Proposal For 200Km Floodway: Thailand

[webfact]

AFTERMATH

Proposal for 200km floodway

WANNAPA KHAOPA

THE NATION

Chulalongkorn plan would take 3 years, stretch from Chai Nat to Samut Prakan

Chulalongkorn University yesterday unveiled an ambitious super-express floodway model and 10 other measures to prevent flooding from devastating the Central region.

"If the government decides to use this plan and it passes an environmental impact assessment, construction is expected to be completed within three years," said Professor Thanawat Jarupongsakul, a lecturer at the Science Faculty's Unit for Disaster and Land Information Studies.

The main floodway would stretch for more than 200 kilometres from the Chai Nat-Pasak Canal in Chai Nat to Klong Dan in Samut Prakan, Thanawat told a press conference.

The floodway would have one-kilometre-wide buffers along each side and a bi-directional motorway six metres in height to prevent water from overflowing.

The buffers will be used to grow crops or house recreational parks before the rainy season comes, while the motorway will help with logistics.

Among the 11 proposed measures, particular attention was paid to collecting a direct flood tax from the owners of permanent structures located on natural floodways or in water-retention areas.

The tax rate for buildings in the zones, for example, would be 20 or 30 times higher than the rate elsewhere. The difference would be kept for future use as compensation for flood victims.

Also, the rapid expansion of urban areas in Bangkok's neighbouring provinces should be halted, otherwise more people will be affected by floods, Thanawat said.

According to the plan, satellite towns should be developed in Ratchaburi, Saraburi, Chachoengsao and Suphan Buri, with express trains linking them to Bangkok.

"Early disaster warning systems should also be improved so that people in the highest-risk areas can prepare for evacuation. This won't cause panic," he said, adding that flood-risk maps should be an essential element of city planning.

"In the past, we've only used white papers, and policymakers have decided where to build roads."

The government should control the use of groundwater in agricultural areas to prevent subsidence and should encourage farmers to raise plants or crops that can withstand extreme weather conditions, Thanawat said.

Natural "monkey-cheek" reservoirs that can hold floodwaters should be preserved in accordance with people's way of life in nearby communities, he said.

Laws should be amended to support disaster management and promote public participation, and an agency should be set up to battle disasters using hi-tech equipment based on research, according to the plan.

"I hope the government will consider our suggested measures and decide to put them in place soon. No one wants to experience any more disasters," he said.

-- The Nation 2011-11-15

[whybother]

2 Quotes

1) " collecting a direct flood tax from the owners of permanent structures located on natural floodways or in water-retention areas. The tax rate for buildings in the zones, for example, would be 20 or 30 times higher than the rate elsewhere. The difference would be kept for future use as compensation for flood victims."

So for #1, if a business is in a flood prone zone, you are going to tax them 20 or 30 times higher? Wouldn't they be the ones affected by the floods themselves but you want to tax them to do business?

If they choose to live in a flood zone then they effectively need to pay for their own compensation. It's insurance.

2) "Also, the rapid expansion of urban areas in Bangkok's neighbouring provinces should be halted, otherwise more people will be affected by floods, Thanawat said."

And for #2, that makes no sense at all to stop a city from expanding, rather than create a proper drainage system. The article then recommends other cities to expand. I guess maybe the professor owns land in those areas.

Funny stuff Prof!

Some of the other cities are out of major flood zones so may be easier to protect. Also, Bangkok is already building over many natural drainage areas. If they continue building over them there will be nowhere to build a proper drainage system.

[whybother]

You mean they didn't think of this when they moved the capital from Ayuttaya to Bangkok some years ago? It seems you are disagreeing with the original article and it's proposed "200KM Floodway" to protect those areas but also agree with not expanding the capital. Which side of the fence are you on? I don't see anything at all being done. I'm all for investigating proper building code and zoning but this this "professor" to recommend other cities to build in makes me wonder how much land in those areas that his family owns. Scams a plenty!

