Ayutthaya Villagers Want Court To Halt Flood Barriers

[webfact]

Villagers want court to halt flood barriers

Pongphon Sarnsamak

The Nation

Ayutthaya

Residents near Ayutthaya estates say dykes will raise water levels

AYUTTHAYA: -- The Stop Global Warming Association and residents of Ayutthaya plan to ask the Central Administrative Court to issue an injunction suspending construction of antiflood dykes being built by seven industrial parks in the province, saying the barriers will cause damage to nearby homes in the event of future floods.

Association president Srisuwan Janya said about 50 local people living around industrial parks in Ayutthaya had authorised his group to represent them in filing a lawsuit with the Central Administrative Court against the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand (IEAT) and four other state agencies.

Fears of property damage

"They are very worried that the construction of dykes around seven industrial estates in Ayutthaya province will cause damage to their houses and properties," he said.

Some of the industrial parks in Ayutthaya province, including Nava Nakorn Industrial Estate and Rojana Industrial Park are installing concrete barriers to keep out flood waters. The dykes range in height from 5.5 metres to 6.5 metres. The construction is expected to be complete in three months.

Last year, Srisuwan represented 350 people who claimed the construction of "big bag" floodwalls exposed them to prolonged flooding. They filed a complaint with the Central Administrative Court against 11 agencies and officials on grounds of negligence, delayed delivery of services and committing actions that caused damages.

He said that in the event of another flood, the industrial estates' protective dykes would elevate the water levels in surrounding areas, causing residents' houses to be inundated.

Anond Snidvongs na Ayutthaya, a member of the government's Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management (SCWRM), said the erection of flood barriers around industrial parks in Ayutthaya would block the passage of flood water and elevate the water above normal flood levels.

"The dykes will elevate the water level and affect residents' houses surrounding industrial parks," he said.

Suwat Wangwongwattana, secretarygeneral of the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, said he had asked the IEAT to submit details of an environmental impact assessment on the dyke construction, as well as measures to reduce the environmental impact, to an expert panel. The panel would give additional recommendations before the industrial parks continued with construction, Suwat said.

"So far, I have yet to receive an environmental impact assessment on these projects," he said, adding that his agency had no authority to stop them. The IEAT and the Industry Ministry must take responsibility for and control of these projects to make sure they do not cause any damage, he said.

The five state agencies targeted in the lawsuit to be filed by Srisuwan are the IEAT, the SCWRM, the Finance Ministry, the Industry Ministry and the Government Savings Bank. Srisuwan said the agencies gave the green light and support to the industrial parks to install concrete and other types of flood barriers.

Srisuwan said the organisations violated Articles 57, 58, 66 and 67 of the Constitution, which require state agencies to consult the public on government projects that involve building in the community, especially projects or activities that could cause damage to the environment or people's health.

'Great wall of china'

"This is not a dyke against floods. This is a Great Wall of China," Srisuwan said.

He said he had sent letters of complaint to several agencies, including the IEAT and the Industry Ministry's Industrial Works Department, calling on them to seek opinions from local people living around industrial parks before going ahead with their plans to build dykes.

He said he informed the agencies that the dykes could be classified as harmful projects on which environmental and health impact assessments would need to be conducted according to Article 67(2) of the Constitution.

"I've just received a letter from the Industry Ministry's permanent secretary, which said the construction of concrete walls and antiflood dykes was in compliance with the law and would not have any adverse impacts on local communities," he said.

Ayutthaya resident Sawat Chomkrut, 51, who lives near the Nava Nakorn Industrial Estate, said no officials from the industrial park visited her home or sought her opinion on the impact of dyke construction in the area.

"I am afraid that my house will be under water again," she said.

Last year, her twostorey house was partially submerged under 2 metres of water for over two months.

If the industrial park proceeds with the dyke, she said she wants the estate to at least leave its main entrances open, so that villagers living nearby can use them to access other nearby villages.

Another Ayutthaya resident, 70yearold Samruam Koksoongnern, who lives near Rojana Industrial Park, said he supported the estate's plan to build a dyke to prevent a repeat of last year's devastating flood damage.

The barrier would save many factories, which create jobs for local people, he said.

"The situation will get worse and worse if investors withdraw and move to another place," he said. "That would mean there would be no work for us."

-- The Nation 2012-03-05

[RubbaJohnny]

Time to pull the finger out ?

Obvious the displacement will occur.You woud think 50 homes could be compansated/protected or re-located?

[sparebox2]

The barrier serves to protect the rich, while making more flood for the poor.

[sjjmmi]

Nava Nakorn Ind est had a piling ceremony on the 15th of last month putting in 1 pile, today is the same still only 1 pile

Edited March 5, 2012 by sjjmmi

[OzMick]

While I agree that protecting certain areas behind floodwalls will raise the external level, it should be realised that the protected areas represent considerably less than 1% (IMHO) than the total flooded area, and the increase in level should be proportional i.e. SFA.

It should also be realised the higher value of the protected areas, not only to the owners, but also to the workers and the small businesses that cater to those workers' needs. If the area suddenly has a massive drop in income, everybody will suffer.

[animatic]

The barrier serves to protect the rich, while making more flood for the poor.

Unless you want to think about it protecting jobs and incomes for even more poor people.

It is inevitable that the workforce will come before housing. Housing can move, big factories can't,

and if because of a disaster they do relocate, then work force must then follow the jobs... leaving the houses.

If the jobs don't recommence, because the company just left the country, then the workforce is outta luck.

