Water level at Bhumibol and Sirikit dams most critical in 51 years

[halloween]

Surely making more reservoirs would be a step in the right direction ?

Was thinking exactly the same. Thailand (like other places) is seeing more variability in its weather than was perhaps the norm in the past. So more need to store water for the more frequent/more extreme dry periods - and more need to be able to handle (and perhaps store more of) the increased rainfall in wet periods.

Given an economy that needs the government to spend to get the GDP growing again (and one where the agricultural sector is so important), more dams would seem to come ahead of shiny new railways on the priority list.

Adding to Billd's answer, the green lobby has taken the attitude that "dams are BAD" so any proposal not only meets opposition from badly affected locals, but much more strident and organised from this group. Perhaps if we get water riots or people dying of thirst there will be a change in attitude, but I doubt it.

I remember serious opposition to a hydro dam in India many years back. Even after it was revealed that the main reason for it was to supply electricity to surrounding villages where the only fuel for cooking was dried cow pats, and respiratory diseases were rife from this, especially in women.

[Fat Haggis]

Thats a fact...nor do fisherman about fishing.

And the military with the economy ...strange old country we chose to live in isn't it? Must be awesome leaving a home country that was Utopia and then coming to Thailand and thinking you could actually compare the old home for the new one ?

[billd766]

Thats a fact...nor do fisherman about fishing.

And the military with the economy ...strange old country we chose to live in isn't it? Must be awesome leaving a home country that was Utopia and then coming to Thailand and thinking you could actually compare the old home for the new one ?

I effectively left the UK for working offshore in 1992 for a couple of years and finished offshore working in 2009 when I retired from work. It cost me a divorce, the house etc, a remarriage and a new son in Thailand.

Over my 50 years of working life I have lived and worked in 38 countries, some more than once, for various times and TBH none of them including the UK and Thailand were/are Utopia.

When I compare the UK and Thailand overall they come out with Thailand a bit higher and both have their pros and cons.

My standard of living here is a lot better than the UK, I have more freedom from petty, mindless restrictions and the literally thousands of CCTV everywhere.

When I lived in the UK I lived in a 3 bedroom semi with a small easy to keep garden, here it is a 4 bed detached house with a couple of acres which at 71 is a bugger to keep the grass and scrub down. There I shared a car with my wife, here we have a shared pickup truck and small scooter plus I ride a 200cc Honda Phantom and a Honda CB 400cc. (I suspect that if I were still maried to my UK wife she would be horrifed if I rode a motorbike).

I can get better western food in the UK than here (I do miss Wagon Wheels, Munchmallows, mint Yoyos and chocolate ginger crunch biscuits) but here I make my own western food as a hobby.

On the whole my living costs are lower here than there.

Also in Thailand it is warmer than the UK verging on the ridiculously hot at times.

Overall Thailand suits me and my family better than the UK.

[Zooheekock]

pop quiz: how many types of tree nuts are there in Thailand? As far as I know, coconuts and a smattering of cashews and macadamia. Compare to farang lands, where you'll find those, plus almonds, filberts, walnuts, pecans, abd brazil nuts. I have growing, in northern Thailand, a type of brazil nut. The nuts aren't as big as Brazil nuts, but there are more of them per pod. Everything about the nuts and trees are top quality. Here are some more crops which Thai farmers could grow, but there's no incentive, because they only know about rice and pineapples

To a limited extent this is true (though a conservative outlook on farming is hardly the exclusive preserve of Thai famers) but a great many farmers in Thailand are seriously under the cosh; they need money now, not in ten or twenty years. Foreigners living in Thailand are rarely in the same position and can happily sit on an investment which provides no returns for years. For many/most rural Thai families, doing this would end with their house being repossessed long before they saw a return on their brazil nuts.

[Zooheekock]

Adding to Billd's answer, the green lobby has taken the attitude that "dams are BAD" so any proposal not only meets opposition from badly affected locals, but much more strident and organised from this group. Perhaps if we get water riots or people dying of thirst there will be a change in attitude, but I doubt it.

It's rarely the case that the beneficiaries of hydro are local populations. If you look at the projects in Laos like Xayaburi, local people are being kicked off their land and their lifestyles destroyed to provide power to Bangkok shopping centres. This is another form of enclosure of the commons - primitive accumulation, whereby one, small segment of society enriches itself at the expense of the majority.

Dams themselves aren't necessarily bad but what is needed are local, small-scale projects, not mega-projects which destroy the environment, cause enormous problems for local communities and serve mainly as a means for big engineering companies to trouser public finances.

