Hundreds Of Victims Sue Premier, Govt Officials Over Flood Ordeal: Thailand

[gregb]

As a flood victim who was seriously affected by this disaster, I find the attempt by Thaksin supporters to try and shift blame to the previous government in extremely bad taste. Note that I do not care the political affiliation of whoever was responsible for the mismanagement, I only care about what they did.

Rather than looking for other sources of blame, you must ask yourself this question. Upon being informed by the meteorologists and the Royal Irrigation Department of the probability of a serious flooding crisis and impending storms, did the seated government immediately and unequivocally do everything in their power to mitigate the crisis? Answer? No. They did not. They delayed releasing water from the dam by several weeks in order to salvage the crops of a few rice farmers for political reasons. It makes no difference why they were in the situation, or if the previous administration should have known that storms were going to hit later in the season. In that same vein, if there is evidence that the previous administration acted in bad faith to create the disaster, then they absolutely should be brought to justice as well. This question is something I hope will be brought out in the trial.

In the mean time, the issue is not when the rains came, but what the PT government did about it once they learned of the problem. And the answer is they made the problem substantially worse than it needed to be. That's it. End of story. There is no reason to try and justify their actions beyond this point. Similarly, building a dam in the suburbs of Bangkok out of sandbags to protect the inner city at the expense of those on the outskirts without offering proper compensation is inexcusable. That was a premeditated action that any official should be ashamed of. I won't try and take exception to their claim it needed to be done, but I will demand that they compensate those they intentionally injured with their actions.

More than 700 people lost their lives and incalculable damage has been done to the Thai economy and millions of residents. Those who made poor decisions need to be brought to justice. Whether the previous administration was complicit or not won't be clear until the trial. However, there is no doubt that the seated government is guilty of malfeasance by turning a bad flood into the horrific nightmare it became.

I wonder how those in government can sleep at night. If I was complicit in killing 700 people and destroying the country, I'd be ashamed and suicidal.

[maidu]

Despite the few die-hard deniers who won't change their opinion come h@ll or high water, the planet is warming and seas are rising. Bangkok is a very poor site for a city. The chart below shows 5 major recording entities which measure average global temperatures. Three are earth based, two are satellite base.

[Gary A]

The main problem is a simple one. The dikes and flood gates are on the wrong side of Bangkok. The dikes should be along the coast and along the river. Canals that were filled in to expand Bangkok need replaced and since Bangkok is sinking and very low, suitable pumps need to be installed to pump the water over the coastal and river dikes and into the sea.

The easier way was to block the water from entering Bangkok and causing the entire area north of Bangkok to flood. It should be quite obvious by now that using Bangkok as a huge dam was not the right way to go. The time has come to pay the piper. People outside the city are no longer willing to have their homes and villages flooded for weeks at a time just to protect the Bangkok elite's selfish expansion schemes.

[WarpSpeed]

As a flood victim who was seriously affected by this disaster, I find the attempt by Thaksin supporters to try and shift blame to the previous government in extremely bad taste. Note that I do not care the political affiliation of whoever was responsible for the mismanagement, I only care about what they did.

Rather than looking for other sources of blame, you must ask yourself this question. Upon being informed by the meteorologists and the Royal Irrigation Department of the probability of a serious flooding crisis and impending storms, did the seated government immediately and unequivocally do everything in their power to mitigate the crisis? Answer? No. They did not. They delayed releasing water from the dam by several weeks in order to salvage the crops of a few rice farmers for political reasons. It makes no difference why they were in the situation, or if the previous administration should have known that storms were going to hit later in the season. In that same vein, if there is evidence that the previous administration acted in bad faith to create the disaster, then they absolutely should be brought to justice as well. This question is something I hope will be brought out in the trial.