But makes no difference if you have a house if you can't eat.

But these soon to be flooded home owners SHOULD be compensated to move to drier ground,

No doubt though where they lived now was flooded big time anyway.

Governance is the art of doing the most good for the most,

and the least harm to the rest. But no one goes unharmed in all things.

Edited March 5, 2012 by animatic

[sparebox2]

The barrier serves to protect the rich, while making more flood for the poor.

Unless you want to think about it protecting jobs and incomes for even more poor people.

It is inevitable that the workforce will come before housing. Housing can move, big factories can't,

and if because of a disaster they do relocate, then work force must then follow the jobs... leaving the houses.

If the jobs don't recommence, because the company just left the country, then the workforce is outta luck.

But makes no difference if you have a house if you can't eat.

But these soon to be flooded home owners SHOULD be compensated to move to drier ground,

No doubt though where they lived now was flooded big time anyway.

Governance is the art of doing the most good for the most,

and the least harm to the rest. But no one goes unharmed in all things.

Factories can relocate too.

Chonburi is flood free.

If fail, try Vietnam.

[Unkomoncents]

The barrier serves to protect the rich, while making more flood for the poor.

Yes, everyone should drown equally.

[Unkomoncents]

Another exercise in 'village logic': "If you protect self, then bad things will hurt unprotected people more! You bad! You not protect self or you protect everyone!"

[wintermute]

This is idiotic and shows the complete lack of education at work here with your average Thai bumpkin. You can build a large dyke to protect industrial estates and also create a more efficient channel for water to flow through if it does flood again. Having water disperse on a wider plain doesn't help anything because it can just pool up and stagnate like last time. Whether or not water level increases or decreases is totally dependent on topographic elevation.

[animatic]

The barrier serves to protect the rich, while making more flood for the poor.

Unless you want to think about it protecting jobs and incomes for even more poor people.

It is inevitable that the workforce will come before housing. Housing can move, big factories can't,

and if because of a disaster they do relocate, then work force must then follow the jobs... leaving the houses.

If the jobs don't recommence, because the company just left the country, then the workforce is outta luck.

But makes no difference if you have a house if you can't eat.

But these soon to be flooded home owners SHOULD be compensated to move to drier ground,

No doubt though where they lived now was flooded big time anyway.

Governance is the art of doing the most good for the most,

and the least harm to the rest. But no one goes unharmed in all things.

Factories can relocate too.

Chonburi is flood free.

If fail, try Vietnam.

So that screws those living in the houses around the Ayutthaya factory

because the factory that caused the village accumulation leaves.

And even worse for all of Thailand if they take the Viet option.

Most villages crop up around work environments.

No doubt some flood free places will inherit companies relocating.

But either way the workers at the original location are screwed,

and the flood waters will come anyway.

Edited March 5, 2012 by animatic

[miksguevara]

I agree that the companies should protect their factories with dykes,there should have been more planning with the original sites of industrial estates: ie higher ground if available, but anything can be accomplished with hindsight...I'm of the opinion that these dykes wont raise water levels significantl depending on the land area of the estates as a ratio of the total area affected by flooding ,but I'm no expert...

[TAWP]

Luckily a court room isn't an election but a place where laws and facts should rule, so the chance of their injunction will to be granted is very small as their claim isn't holding water.

Edited March 5, 2012 by TAWP

[MaiChai]

The barrier serves to protect the rich, while making more flood for the poor.

Unless you want to think about it protecting jobs and incomes for even more poor people.

It is inevitable that the workforce will come before housing. Housing can move, big factories can't,

and if because of a disaster they do relocate, then work force must then follow the jobs... leaving the houses.

If the jobs don't recommence, because the company just left the country, then the workforce is outta luck.

But makes no difference if you have a house if you can't eat.

But these soon to be flooded home owners SHOULD be compensated to move to drier ground,

No doubt though where they lived now was flooded big time anyway.

Governance is the art of doing the most good for the most,

and the least harm to the rest. But no one goes unharmed in all things.

Factories can relocate too.

Chonburi is flood free.

If fail, try Vietnam.

So that screws those living in the houses around the Ayutthaya factory

because the factory that caused the village accumulation leaves.

And even worse for all of Thailand if they take the Viet option.

Most villages crop up around work environments.

No doubt some flood free places will inherit companies relocating.

But either way the workers at the original location are screwed,

and the flood waters will come anyway.

I recon the compensation will become the big issue. Once one group get compensated for 'juggling round the flood water' and 'parking lots of flood water in my back yard' then everyone who 'might' be affected will demand compensation. This will require alot of money. The government could bring in laws to prevent demands for compensation, but then that would be hugely unpopular for a government who needs to court popularity to remain in power...

Regarding urban planning; well that is something not really done in Thailand. One way or another, whoever wants to build somewhere will circumvent the rules via bribes, etc. However if you want to look at good planning, the road designers generally get the roads right (although one might argue about the build quality, but that tends to be more of a graft issue); generally roads are built higher than flood waters will reach. So when the floods come, people generally can get about via the roads. Mind you when it comes to building factories, alot of dirt is required to raise the level to the same as the roads, so maybe some corners have been cut

Then one has to wonder why all those factories were built around Ayuttaya. A little bird tells me the land was cheap, so lets build some factories there, and maybe not worry too much about why the land was cheap... Business is business, especially with all those Japanese, etc, gagging at the bit to manufacture cheaply in this ever so nice country, so why not take their money, make some jobs and ignore any 'small issues' that might exist?

Edited March 5, 2012 by MaiChai