinces were now prioritising collection and storing of water in the reservoirs

only just NOW ? thailand planning

[Aussie999]

Here's a novel idea, with floods in some areas, droughts in others, why not construct pipelines between areas and pump water from flood areas to drought areas.

[Thailand]

29 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

Here's a novel idea, with floods in some areas, droughts in others, why not construct pipelines between areas and pump water from flood areas to drought areas.

Water management, now there is a novel concept.

[colinneil]

Rainy season ends in about 20 days, wow!!

We have had no rain, not 1 drop for over 3 weeks.

Many farmers allowing cows to eat what is left of their rice, getting serious here.

[kannot]

Never seen it so wet in Prachuap as this year, Pranburi dam  full.

[kannot]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

future errors

I'll  look forwards to those then.

[zzaa09]

31 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

Here's a novel idea, with floods in some areas, droughts in others, why not construct pipelines between areas and pump water from flood areas to drought areas.

I've been advocating this simple idea forever. 

Collecting and directing water from the more traditional overflowed regions to the traditional drier areas [usually central/southern provinces of Isaan].

 

Certainly, if they intend to spend money towards safeguards throughout the wetter and flood-ridden regions anyway, why not spend it wisely for long-term.

[Fex Bluse]

38 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

Here's a novel idea, with floods in some areas, droughts in others, why not construct pipelines between areas and pump water from flood areas to drought areas.

Farang think too much na

[Chassa]

Same as the pipeline from the tropical North to the Eastern seaboard in Australia - never happened! Was mooted after the Snowy Mountain hydro scheme was completed in the 1960s. So Australia still has droughts.

[connda]

Feast or famine; floods or drought. 

Without an effective water management system, the country simple is in a never-ending reaction mode with no forward-thinking, proactive measures.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, zzaa09 said:

I've been advocating this simple idea forever. 

Collecting and directing water from the more traditional overflowed regions to the traditional drier areas [usually central/southern provinces of Isaan].

 

Certainly, if they intend to spend money towards safeguards throughout the wetter and flood-ridden regions anyway, why not spend it wisely for long-term.

It is indeed a simple idea but ask any engineer and they will tell you its possible but the costs for moving the water are just too high. It would make absolutely no economic sense to spend money on it. The problem of this idea is that water flows down, and the drought area's are higher up, so one would require pumps and lots of them. The energy expended would be so much it would not be worth the money that is made on the agricultural products. 

 

The amount of pumps and diameter of pumps would be huge.. its just not cost effective.

[Lupatria]

4 hours ago, Aussie999 said:

Here's a novel idea, with floods in some areas, droughts in others, why not construct pipelines between areas and pump water from flood areas to drought areas.

"Sorry, the budget went to the purchase of desperately needed Chinese subs."

[Lupatria]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Agricultural areas face drought threat

After Mr. Watchtower had a look at one of his precious time-pieces, he will knew immediately what time it is: High time to order the annual gathering of local mediums, quacks, and rainmakers to solve the problem in the tried and tested Thai style:

[marko kok prong]

No rain for at least 10 days in Wichianburi,Phetchabun province,and has been hot 36c at my place,very humid too.

[DM07]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

It is indeed a simple idea but ask any engineer and they will tell you its possible but the costs for moving the water are just too high. It would make absolutely no economic sense to spend money on it. The problem of this idea is that water flows down, and the drought area's are higher up, so one would require pumps and lots of them. The energy expended would be so much it would not be worth the money that is made on the agricultural products. 

 

The amount of pumps and diameter of pumps would be huge.. its just not cost effective.

One could say, money could be diverted from other, way more stupid causes, because it MIGHT be more important, that hundreds of thousands of people can still make a living!

Or that people finally wake up and realize that rice is way to water- intensive to grow and other crops might be the answer!

Either way - in my eyes- seems to be better than the status quo, with half of the country drowning (although the dear leader said, there would be no flood!) and the other half turning into a dust bowl!