In the mean time, the issue is not when the rains came, but what the PT government did about it once they learned of the problem. And the answer is they made the problem substantially worse than it needed to be. That's it. End of story. There is no reason to try and justify their actions beyond this point. Similarly, building a dam in the suburbs of Bangkok out of sandbags to protect the inner city at the expense of those on the outskirts without offering proper compensation is inexcusable. That was a premeditated action that any official should be ashamed of. I won't try and take exception to their claim it needed to be done, but I will demand that they compensate those they intentionally injured with their actions.

More than 700 people lost their lives and incalculable damage has been done to the Thai economy and millions of residents. Those who made poor decisions need to be brought to justice. Whether the previous administration was complicit or not won't be clear until the trial. However, there is no doubt that the seated government is guilty of malfeasance by turning a bad flood into the horrific nightmare it became.

I wonder how those in government can sleep at night. If I was complicit in killing 700 people and destroying the country, I'd be ashamed and suicidal.

I support no one and have no agenda to blame anyone except those involved which unfortunately requires that you not exclude the previous admin either as their responsibilities overlap.

.

That's also spoken as a victim and even more so then some others in that we have a more convoluted set of circumstances which is already hindering us from recuperating any of our lost funds.

[WarpSpeed]

Strange that you didn't quote Part 2 of that report - well not really, because it shows that not only did 46% per cent more rain fall on Northern Thailand from Jan 2011 to August 2011, but that it didn't just fall in the last couple of months and was extraordinarily above average in March 2011 and continued that way until August. ( Also see ThaiatHeart post)

http://asiancorrespo...2%80%93-part-2/

May 10th Abhisit heads "caretaker" Government

Yinglucks Government fully sworn in and functioning August 25th

I didn't quote part 2 because I was just trying to show the graph, and linked to where I got it from.

Considering the "46% more rainfall" includes August when Nock-ten hit, it isn't a very useful comparison. Actually, Joeb's post shows the best graphs with the 30 year averages. This shows that some areas got a dumping in March / April ... but there was no flooding then. Even Chiang Mai, that got a huge dump in May it didn't flood then.

I see the problem now, you're a very literal person unable or unwilling to extrapolate between a minor exaggeration for the sake of a quick point being made and 100% accuracy. In my first post I said that the floods began well before they actually did and the meaning behind it was accurate, just not to your understanding.

Any catastrophe of any proportions be it a train wreck or car accident has a number of factors that set the events into motion well before they actually occur and in this case they began months before the actual catastrophe as has been noted now several times including by yourself.

Yes. There had been more rain than usual, and that rain added to the severity of the flooding. But there wasn't any flooding until typhoon Nock-ten hit, and if it didn't hit there wouldn't have been any flooding. So what should the Democrats have done (which is where this discussion started) prior to the typhoon hitting and before there was any flooding?

Semantics

[whybother]

Yes. There had been more rain than usual, and that rain added to the severity of the flooding. But there wasn't any flooding until typhoon Nock-ten hit, and if it didn't hit there wouldn't have been any flooding. So what should the Democrats have done (which is where this discussion started) prior to the typhoon hitting and before there was any flooding?

Semantics

So there's nothing they could have done, but you want to blame them anyway.

[hellodolly]

As a flood victim who was seriously affected by this disaster, I find the attempt by Thaksin supporters to try and shift blame to the previous government in extremely bad taste. Note that I do not care the political affiliation of whoever was responsible for the mismanagement, I only care about what they did.

Rather than looking for other sources of blame, you must ask yourself this question. Upon being informed by the meteorologists and the Royal Irrigation Department of the probability of a serious flooding crisis and impending storms, did the seated government immediately and unequivocally do everything in their power to mitigate the crisis? Answer? No. They did not. They delayed releasing water from the dam by several weeks in order to salvage the crops of a few rice farmers for political reasons. It makes no difference why they were in the situation, or if the previous administration should have known that storms were going to hit later in the season. In that same vein, if there is evidence that the previous administration acted in bad faith to create the disaster, then they absolutely should be brought to justice as well. This question is something I hope will be brought out in the trial.