[billd766]

Adding to Billd's answer, the green lobby has taken the attitude that "dams are BAD" so any proposal not only meets opposition from badly affected locals, but much more strident and organised from this group. Perhaps if we get water riots or people dying of thirst there will be a change in attitude, but I doubt it.

It's rarely the case that the beneficiaries of hydro are local populations. If you look at the projects in Laos like Xayaburi, local people are being kicked off their land and their lifestyles destroyed to provide power to Bangkok shopping centres. This is another form of enclosure of the commons - primitive accumulation, whereby one, small segment of society enriches itself at the expense of the majority.

Dams themselves aren't necessarily bad but what is needed are local, small-scale projects, not mega-projects which destroy the environment, cause enormous problems for local communities and serve mainly as a means for big engineering companies to trouser public finances.

The one on the side of Mae Wong where I live is only a small project but the one on the far side that all the hoo haa was about months ago with the disappearance of tigers and wildlife etc is far bigger.

[Fat Haggis]

Thats a fact...nor do fisherman about fishing.

And the military with the economy ...strange old country we chose to live in isn't it? Must be awesome leaving a home country that was Utopia and then coming to Thailand and thinking you could actually compare the old home for the new one ?

I effectively left the UK for working offshore in 1992 for a couple of years and finished offshore working in 2009 when I retired from work. It cost me a divorce, the house etc, a remarriage and a new son in Thailand.

Over my 50 years of working life I have lived and worked in 38 countries, some more than once, for various times and TBH none of them including the UK and Thailand were/are Utopia.

When I compare the UK and Thailand overall they come out with Thailand a bit higher and both have their pros and cons.

My standard of living here is a lot better than the UK, I have more freedom from petty, mindless restrictions and the literally thousands of CCTV everywhere.

When I lived in the UK I lived in a 3 bedroom semi with a small easy to keep garden, here it is a 4 bed detached house with a couple of acres which at 71 is a bugger to keep the grass and scrub down. There I shared a car with my wife, here we have a shared pickup truck and small scooter plus I ride a 200cc Honda Phantom and a Honda CB 400cc. (I suspect that if I were still maried to my UK wife she would be horrifed if I rode a motorbike).

I can get better western food in the UK than here (I do miss Wagon Wheels, Munchmallows, mint Yoyos and chocolate ginger crunch biscuits) but here I make my own western food as a hobby.

On the whole my living costs are lower here than there.

Also in Thailand it is warmer than the UK verging on the ridiculously hot at times.

Overall Thailand suits me and my family better than the UK.

Excellent post, but you forgot the fact that the UK is just a miserable place to live, and the weather sucks!!

Couldn't agree with you more ?

[halloween]

Adding to Billd's answer, the green lobby has taken the attitude that "dams are BAD" so any proposal not only meets opposition from badly affected locals, but much more strident and organised from this group. Perhaps if we get water riots or people dying of thirst there will be a change in attitude, but I doubt it.

It's rarely the case that the beneficiaries of hydro are local populations. If you look at the projects in Laos like Xayaburi, local people are being kicked off their land and their lifestyles destroyed to provide power to Bangkok shopping centres. This is another form of enclosure of the commons - primitive accumulation, whereby one, small segment of society enriches itself at the expense of the majority.

Dams themselves aren't necessarily bad but what is needed are local, small-scale projects, not mega-projects which destroy the environment, cause enormous problems for local communities and serve mainly as a means for big engineering companies to trouser public finances.

Xayaburi Dam has 7 x175MW generators whose energy will be sold to Thailand with some of the revenue going to Laos. It also has a 60MW to supply

FREE electricity to Laos. Yes some people will have to move, but if that is not a benefit to the local population, what is? Cheap electricity means industry and better jobs than subsistence farming, revenue from the energy sales allows the government to build better infrastructure.

I spent much of my life living near Glenbawn Dam, built in 1957 and expanded since, a flood mitigation and small hydro dam. The environment there is damn fine, the micro-climate improved considerably, it is a huge recreation and fishing area attracting thousands of tourists each year, and it has stopped what used to be extensive and regular flooding in the Hunter Valley. So you will pardon me if I take your unsubstantiated claims with a huge grain of salt.

Big dams can store a lot of water, and have to be filled slowly, but they don't run dry after one bad season. Xayaburi will still be producing cheap clean electricity long after you are dead.

[otherstuff1957]

This map from the Thai Met. Dept. Show the deviation from normal of the rainfall from Jan 1 to today. The red areas are below normal.