No. They didn't think of that in 1767.

Obviously Bangkok needs protection for the size it is now. Satellite cities will decentralize business, which will mean that a flood won't affect so many businesses. Bangkok is simply too big.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with anything ... yet. Why do I need to be on either side of the fence. The professor has made some very broad suggestions. They all have some merit. Of course you aren't seeing anything being done. It's a very early plan.

It doesn't matter what is done, and who suggests it. There WILL be scams a plenty. But something still has to be done.

[whybother]

Do you pay 20 or 30 times higher tax for insurance? Are they just randomly going to walk around to business and advise them they are in flood prone areas and hike their taxes. Ohhh ya, and the "difference would be kept for future use as compensation for flood victims" which basically means kiss your money goodbye even though you'd be a victim to pay these charges. Another scam in the making to grease the pockets of this silly government.

<snip>

Insurance is a tax.

Theoretically businesses in a flood zone should pay "a tax" for insurance so that they can be compensated if/when they get flooded. Businesses in a protected zone should pay a tax to pay for the flood protection systems.

There will scams in anything that happens. Does that mean that nothing should be done?

[maidu]

Much of what's said in the OP, I've mentioned months and years earlier - in letters to Newspapers and in this forum.

However, one difference, is I don't see the sanity in trying to maintain Bkk indefinately. Satellite cities, for sure, but let Bkk continue to take its natural course, and subside. In the near future, floods will be worse than the one we're experiencing now. I know Bkk is a gargantuan investment to turn away from, but in the big picture, it's the reasonable thing to do. Confucus says: He who builds city on sinking mud flats will suffer floods. - particular with the inevitability of ever rising seas.

[scorecard]

2 Quotes

1) " collecting a direct flood tax from the owners of permanent structures located on natural floodways or in water-retention areas. The tax rate for buildings in the zones, for example, would be 20 or 30 times higher than the rate elsewhere. The difference would be kept for future use as compensation for flood victims."

2) "Also, the rapid expansion of urban areas in Bangkok's neighbouring provinces should be halted, otherwise more people will be affected by floods, Thanawat said."

So for #1, if a business is in a flood prone zone, you are going to tax them 20 or 30 times higher? Wouldn't they be the ones affected by the floods themselves but you want to tax them to do business?

And for #2, that makes no sense at all to stop a city from expanding, rather than create a proper drainage system. The article then recommends other cities to expand. I guess maybe the professor owns land in those areas.

Funny stuff Prof!

And where's the overall master plan, the assumptions, the consideration of other factors important to Thailand's growth, etc?

[robblok]

If they choose to live in a flood zone then they effectively need to pay for their own compensation. It's insurance.

Some of the other cities are out of major flood zones so may be easier to protect. Also, Bangkok is already building over many natural drainage areas. If they continue building over them there will be nowhere to build a proper drainage system.

Please excuse the formatting, the multi-level quotes don't seem to work so well for me.

Do you pay 20 or 30 times higher tax for insurance? Are they just randomly going to walk around to business and advise them they are in flood prone areas and hike their taxes. Ohhh ya, and the "difference would be kept for future use as compensation for flood victims" which basically means kiss your money goodbye even though you'd be a victim to pay these charges. Another scam in the making to grease the pockets of this silly government.

You mean they didn't think of this when they moved the capital from Ayuttaya to Bangkok some years ago? It seems you are disagreeing with the original article and it's proposed "200KM Floodway" to protect those areas but also agree with not expanding the capital. Which side of the fence are you on? I don't see anything at all being done. I'm all for investigating proper building code and zoning but this this "professor" to recommend other cities to build in makes me wonder how much land in those areas that his family owns. Scams a plenty!

I agree, isn't Bangkok in a flood zone ? Seems to be situated in a delta and blocking all the water.

[scorecard]

Much of what's said in the OP, I've mentioned months and years earlier - in letters to Newspapers and in this forum.