In the mean time, the issue is not when the rains came, but what the PT government did about it once they learned of the problem. And the answer is they made the problem substantially worse than it needed to be. That's it. End of story. There is no reason to try and justify their actions beyond this point. Similarly, building a dam in the suburbs of Bangkok out of sandbags to protect the inner city at the expense of those on the outskirts without offering proper compensation is inexcusable. That was a premeditated action that any official should be ashamed of. I won't try and take exception to their claim it needed to be done, but I will demand that they compensate those they intentionally injured with their actions.

More than 700 people lost their lives and incalculable damage has been done to the Thai economy and millions of residents. Those who made poor decisions need to be brought to justice. Whether the previous administration was complicit or not won't be clear until the trial. However, there is no doubt that the seated government is guilty of malfeasance by turning a bad flood into the horrific nightmare it became.

I wonder how those in government can sleep at night. If I was complicit in killing 700 people and destroying the country, I'd be ashamed and suicidal.

Thank you for your return to common sense. All of the previous administrations should carry a part of the blame.

They allowed the preventive measures to be ignored to the point where they were actually doing work to counter the ones that were in place.

Not that I support the present government but by the time they came into power preventive water management programs were a thing of the distant past.

But that should in no way justify the way they mishandled it. As for the previous administration they did nothing to help prevent it from happening the same as all the previous administrations had done.

In all fairness Thaksin had asked for suggestions from Israeli specialists only to see all their suggestions scraped by the next three administrations.

To say the Dem's are at fault is ridicules. They had no idea that there would be three storms in a row and that the government would choose to open the dams to add to the water.

Good or bad they were a government not a bunch of Psychics.

[Briggsy]

Back to the court case(s).

I think we will see a final resolution in about 7 years.

[robblok]

The main problem is a simple one. The dikes and flood gates are on the wrong side of Bangkok. The dikes should be along the coast and along the river. Canals that were filled in to expand Bangkok need replaced and since Bangkok is sinking and very low, suitable pumps need to be installed to pump the water over the coastal and river dikes and into the sea.

The easier way was to block the water from entering Bangkok and causing the entire area north of Bangkok to flood. It should be quite obvious by now that using Bangkok as a huge dam was not the right way to go. The time has come to pay the piper. People outside the city are no longer willing to have their homes and villages flooded for weeks at a time just to protect the Bangkok elite's selfish expansion schemes.

I agree 100% BKK needs to put in place other measures. Making sure water will flow and is not blocked so it wont flood parts north of BKK that are actually higher while BKK is in a floodplain.

[gregb]

As a flood victim who was seriously affected by this disaster, I find the attempt by Thaksin supporters to try and shift blame to the previous government in extremely bad taste. Note that I do not care the political affiliation of whoever was responsible for the mismanagement, I only care about what they did.

Rather than looking for other sources of blame, you must ask yourself this question. Upon being informed by the meteorologists and the Royal Irrigation Department of the probability of a serious flooding crisis and impending storms, did the seated government immediately and unequivocally do everything in their power to mitigate the crisis? Answer? No. They did not. They delayed releasing water from the dam by several weeks in order to salvage the crops of a few rice farmers for political reasons. It makes no difference why they were in the situation, or if the previous administration should have known that storms were going to hit later in the season. In that same vein, if there is evidence that the previous administration acted in bad faith to create the disaster, then they absolutely should be brought to justice as well. This question is something I hope will be brought out in the trial.

In the mean time, the issue is not when the rains came, but what the PT government did about it once they learned of the problem. And the answer is they made the problem substantially worse than it needed to be. That's it. End of story. There is no reason to try and justify their actions beyond this point. Similarly, building a dam in the suburbs of Bangkok out of sandbags to protect the inner city at the expense of those on the outskirts without offering proper compensation is inexcusable. That was a premeditated action that any official should be ashamed of. I won't try and take exception to their claim it needed to be done, but I will demand that they compensate those they intentionally injured with their actions.