[Zooheekock]

Xayaburi Dam has 7 x175MW generators whose energy will be sold to Thailand with some of the revenue going to Laos. It also has a 60MW to supply

FREE electricity to Laos.

5% of the electricity generated at Xayaburi is for Laos (and this represents about 3% of total national energy production) and 95% is to keep Bangkok shoppers supplied with much-needed iPad upgrades. Great. For this, at least 2000 people are losing their homes and livelihoods and another 200,000 are being adversly affected, on top of which can be added vast disruption to the ecosystem, especially to already critically threatened fish species. Further afield, 80% of Cambodian protein comes in the form of fish originating from the Mekong and they are undoubtedly going to be affected by construction of the dam.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Zooheekock

[Zooheekock]

This map from the Thai Met. Dept. Show the deviation from normal of the rainfall from Jan 1 to today. The red areas are below normal.

Thanks for posting this. Interesting and worrying to look at. Unfortunately, the long-range El Nino predications are for it to be somewhere between strong and monster so things could be grim this time next year. When you add in the political uncertainity surrounding the junta, elections, etc., it makes for a very worrying brew.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Zooheekock

[halloween]

Xayaburi Dam has 7 x175MW generators whose energy will be sold to Thailand with some of the revenue going to Laos. It also has a 60MW to supply

FREE electricity to Laos.

5% of the electricity generated at Xayaburi is for Laos (and this represents about 3% of total national energy production) and 95% is to keep Bangkok shoppers supplied with much-needed iPad upgrades. Great. For this, at least 2000 people are losing their homes and livelihoods and another 200,000 are being adversly affected, on top of which can be added vast disruption to the ecosystem, especially to already critically threatened fish species. Further afield, 80% of Cambodian protein comes in the form of fish originating from the Mekong and they are undoubtedly going to be affected by construction of the dam.

Yep, 'Dams are BAD" with absolutely no redeeming features. Meanwhile Thai dams are nearly empty, and the question was "why don't they build more?"

Thank you for validating my answer.

[Zooheekock]

That's a completely nonsensical post. The fact that Xayaburi does absolutely nothing to help drought in Thailand doesn't mean that dams (or other forms of water storage) shouldn't be built. And in fact, I've already said as much.

Yep, 'Dams are BAD" with absolutely no redeeming features.

Why do people on these forums spend so much time arguing with statements nobody ever said? What I actually said (and I hope you can spot the difference) was

Dams themselves aren't necessarily bad but what is needed are local, small-scale projects, not mega-projects

You may well think I'm wrong - and you may well be correct - but at least show people the minimum respect of actually reading what they write.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Zooheekock

[zakk9]

Adding to Billd's answer, the green lobby has taken the attitude that "dams are BAD" so any proposal not only meets opposition from badly affected locals, but much more strident and organised from this group. Perhaps if we get water riots or people dying of thirst there will be a change in attitude, but I doubt it.

It's rarely the case that the beneficiaries of hydro are local populations. If you look at the projects in Laos like Xayaburi, local people are being kicked off their land and their lifestyles destroyed to provide power to Bangkok shopping centres. This is another form of enclosure of the commons - primitive accumulation, whereby one, small segment of society enriches itself at the expense of the majority.

Dams themselves aren't necessarily bad but what is needed are local, small-scale projects, not mega-projects which destroy the environment, cause enormous problems for local communities and serve mainly as a means for big engineering companies to trouser public finances.

Xayaburi Dam has 7 x175MW generators whose energy will be sold to Thailand with some of the revenue going to Laos. It also has a 60MW to supply

FREE electricity to Laos. Yes some people will have to move, but if that is not a benefit to the local population, what is? Cheap electricity means industry and better jobs than subsistence farming, revenue from the energy sales allows the government to build better infrastructure.

I spent much of my life living near Glenbawn Dam, built in 1957 and expanded since, a flood mitigation and small hydro dam. The environment there is damn fine, the micro-climate improved considerably, it is a huge recreation and fishing area attracting thousands of tourists each year, and it has stopped what used to be extensive and regular flooding in the Hunter Valley. So you will pardon me if I take your unsubstantiated claims with a huge grain of salt.

Big dams can store a lot of water, and have to be filled slowly, but they don't run dry after one bad season. Xayaburi will still be producing cheap clean electricity long after you are dead.