However, one difference, is I don't see the sanity in trying to maintain Bkk indefinately. Satellite cities, for sure, but let Bkk continue to take its natural course, and subside. In the near future, floods will be worse than the one we're experiencing now. I know Bkk is a gargantuan investment to turn away from, but in the big picture, it's the reasonable thing to do. Confucus says: He who builds city on sinking mud flats will suffer floods. - particular with the inevitability of ever rising seas.

I have a strong connection to a large Thai engineering company, they mostly work in massive civil engineering projects, more than 40 years.

The owners (all Thai, all engineers) are all capable (all well educated and experienced abroad), all highly experienced and pragmatic. They voice the same points, it was realized decades ago that Bangkok is in the wrong location / a quite bad location for a major city, and something should have started decades ago to plan and progressively building a new Bangkok in a location which will never have flood problems and incorporating lots of modern proven engineering concepts and infrastructure.

[animatic]

Widen that river on the west

from Chai Nat through Suphan Buri to Samut Sakhon

AND do the one on the east

from Chai Nat, through Saraburi, to east of Samut Prkhan.

Or better yet from Boraphet Swamp above Chai Nat near Nakon Suwan.

Together they should be able to get a huge amount to bypass greater Bangkok.

Then do some flood ways straight through Bangkok that can double as walled roadways, when not in flood use, with elevated roads above. They can have large gates to allow normal use, or closed and send huge amounts of water straight through, with trafic running normally above.

Basically this is taking traffic islands and building them 30 feet taller,

using existing lanes of open space, but only for large flood situations.

2 or 3 of these 4-6 lane wide flow ways, could significantly impact water spreading out.

And be relatively minimally disruptive since the roads already exist,

'no tearing down hundreds of buildings etc.

Edited November 15, 2011 by animatic

[ResX]

That is well within the design capability of the Thais. Personally, I appreciate the idea after all. As long as there are not so many under ground tunnels have to be built, I think it is doable. Before that the authority have to prove that the existing flood control structures have already exhausted to deal with such floods. There are about 3,000 small to medium size dams in Thailand. There are at least four major dams that I know. The authority has to determine, whether or not all the dams can stop the flood with the current size if they are efficiently managed.

For any water management expert, he or she can easily find the answer to this question with >98% accurate!

[animatic]

That is well within the design capability of the Thais. Personally, I appreciate the idea after all. As long as there are not so many under ground tunnels have to be built, I think it is doable. Before that the authority have to prove that the existing flood control structures have already exhausted to deal with such floods. There are about 3,000 small to medium size dams in Thailand. There are at least four major dams that I know. The authority has to determine, whether or not all the dams can stop the flood with the current size if they are efficiently managed.

For any water management expert, he or she can easily find the answer to this question with >98% accurate!

"Before that the authority have to prove that the existing flood control structures have already exhausted to deal with such floods."

I think that is general more than proven in practice the last few weeks.

Edited November 15, 2011 by animatic

[spidermike007]

Well, this proposal would be a symbol of Thai progress. That expression does not exist within the language. How distinctly unThai, to ever consider improvement. Could something like this ever happen? Without 1,000 corrupt government officials being jailed first?

[wxyz]

better include a seawall dyke and a lot of pumps

[ResX]

That is well within the design capability of the Thais. Personally, I appreciate the idea after all. As long as there are not so many under ground tunnels have to be built, I think it is doable. Before that the authority have to prove that the existing flood control structures have already exhausted to deal with such floods. There are about 3,000 small to medium size dams in Thailand. There are at least four major dams that I know. The authority has to determine, whether or not all the dams can stop the flood with the current size if they are efficiently managed.

For any water management expert, he or she can easily find the answer to this question with >98% accurate!

"Before that the authority have to prove that the existing flood control structures have already exhausted to deal with such floods."

I think that is general more than proven in practice the last few weeks.