More than 700 people lost their lives and incalculable damage has been done to the Thai economy and millions of residents. Those who made poor decisions need to be brought to justice. Whether the previous administration was complicit or not won't be clear until the trial. However, there is no doubt that the seated government is guilty of malfeasance by turning a bad flood into the horrific nightmare it became.

I wonder how those in government can sleep at night. If I was complicit in killing 700 people and destroying the country, I'd be ashamed and suicidal.

I support no one and have no agenda to blame anyone except those involved which unfortunately requires that you not exclude the previous admin either as their responsibilities overlap.

.

That's also spoken as a victim and even more so then some others in that we have a more convoluted set of circumstances which is already hindering us from recuperating any of our lost funds.

Why would you say unfortunately? I would use the word "categorically" or "conclusively" here . If I find out that anyone from the previous government helped to destroy my home for some political gamesmanship as people are insinuating I want their head on a platter too. The only problem I have with the posts I have seen on this aspect is that the people arguing for it seem to be trying to use it to deflect criticism from the current government, rather than help shed light on the bigger picture.

Whether these speculations are true or not is totally irrelevant when it comes to determining the culpability of the current administration, who are as guilty as a priest in a communal shower for altar boys. That is the salient point. Any contributing circumstances that can be proven I'm sure will be made well known during the course of litigation. There is no real point in speculating on it now, as it does not change the situation in the slightest.

I don't hold anyone responsible for not predicting the future. They become responsible when it should have been reasonably apparent that a crisis was coming, and they neglected to do their duty for political reasons. That is when I demand a pound of flesh.

Edit: Also sorry to hear about your problem getting your 5000 baht. If it makes you feel better, neither myself nor anyone I know has successfully collected this either. The government is definitely going out of its way to try and make it as difficult as they can.

Edited December 26, 2011 by gregb

[WarpSpeed]

Yes. There had been more rain than usual, and that rain added to the severity of the flooding. But there wasn't any flooding until typhoon Nock-ten hit, and if it didn't hit there wouldn't have been any flooding. So what should the Democrats have done (which is where this discussion started) prior to the typhoon hitting and before there was any flooding?

Semantics

So there's nothing they could have done, but you want to blame them anyway.

Not familiar with the word semantics are you? Or again being deliberately obtuse?

[WarpSpeed]

As a flood victim who was seriously affected by this disaster, I find the attempt by Thaksin supporters to try and shift blame to the previous government in extremely bad taste. Note that I do not care the political affiliation of whoever was responsible for the mismanagement, I only care about what they did.

Rather than looking for other sources of blame, you must ask yourself this question. Upon being informed by the meteorologists and the Royal Irrigation Department of the probability of a serious flooding crisis and impending storms, did the seated government immediately and unequivocally do everything in their power to mitigate the crisis? Answer? No. They did not. They delayed releasing water from the dam by several weeks in order to salvage the crops of a few rice farmers for political reasons. It makes no difference why they were in the situation, or if the previous administration should have known that storms were going to hit later in the season. In that same vein, if there is evidence that the previous administration acted in bad faith to create the disaster, then they absolutely should be brought to justice as well. This question is something I hope will be brought out in the trial.

In the mean time, the issue is not when the rains came, but what the PT government did about it once they learned of the problem. And the answer is they made the problem substantially worse than it needed to be. That's it. End of story. There is no reason to try and justify their actions beyond this point. Similarly, building a dam in the suburbs of Bangkok out of sandbags to protect the inner city at the expense of those on the outskirts without offering proper compensation is inexcusable. That was a premeditated action that any official should be ashamed of. I won't try and take exception to their claim it needed to be done, but I will demand that they compensate those they intentionally injured with their actions.

More than 700 people lost their lives and incalculable damage has been done to the Thai economy and millions of residents. Those who made poor decisions need to be brought to justice. Whether the previous administration was complicit or not won't be clear until the trial. However, there is no doubt that the seated government is guilty of malfeasance by turning a bad flood into the horrific nightmare it became.