Comparing the Xayaburi Dam to the Glenbaw Dam is a bit far fetched, don't you think? Downstream of the Xayaburi Dam is the largest inland fisheries in the world, and no serious analysis has been done with regards to the effect on those fisheries and the millions of people who depend on it as a source of protein and for their livelihood. It doesn't help much that it produces clean energy if the lives of millions are adversely effected.

Unfortunately, the world has become so cynically commercialised that large corporations see the advantage rather than disadvantages when large population groups lose access to local fish. Then the locals will have to buy more processed food at the stores, food that is mostly produced at factories owned by large corporations who will profit from the disaster. There are reasons why environmental issues take the back seat when new economies develop.

[jcisco]

The Thai Meteorological Dept. recently changed their website so that it is more difficult to navigate and offers less information , but according to the older data that used to be accessible, Thailand has had lower than average annual rainfall every year since the big floods.

Unless we have higher than average rainfall this year (and we haven't so far) the country will find itself in the middle of a serious drought.

Of course, having a drought doesn't rule out localized flooding!

Then only rainfall numbers of any meaning are those in the primary catchment areas and recognised secondary catchment sources. Only have to find the data which covers those areas and what system it flows to. Without that the data is meaningless since the entire surface of Thailand is catchment.

[halloween]

Comparing the Xayaburi Dam to the Glenbaw Dam is a bit far fetched, don't you think? Downstream of the Xayaburi Dam is the largest inland fisheries in the world, and no serious analysis has been done with regards to the effect on those fisheries and the millions of people who depend on it as a source of protein and for their livelihood. It doesn't help much that it produces clean energy if the lives of millions are adversely effected.

Unfortunately, the world has become so cynically commercialised that large corporations see the advantage rather than disadvantages when large population groups lose access to local fish. Then the locals will have to buy more processed food at the stores, food that is mostly produced at factories owned by large corporations who will profit from the disaster. There are reasons why environmental issues take the back seat when new economies develop.

Sorry that I didn't live near a dam more suitable for comparison. But most of the same old arguments were used, people have to move, fish will be affected, Maitland's flood plains won't get any silt, and the biggie then - we'll all be killed when it collapses. BS one and all.

Oz has little water and even less high ground, yet we still have one of the world's best hydro schemes on the Snowy which not allows production, but also energy storage by pumping uphill overnight.

Here people have monumental flows and huge height differentials but you are saying that an enormous amount of energy should be allowed to go to waste because fish stocks MIGHT be affected. If one species was detrimentally affected, what proof have you that another species would not then take over that habitat?

[billd766]

Thats a fact...nor do fisherman about fishing.

And the military with the economy ...strange old country we chose to live in isn't it? Must be awesome leaving a home country that was Utopia and then coming to Thailand and thinking you could actually compare the old home for the new one ?

I effectively left the UK for working offshore in 1992 for a couple of years and finished offshore working in 2009 when I retired from work. It cost me a divorce, the house etc, a remarriage and a new son in Thailand.

Over my 50 years of working life I have lived and worked in 38 countries, some more than once, for various times and TBH none of them including the UK and Thailand were/are Utopia.

When I compare the UK and Thailand overall they come out with Thailand a bit higher and both have their pros and cons.

My standard of living here is a lot better than the UK, I have more freedom from petty, mindless restrictions and the literally thousands of CCTV everywhere.

When I lived in the UK I lived in a 3 bedroom semi with a small easy to keep garden, here it is a 4 bed detached house with a couple of acres which at 71 is a bugger to keep the grass and scrub down. There I shared a car with my wife, here we have a shared pickup truck and small scooter plus I ride a 200cc Honda Phantom and a Honda CB 400cc. (I suspect that if I were still maried to my UK wife she would be horrifed if I rode a motorbike).

I can get better western food in the UK than here (I do miss Wagon Wheels, Munchmallows, mint Yoyos and chocolate ginger crunch biscuits) but here I make my own western food as a hobby.

On the whole my living costs are lower here than there.

Also in Thailand it is warmer than the UK verging on the ridiculously hot at times.

Overall Thailand suits me and my family better than the UK.

Excellent post, but you forgot the fact that the UK is just a miserable place to live, and the weather sucks!!

Couldn't agree with you more ?

TBH I can't really comment on the UK as I haven't been there since 2004 but from what I remember there were many great places to live but there was no work in the area or house prices were just crazy.

The worst place in the UK for weather while I did live there was on the south Wales coast near Barry and Barry Island where the rain and snow used to come in almost horizontally.

[halloween]

That's a completely nonsensical post. The fact that Xayaburi does absolutely nothing to help drought in Thailand doesn't mean that dams (or other forms of water storage) shouldn't be built. And in fact, I've already said as much.