[Fex Bluse]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

It is indeed a simple idea but ask any engineer and they will tell you its possible but the costs for moving the water are just too high. It would make absolutely no economic sense to spend money on it. The problem of this idea is that water flows down, and the drought area's are higher up, so one would require pumps and lots of them. The energy expended would be so much it would not be worth the money that is made on the agricultural products. 

 

The amount of pumps and diameter of pumps would be huge.. its just not cost effective.

Whilst I understand your point, I am not sure it wouldn't make financial sense. If it made no sense, surely the many other countries that have done similar projects would have not done so. And, sometimes immediate financial benefit is not the most important metric. We do things every hour or everyday that are for some other benefit than being the most financially beneficial. 

 

Anyway, at a minimum, it makes sense to avoid massive flooding, even if the financial benefit of moving water to drought areas is harder to sell. 

 

Japan built a massive catchment that works. 

 

Many other countries have solved similar problems... 

[rickudon]

As usual, shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The government was so focused on avoiding flooding that the possibility of drought was overlooked. The time for this reappraisal was beginning of September, while some rain was still falling, not now.  Much of the North and North-east saw the weather change in mid September - less frequent rain, and more sun.

 

We are lucky as had a LOT of rain early in the wet season - unlike those further south in Isaan.

 

Water transfers - yes, rarely make economic sense. Pumping up hill is expensive, so only worthwhile for limited rises in elevation. Many schemes are planned around the world, but most get dumped when the question 'who pays' is asked.

[Aussie999]

On 10/10/2018 at 7:35 AM, Fex Bluse said:

Farang think too much na

Nah, only took 10 seconds.

[Aussie999]

On 10/10/2018 at 8:39 AM, Chassa said:

Same as the pipeline from the tropical North to the Eastern seaboard in Australia - never happened! Was mooted after the Snowy Mountain hydro scheme was completed in the 1960s. So Australia still has droughts.

What's that got to do with Thailand, besides, there is a big difference in size, Thailand id comparatively smaller, with dams much closer together, to network.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

What's that got to do with Thailand, besides, there is a big difference in size, Thailand id comparatively smaller, with dams much closer together, to network.

Sure.. but in this case water has to be pumped up .. that is just too expensive to do on a large scale. Just do some calculations and you will see it is too expensive to keep running and building. 

 

If it helps a farmer to sell more rice and win 1000 bt but it cost the government 2000 bt to pump the water up its crazy. Better give the farmer a 1000bt then. I doubt its economically feasible. 

[Dave67]

"......prevent future errors in the water management plan." Yeah the plan worked perfectly in the past just 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Dave67

[Aussie999]

Just now, robblok said:

Sure.. but in this case water has to be pumped up .. that is just too expensive to do on a large scale. Just do some calculations and you will see it is too expensive to keep running and building. 

 

If it helps a farmer to sell more rice and win 1000 bt but it cost the government 2000 bt to pump the water up its crazy. Better give the farmer a 1000bt then. I doubt its economically feasible. 

Western Australia built a 600km pipeline, completed in 1903, water pumped uphill, before you quote prices, best show how you come to that conclusion, remember, the water isn't only for farmers.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

Western Australia built a 600km pipeline, completed in 1903, water pumped uphill, before you quote prices, best show how you come to that conclusion, remember, the water isn't only for farmers.

I looked it up and the Australian pipeline is just far to small for this. It only delivers 23.000 m3 per day. 

 

The just one dam the Siridorn dam for instance holds an 1.966.000.000 m3   

 

Do you see the problem here ? Do calculate how long it would take to just fill this dam with water through a pipe.  (85.478 days) That is just 1 dam.. so the pipe would have to be at least 100 x as big 

So even if we just had to fill one dam and even if only have to fill it for 50% then it would still mean a pipe that is many many times larger (100 or more) then that in OZ. 

 

So its not really comparable. 

 

Maybe now you see the problem. 