I wonder how those in government can sleep at night. If I was complicit in killing 700 people and destroying the country, I'd be ashamed and suicidal.

I support no one and have no agenda to blame anyone except those involved which unfortunately requires that you not exclude the previous admin either as their responsibilities overlap.

.

That's also spoken as a victim and even more so then some others in that we have a more convoluted set of circumstances which is already hindering us from recuperating any of our lost funds.

Why would you say unfortunately? I would use the word "categorically" or "conclusively" here . If I find out that anyone from the previous government helped to destroy my home for some political gamesmanship as people are insinuating I want their head on a platter too. The only problem I have with the posts I have seen on this aspect is that the people arguing for it seem to be trying to use it to deflect criticism from the current government, rather than help shed light on the bigger picture.

Whether these speculations are true or not is totally irrelevant when it comes to determining the culpability of the current administration, who are as guilty as a priest in a communal shower for altar boys. That is the salient point. Any contributing circumstances that can be proven I'm sure will be made well known during the course of litigation. There is no real point in speculating on it now, as it does not change the situation in the slightest.

I don't hold anyone responsible for not predicting the future. They become responsible when it should have been reasonably apparent that a crisis was coming, and they neglected to do their duty for political reasons. That is when I demand a pound of flesh.

Edit: Also sorry to hear about your problem getting your 5000 baht. If it makes you feel better, neither myself nor anyone I know has successfully collected this either. The government is definitely going out of its way to try and make it as difficult as they can.

You don't find this whole circle jerk, unfortunate? I know that's possibly an understatement but still applicable, different use of words but still the same end result..

For my part I'm certainly not excluding or excusing anyone, I think my posts should have made that clear, especially what I've been trying in vain to get across to WB but rather I'm including the entire, pathetic house of clowns both the previous and the current with no one left out of the blame..

Incidentally it was quite obvious to professional managers that there was great risk in holding the water back long before it was actually critical. It doesn't take a soothsayer to know that, just a professional water management team and a government who respects their advice.

Regards on the final part too and I fully expected them to do exactly that as well and our circumstances have just given them exactly the excuse they are seeking which is why I told my wife she should be more assertive and put her foot down and not be that jai yen yen sort of person they are hoping for..

[FarangKyAy]

The responsible are the 2 governments , The democrat for not having see the seriousness of the fact in Ayutaya as it started in july and the actual government for very little action ..specially to sacrifice the whole Bangkok north provinces to keep BKK dry . We cannot blame only the actual PM. I am not an expert but for sure something different could have been done . Lets hope that will not happen again for the next rainy season .

Yep ... the Democrats should have done something in the 2 days that they were in care-taker government when Typhoon Nok-ten started causing flooding in the North East on July 31.

Ayutthaya didn't start flooding until late August (or maybe a bit later).

Just go and check data on dams water management, the amount of water entering the dams was considerably higher and the volumes released were (comparatively) lower/slower than previous years, even if the water releases have been stepped up in late june / july, it was too little / too late... and released had to be stopped when there was flood downstream (which occured much earlier than late August, just have a look in the news, by mid july there were already flood in northern provinces) until technically compelled to release water (unless the dams could be damaged because of the water pressure)

Source

Edit : I was to quick to answer, I didn't realise that some members have already noticed and answered about this.

Edited December 26, 2011 by FarangKyAy

[WarpSpeed]

The responsible are the 2 governments , The democrat for not having see the seriousness of the fact in Ayutaya as it started in july and the actual government for very little action ..specially to sacrifice the whole Bangkok north provinces to keep BKK dry . We cannot blame only the actual PM. I am not an expert but for sure something different could have been done . Lets hope that will not happen again for the next rainy season .

Yep ... the Democrats should have done something in the 2 days that they were in care-taker government when Typhoon Nok-ten started causing flooding in the North East on July 31.