I could not see all of them. Two critical questions I will ask. (1) what stop Bhumibol, Sirkit, Pasak and Chao Phraya dams to hold at lest 9billion cubic meter rather than to release says 5 billion cubic meter (a) the wrong strategy ( They have managed to hold that 9billion cubic meter. (2) How much those 3,000 ++ flood control dams that were built since 1950s could hold the flood waters if they were efficiently managed? (a) Negligible ( < 5billion cubic meter © >5billion cubic meter.

When you were defeated by the invading army in one of the battles, if you want to win the war by sending more soldiers, you have to first to determine whether the number was the main root cause of the defeat If the root cause was incapability of your general, then sending more soldiers means more casualties with the same outcome. If the root cause was the choice of battle plan then just change the battle plan.

After all the question that I posed is very cheap to answer. In fact I have gone through a few of studies by the Thais about floods of Chao Phraya catchment. I'm very convinced that some of them are more than capable to do that job for fewer than USD 500,000! Think about that expressway. I would say it might cost well over USD 500million.

[newermonkey]

This guy has been playing "Sim City" too much.

No way will this take only 3 years, he really is the nutty professor!

It took the authorities 7 years (of hell) to simply widen the Thap Phraya Road in Pattaya!

A project like this if started at all would take at least 20 years, (This "Is" Thailand)

"A massive below surface pipeline with pumps and holding reservoirs might be more effective"

Any twit can draw 2 red lines on a map and say they have all the answers but this is ridiculous.

Edited November 15, 2011 by newermonkey

[ResX]

This guy has been playing "Sim City" too much.

No way will this take only 3 years, he really is the nutty professor!

It took the authorities 7 years (of hell) to simply widen the Thap Phraya Road in Pattaya!

A project like this if started at all would take at least 20 years, (This "Is" Thailand)

"A massive below surface pipeline with pumps and holding reservoirs might be more effective"

Any twit can draw 2 red lines on a map and say they have all the answers but this is ridiculous.

Not in three years. But 50 years is too long. I think 20 years is reasonable. Can Thais bare the cost? Therefore the conventional solution using multi purpose dams (If the existing dams are inadequate) is more feasible. A dam can be constructed & commissioned in about 7 years!

[Xonax]

This professor must be supporting the Red Shirts. To me it looks like this proposal will most likely flood Bangkok, as all water from the proposed dams, will be led directly into Chao Phraya River.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Xonax

[ResX]

This professor must be supporting the Red Shirts. To me it looks like this proposal will most likely flood Bangkok, as all water from the proposed dams, will be led directly into Chao Phraya River.

Opsss... I thought it goes straight to the sea! Never thought somebody dares to divert the water through the existing river.....

[Bagwan]

In recent times Brazil and Myanmar relocated their capital cities so why not Thailand? A Bangkok underwater would be a wonderful tourist attraction and could boast of being the World's largest floating market.

[andyh]

> ResX "Opsss... I thought it goes straight to the sea! Never thought somebody dares to divert the water through the existing river..... "

You are right - it does go directly into the sea. Both Samut Sakhon and Samut Prakan are coastal- as shown on the map.

[bigbamboo]

Much of what's said in the OP, I've mentioned months and years earlier - in letters to Newspapers and in this forum.

However, one difference, is I don't see the sanity in trying to maintain Bkk indefinately. Satellite cities, for sure, but let Bkk continue to take its natural course, and subside. In the near future, floods will be worse than the one we're experiencing now. I know Bkk is a gargantuan investment to turn away from, but in the big picture, it's the reasonable thing to do. Confucus says: He who builds city on sinking mud flats will suffer floods. - particular with the inevitability of ever rising seas.

I have a strong connection to a large Thai engineering company, they mostly work in massive civil engineering projects, more than 40 years.