 

No offence meant.. just showing you the scale of the project. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirindhorn_Dam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfields_Water_Supply_Scheme

[Eric Loh]

Perhaps going back history to find solutions to pumping uphill like the Chinese water-wheel or the Greeks chain pump. Just kidding. I am sure the collection brains of Thailand's best can come up with a modern solution like in Philippines with the ram pump. 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Perhaps going back history to find solutions to pumping uphill like the Chinese water-wheel or the Greeks chain pump. Just kidding. I am sure the collection brains of Thailand's best can come up with a modern solution like in Philippines with the ram pump. 

Eric,

 

Just take a look at my post #24

 

I just calculated the size of pipes needed just to fill one dam for 50% (granted its a large dam but not the largest around). I did so based on the an OZ piping venture mentioned by a other poster.

 

The sheer size is just too huge to do so plus I have no idea about the altitude difference on the Australian pipe and what is needed for Thai pips (the more altitude difference the more expensive it is). 

 

I doubt this is economically viable if you have to pump water uphill. 

[Aussie999]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I looked it up and the Australian pipeline is just far to small for this. It only delivers 23.000 m3 per day. 

 

The just one dam the Siridorn dam for instance holds an 1.966.000.000 m3   

 

Do you see the problem here ? Do calculate how long it would take to just fill this dam with water through a pipe.  (85.478 days) That is just 1 dam.. so the pipe would have to be at least 100 x as big 

So even if we just had to fill one dam and even if only have to fill it for 50% then it would still mean a pipe that is many many times larger (100 or more) then that in OZ. 

 

So its not really comparable. 

 

Maybe now you see the problem. 

 

No offence meant.. just showing you the scale of the project. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirindhorn_Dam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfields_Water_Supply_Scheme

We're not pumping a whole dam, only the flood waters, and we are not talking about 1903 technology, the point is, it can be done.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

We're not pumping a whole dam, only the flood waters, and we are not talking about 1903 technology, the point is, it can be done.

Sorry mate maybe you should engage your brain.

 

I gave an example of 1 dam there are multiple that need to be filled.. so the need for water is even greater as what i use in my example. That just means a 100x bigger pipe.. and that has nothing to do with technology.

 

The pipes were of a diameter of 30 inches to get 100 times more volume there you need pipes that are 100 divided by Pi x 30 inches is pipes with 986 inch diameter. 

 

So good luck with that maybe now you come back to your senses.

 

[Aussie999]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Sorry mate maybe you should engage your brain.

 

I gave an example of 1 dam there are multiple that need to be filled.. so the need for water is even greater as what i use in my example. That just means a 100x bigger pipe.. and that has nothing to do with technology.

 

The pipes were of a diameter of 30 inches to get 100 times more volume there you need pipes that are 100 divided by Pi x 30 inches is pipes with 986 inch diameter. 

 

So good luck with that maybe now you come back to your senses.

 

Sorry mate, engage your brain, we are not talking about pumping from only one dam either. I never said to use a 30" inch pipe, I used the Goldfields pipeline as an example, of what can be done... grow up. Are you saying a 3000 in pipeline, just remember it's to area we use, not the physical size.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Aussie999 said:

Sorry mate, engage your brain, we are not talking about pumping from only one dam either. I never said to use a 30" inch pipe, I used the Goldfields pipeline as an example, of what can be done... grow up. Are you saying a 3000 in pipeline, just remember it's to area we use, not the physical size.

No you never said 30" inch but that is what is used to transfer the water in Australia.

 

To transport enough water to fill just that one dam for half its volume you need 100 x the volume used in OZ. 

 

So i just calculated how big a pipe would be needed.. and that would be a huge pipe 986 inch. Have you ever heard of pipes that large ? 

 

You used the goldfields as an example..but that example is 100 times too small.. you need to scale it up 100 times... That means you need to scale your pipes up too.. Technology has advanced for sure but no project in this scale has ever been attempted. 

 

Can i ask what kind of education you followed ? I don't want to insult you but i feel you have no clue about calculations or how much water we are talking about. 

 

You keep coming up with replies but none of those replies have any backup by facts or numbers.