Ayutthaya didn't start flooding until late August (or maybe a bit later).

Just go and check data on dams water management, the amount of water entering the dams was considerably higher and the volumes released were (comparatively) lower/slower than previous years, even if the water releases have been stepped up in late june / july, it was too little / too late... and released had to be stopped when there was flood downstream (which occured much earlier than late August, just have a look in the news, by mid july there were already flood in northern provinces) until technically compelled to release water (unless the dams could be damaged because of the water pressure)

Source

Edit : I was to quick to answer, I didn't realise that some members have already noticed and answered about this.

Mai pen rai it could stand another mention for those seeking to avoid the irrefutable facts. Edited December 26, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[maidu]

The main problem is a simple one. The dikes and flood gates are on the wrong side of Bangkok. The dikes should be along the coast and along the river. Canals that were filled in to expand Bangkok need replaced and since Bangkok is sinking and very low, suitable pumps need to be installed to pump the water over the coastal and river dikes and into the sea.

The easier way was to block the water from entering Bangkok and causing the entire area north of Bangkok to flood. It should be quite obvious by now that using Bangkok as a huge dam was not the right way to go. The time has come to pay the piper. People outside the city are no longer willing to have their homes and villages flooded for weeks at a time just to protect the Bangkok elite's selfish expansion schemes.

I agree 100% BKK needs to put in place other measures. Making sure water will flow and is not blocked so it wont flood parts north of BKK that are actually higher while BKK is in a floodplain.

The gradient slope of the Bkk region is about 1 M per 3Km from Ayuttaya to the sea. That's about as flat as a billiard table with a piece of thin cardboard under the legs at one end. Bkk and its surrounding region is built on a large mud flat which is the delta of a river.

If 6 meter tall berms were built along the sea edge, berms would also have to be built along both sides of the river, which has already been done to some degree. Berms won't work in the long run. Walls keep water in as well as keeping water out, and no amount of large pumps will keep up in a storm surge. Plus, pumps need dedicated power cables (they can't be on the public grid, because of short circuits) - that's part of the reason why some giant Bkk pumps were not functioning in the midst of the flooding.

In sum, Bangkok is doomed (sorry to sound pessimistic). As the gambling song by Kenny Rogers goes, "you gotta know when to fold 'em." Any things and people in Bkk which can be moved to higher ground, should be moved a.s.a.p.

Subsequent floods will be worse than this year's. Decades of prep, tens of billions of baht have been spent, and 3 large dams have been built over the past decades - trying to preclude floods, yet this year was 'the worst ever.' One could almost say; 'the more money spent on flood prevention, the more likely a flood will occur.' Even now, there's talk of tens of billions of more baht for the same quixotic goal, and trillions more baht will be spent to try and save Thailand's largest city, because abandoning a sinking city is not an option that anyone in authority wants to think about.

Mother nature will run its course. She has no respect for trillions of baht or berms or giant pumps or KM-wide spillways or whatever. When sea levels + runoff from rivers is higher than the mud flat that Bkk sits upon (which it nearly is now), Bkk will be stuck with one to two meters of standing water all year 'round.

Edited December 27, 2011 by maidu

[hellodolly]

The main problem is a simple one. The dikes and flood gates are on the wrong side of Bangkok. The dikes should be along the coast and along the river. Canals that were filled in to expand Bangkok need replaced and since Bangkok is sinking and very low, suitable pumps need to be installed to pump the water over the coastal and river dikes and into the sea.

The easier way was to block the water from entering Bangkok and causing the entire area north of Bangkok to flood. It should be quite obvious by now that using Bangkok as a huge dam was not the right way to go. The time has come to pay the piper. People outside the city are no longer willing to have their homes and villages flooded for weeks at a time just to protect the Bangkok elite's selfish expansion schemes.

I agree 100% BKK needs to put in place other measures. Making sure water will flow and is not blocked so it wont flood parts north of BKK that are actually higher while BKK is in a floodplain.