The owners (all Thai, all engineers) are all capable (all well educated and experienced abroad), all highly experienced and pragmatic. They voice the same points, it was realized decades ago that Bangkok is in the wrong location / a quite bad location for a major city, and something should have started decades ago to plan and progressively building a new Bangkok in a location which will never have flood problems and incorporating lots of modern proven engineering concepts and infrastructure.

So, to ask the obvious, if it was clear Bangkok was Asia's Venice decades ago why was nothing done about it at the time? And why has the city been allowed to expand so hugely since then? Was it just ignorance or greed or a lack of planning or plain old corruption. And now of course it is too late as the damage is done. Difficult to move a city of twelve million people.

[whybother]

In recent times Brazil and Myanmar relocated their capital cities so why not Thailand? A Bangkok underwater would be a wonderful tourist attraction and could boast of being the World's largest floating market.

20 Pheu Thai MPs to propose urgent agenda to Parliament to conduct study on moving capital to Nakhon Nayok, Petchabun or other provinces /TANN

Quick ... it's urgent ... we need to move it next week.

[whybother]

So, to ask the obvious, if it was clear Bangkok was Asia's Venice decades ago why was nothing done about it at the time? And why has the city been allowed to expand so hugely since then? Was it just ignorance or greed or a lack of planning or plain old corruption. And now of course it is too late as the damage is done. Difficult to move a city of twelve million people.

"Was it just ignorance or greed or a lack of planning or plain old corruption."

(d) All of the above.

[maidu]

Much of what's said in the OP, I've mentioned months and years earlier - in letters to Newspapers and in this forum.

However, one difference, is I don't see the sanity in trying to maintain Bkk indefinately. Satellite cities, for sure, but let Bkk continue to take its natural course, and subside. In the near future, floods will be worse than the one we're experiencing now. I know Bkk is a gargantuan investment to turn away from, but in the big picture, it's the reasonable thing to do. Confucus says: He who builds city on sinking mud flats will suffer floods. - particular with the inevitability of ever rising seas.

I have a strong connection to a large Thai engineering company, they mostly work in massive civil engineering projects, more than 40 years.

The owners (all Thai, all engineers) are all capable (all well educated and experienced abroad), all highly experienced and pragmatic. They voice the same points, it was realized decades ago that Bangkok is in the wrong location / a quite bad location for a major city, and something should have started decades ago to plan and progressively building a new Bangkok in a location which will never have flood problems and incorporating lots of modern proven engineering concepts and infrastructure.

So, to ask the obvious, if it was clear Bangkok was Asia's Venice decades ago why was nothing done about it at the time? And why has the city been allowed to expand so hugely since then? Was it just ignorance or greed or a lack of planning or plain old corruption. And now of course it is too late as the damage is done. Difficult to move a city of twelve million people.

If you're familiar with Thailand, you know they aren't giants of planning. Difficult, but not impossible for people to move to higher ground. People move individually. It's not like 12 million people would have to relocate in 6 months. During major holidays, masses of Bankokians move out to their home villages. Bangkok, like many cities, has been like a magnet (among other things) - drawing millions of Thais who have trouble making ends meet in the provinces. Many of those were bilked by real estate speculators who took advantage and bought peasants' land super cheap. Thailand can decentralize - away from Bkk. It's imperative that it does - to lessen suffering for future.

Also, wouldn't it be better to start the decentralization process now? Instead of continuing to invest tens of billions of baht on a site that's physically unredeemable. Those billions could instead be used to ease the migration to safer ground.

In recent times Brazil and Myanmar relocated their capital cities so why not Thailand?

Add Belize to that list. Belize City had hurricane problems, so they moved their capital inland to Belmopan. People still reside in B.City, but the seat of their little gov't is safer inland.

[anterian]

No matter how you look at it Bangkok is doomed, either by floods, rising sea levels or subsidence. They need to relocate whilst there is still time to do it in an orderly manner.All these proposals simply defer the inevitable.

[melvinmelvin]

In recent times Brazil and Myanmar relocated their capital cities so why not Thailand? A Bangkok underwater would be a wonderful tourist attraction and could boast of being the World's largest floating market.

And Germany, twice.

[jackr]

The delta being as it is (low gradient) and if the same scenario were to reoccur (reservoirs unloading too much too late), would this proposal make all the difference? Sounds good and not knocking it, but could they theoretically move 16 billion M3 between the rivers, this canal and others in a timely manner? I have a suspicion the gradient is not enough to shift it quick enough even if there were dedicated drains from the big res's. Perhaps also build more big reservoirs and/or release water earlier with imminent (big) monsoon.

[Foggy Bottom]

The delta being as it is (low gradient) and if the same scenario were to reoccur (reservoirs unloading too much too late), would this proposal make all the difference? Sounds good and not knocking it, but could they theoretically move 16 billion M3 between the rivers, this canal and others in a timely manner? I have a suspicion the gradient is not enough to shift it quick enough even if there were dedicated drains from the big res's. Perhaps also build more big reservoirs and/or release water earlier with imminent (big) monsoon.

As stated in the OP, the 200Km canal itself would effectively become both an overflow reservoir and a drainage floodway.

Even with the low gradient of the Central Plains, the flow rate of a head of water released into a dry channel would create a tsunami style race down the channel until it was full - basically the weight of water uphill pushing into the empty space (waterfall style) - before the flow rate slowed to a gradient-gravity rate.

After initial spill release, once the spillway was full, it would likely flow at a similar rate to the Chao Phraya ... and I'd have a losing battle swimming against that current for 24 hours let alone weeks on end.

Remember too, the OP talked about the central spill way plus parallel outer overflow channels with a total width of 1 Km - basically a deep central channel and two flanking shallower channels - both for the eastern spillway, and the western river widening. That's a lot of extra flow that could be facilitated.

[maidu]

I noticed a small article in the other Bkk newspaper which mentioned some Puea Thai party members are interested in moving the Thai seat of gov't to higher ground (no pun intended). In other words, they found some acreage that's just 40 Km from Bkk (sorry, I can't recall the name) that's not flood prone. I usually don't agree with PT party members, but this sounds like the most sensible proposal they've had since their inception (or since their conception.....?).

I wouldn't be surprised, if the discussion heats up, PT members will buy up as much of those properties as possible - post haste. Thaksin, are you listening?

[ResX]

The delta being as it is (low gradient) and if the same scenario were to reoccur (reservoirs unloading too much too late), would this proposal make all the difference? Sounds good and not knocking it, but could they theoretically move 16 billion M3 between the rivers, this canal and others in a timely manner? I have a suspicion the gradient is not enough to shift it quick enough even if there were dedicated drains from the big res's. Perhaps also build more big reservoirs and/or release water earlier with imminent (big) monsoon.

I'm responding to using reservoirs to solve the problem. Not 200km canal.

Still possible but very tight indeed. Assuming almost the worst case scenario (related to floods) as follows, Just after the 16billion cubic meter of waters were captured by a few reservoirs, it follows by close to two standard deviations above the mean of annual inflow for the entire Chao Phraya catchment. The total amount of water will be 104billion cubic meter (16+88). If we spread the discharge over one year then in comes to 3,300 cubic meter per second measured at the river mouth. The average flow for Chao Phraya catchment measured at its river mouth is 2,200 cubic meter per second. No flood discharge can be as high as up to 2,800 cubic meter per second. So for discharge 3,300 cubic meter per second it is expected that a few areas could be flooded, assuming they have not been protected yet. However, the flood level will reduce dramatically when compared to the current scenario, i.e. greater 4,700cubic meter per second. The scenario that I proposed above has recurrent interval at most three times in 100 years.

I

Note that my analysis was based on secondary data and a I have made few assumptions based on my own experienced dealing with floods via flood control and power generation reservoirs.

Edited November 16, 2011 by ResX