The gradient slope of the Bkk region is about 1 M per 3Km from Ayuttaya to the sea. That's about as flat as a billiard table with a piece of thin cardboard under the legs at one end. Bkk and its surrounding region is built on a large mud flat which is the delta of a river.

If 6 meter tall berms were built along the sea edge, berms would also have to be built along both sides of the river, which has already been done to some degree. Berms won't work in the long run. Walls keep water in as well as keeping water out, and no amount of large pumps will keep up in a storm surge. Plus, pumps need dedicated power cables (they can't be on the public grid, because of short circuits) - that's part of the reason why some giant Bkk pumps were not functioning in the midst of the flooding.

In sum, Bangkok is doomed (sorry to sound pessimistic). As the gambling song by Kenny Rogers goes, "you gotta know when to fold 'em." Any things and people in Bkk which can be moved to higher ground, should be moved a.s.a.p.

Subsequent floods will be worse than this year's. Decades of prep, tens of billions of baht have been spent, and 3 large dams have been built over the past decades - trying to preclude floods, yet this year was 'the worst ever.' One could almost say; 'the more money spent on flood prevention, the more likely a flood will occur.' Even now, there's talk of tens of billions of more baht for the same quixotic goal, and trillions more baht will be spent to try and save Thailand's largest city, because abandoning a sinking city is not an option that anyone in authority wants to think about.

Mother nature will run its course. She has no respect for trillions of baht or berms or giant pumps or KM-wide spillways or whatever. When sea levels + runoff from rivers is higher than the mud flat that Bkk sits upon (which it nearly is now), Bkk will be stuck with one to two meters of standing water all year 'round.

TAT could promote Bangkok as the Venice of Asia.

[gregb]

Just go and check data on dams water management, the amount of water entering the dams was considerably higher and the volumes released were (comparatively) lower/slower than previous years, even if the water releases have been stepped up in late june / july, it was too little / too late... and released had to be stopped when there was flood downstream (which occured much earlier than late August, just have a look in the news, by mid july there were already flood in northern provinces) until technically compelled to release water (unless the dams could be damaged because of the water pressure)

That is not a reason to stop the release of water. That is a poor justification for the highly political action taken by high level officials to prevent the flooding of a few rice farms at the expense of the rest of the country. Once the meterologists informed the Royal Irrigation Department of the serious consequences headed their way, it was the duty of those in charge to open the dams to the maximum extent possible to get as much water out of those dams as possible before storms hit. Any flooding at that point would be minor and inconsequential compared to what was coming. They knew this, and the Agricultural Minister prevented them from taking this obvious action for the benefit of his constituents so that they could harvest their crops first. Those were the most expensive crops in Thai history.

Nobody is arguing that all flooding could have been prevented, but proper action when people could have reasonable recognized the seriousness of the problem would have prevented much of the tragedy we have experienced, saved trillions of baht in lost revenue for the country, and likely saved hundreds of lives.

You can not justify mismanagement of the dams with an off the cuff statement like "there was already flooding downstream." Yes there was, and it was well known that the flooding was going to be made much, much worse by the actions taken by the current administration. But there was political gain to be had by doing it, and they didn't give a rats ass about the rest of the country.

And that is the essence of the problem, and the reason for the lawsuit. This will all be made public during the trial.

Edited January 2, 2012 by metisdead
30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[maidu]

This year, 'Thailand's worse flood' is purportedly caused, in part, by supposedly poor dam management (not a good omen for a country that wants 4 to 6 nuclear plants). What will be the excuse for the next big Bkk flood? .....and the next? .....and the one after that?

Face it, the city is extremely flood prone, and getting more so as the years pass by. Time to face reality and move to higher ground.

[FarangKyAy]

Gregb let al

That is not a reason to stop the release of water. That is a poor justification for the highly political action taken by high level officials to prevent the flooding of a few rice farms at the expense of the rest of the country. Once the meterologists informed the Royal Irrigation Department of the serious consequences headed their way, it was the duty of those in charge to open the dams to the maximum extent possible to get as much water out of those dams as possible before storms hit. Any flooding at that point would be minor and inconsequential compared to what was coming. They knew this, and the Agricultural Minister prevented them from taking this obvious action for the benefit of his constituents so that they could harvest their crops first. Those were the most expensive crops in Thai history.

Nobody is arguing that all flooding could have been prevented, but proper action when people could have reasonable recognized the seriousness of the problem would have prevented much of the tragedy we have experienced, saved trillions of baht in lost revenue for the country, and likely saved hundreds of lives.

You can not justify mismanagement of the dams with an off the cuff statement like "there was already flooding downstream." Yes there was, and it was well known that the flooding was going to be made much, much worse by the actions taken by the current administration. But there was political gain to be had by doing it, and they didn't give a rats ass about the rest of the country.

And that is the essence of the problem, and the reason for the lawsuit. This will all be made public during the trial.

"Mai pen rai for northern people already flooded, just flush the water out of dams, now" ? Even if I think it's quite a hard stance I respect your opinion , I think the main mismanagement was having the dams already so full before the rainy season started...

The other factors : wild urbanisation that conduct people to build / buy their home in floodable area, and of course deforestation that forbid the rain water to infiltrate in the soil. For theses ones responsibilities are more dilluted than dams management, so it may be mor difficult to tackle.

Finally dikes management was very poor, you just can't block water to protect some place without letting another way for the water to flow down..the water upstream won't evaporate ...

[maidu]

.......The other factors : wild urbanisation that conduct people to build / buy their home in floodable area, and of course deforestation that forbid the rain water to infiltrate in the soil. .....

I and others have mentioned this key component several times, including a few published letters in the major newspapers. For every rai covered in concrete, you'll need one or more rai larger 'monkey cheeks'. Indeed, the so-called 'monkey cheeks' may have to be continually expanded until they comprise most of the property in central Thailand between Burmese and Cambodian borders! Rendering Bkk an island. Are we ready for elevated roadways as the only connection from dry land to Bkk?

Earlier, I made a suggestion of enacting a one-time tax (or call it 'mitigation fee') for new construction which impacts the soils natural capacity for soaking up water. It's called percolation ('perc' for short). In California, I was certified to do perc tests on properties. I wonder if a perc test has ever been done anywhere in Thailand. Am also curious whether there has ever been a study (in Thailand) which calculates how many rai is covered up by cement or asphalt each year. Such a study, in the Bangkok catchement would be interesting and relevent to this debate.

Anyhow, the one-time tax could be Bt.100 for each sq.M covered in cement (or some other covering which would preclude the soil from soaking up water). Take, for example, a cookie cutter house in one of the many estates popping up like mushrooms after a rain (all owned by Chinese-Thai familes. Indeed, the Shinawatre family is one of the biggest investers in such tracts). A 200 square meter house plus its carport and walkway might add up to 300 sq.meters of land covered. At bt.100/sq.M that would be less than $1,000 for such a mitigation fee. about 1/50th of the cost of constructing the house itself.

That revenue could be spent on trying to keep Bangkok from suffering standing water all year. Though, in my humble opinion, it's a quixotic goal (both enacting the fee, and saving Bangkok).

[FarangKyAy]

Yep Maidu some valid points in your posts, This tax would be a one shot tax or annual? I think the implementation might cause problem, there have been various project of land tax to fund local expenses such as road maintenance ...but I can't remember if this have been discussed in Parliament.

Anyway, it's also not the first time I was answering about Dam management as the main cause of flood as I see people telling that the dams were not full before the last general election, that Yingluck screwed everything up etc ... so I may keep repeating some key points that must have been said in other topics by other members.

Dike it might prevent flood in certain areas but can make things worst for longer if not well managed.