Yep, 'Dams are BAD" with absolutely no redeeming features.

Why do people on these forums spend so much time arguing with statements nobody ever said? What I actually said (and I hope you can spot the difference) was

Dams themselves aren't necessarily bad but what is needed are local, small-scale projects, not mega-projects

You may well think I'm wrong - and you may well be correct - but at least show people the minimum respect of actually reading what they write.

Yes, I eventually found it some posts back. To tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea why you wanted to drag the subject away from drought in Thailand to Xayaburi.

And I did respond to your advocation of small projects with

"Big dams can store a lot of water, and have to be filled slowly, but they don't run dry after one bad season."

but you chose to delete it in your reply.

[zakk9]

Comparing the Xayaburi Dam to the Glenbaw Dam is a bit far fetched, don't you think? Downstream of the Xayaburi Dam is the largest inland fisheries in the world, and no serious analysis has been done with regards to the effect on those fisheries and the millions of people who depend on it as a source of protein and for their livelihood. It doesn't help much that it produces clean energy if the lives of millions are adversely effected.

Unfortunately, the world has become so cynically commercialised that large corporations see the advantage rather than disadvantages when large population groups lose access to local fish. Then the locals will have to buy more processed food at the stores, food that is mostly produced at factories owned by large corporations who will profit from the disaster. There are reasons why environmental issues take the back seat when new economies develop.

Sorry that I didn't live near a dam more suitable for comparison. But most of the same old arguments were used, people have to move, fish will be affected, Maitland's flood plains won't get any silt, and the biggie then - we'll all be killed when it collapses. BS one and all.

Oz has little water and even less high ground, yet we still have one of the world's best hydro schemes on the Snowy which not allows production, but also energy storage by pumping uphill overnight.

Here people have monumental flows and huge height differentials but you are saying that an enormous amount of energy should be allowed to go to waste because fish stocks MIGHT be affected. If one species was detrimentally affected, what proof have you that another species would not then take over that habitat?

There is no proof. That's the problem in a nutshell. None has bothered to check. It's a complex system, with water flowing in and out of Tonle Sap, depending on the season. 40-50 million people to a large degree depend on this water and the fish that lives there. They mostly live in Cambodia and Vietnam. If they are negatively affected, do you think the Thai and Lao governments will pay compensation? Industries in Thailand and to a certain degree Laos get the advantages, people in Cambodia and Vietnam pay. Is that fair?

The Mekong River Commission was established to deal with matters like these, but when powerful people get drugged by the smell of money, they don't seem to care. If you think luxury shopping malls in Bangkok are more important than the livelihood of tens of millions of people, by all means, you are entitled to your meanings, but sustainable, it is not.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/special-features/2014/07/140711-mekong-river-laos-thailand-dams-environment/

Edited June 16, 2015 by zakk9

[Zooheekock]

Yes, I eventually found it some posts back

It's customary to read the posts in a thread before you respond but you actually quoted me yourself in post 38. I don't think it's much of an imposition to expect people to be aware of what it says in their own posts.

To tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea why you wanted to drag the subject away from drought in Thailand to Xayaburi.

It was very obviously a response to this (and in case you have already forgotten, you wrote it):

I remember serious opposition to a hydro dam in India many years back

----

Sigh. My first time back on this forum for half a year and already it's robbed me of the will to live. I think it's best if I duck out now - I don't want to get banned as a result of losing my temper arguing with idiots and this forum still has some use as a place to get occasional advice.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Zooheekock

[halloween]

Sorry that I didn't live near a dam more suitable for comparison. But most of the same old arguments were used, people have to move, fish will be affected, Maitland's flood plains won't get any silt, and the biggie then - we'll all be killed when it collapses. BS one and all.

Oz has little water and even less high ground, yet we still have one of the world's best hydro schemes on the Snowy which not allows production, but also energy storage by pumping uphill overnight.

Here people have monumental flows and huge height differentials but you are saying that an enormous amount of energy should be allowed to go to waste because fish stocks MIGHT be affected. If one species was detrimentally affected, what proof have you that another species would not then take over that habitat?

There is no proof. That's the problem in a nutshell. None has bothered to check. It's a complex system, with water flowing in and out of Tonle Sap, depending on the season. 40-50 million people to a large degree depend on this water and the fish that lives there. They mostly live in Cambodia and Vietnam. If they are negatively affected, do you think the Thai and Lao governments will pay compensation? Industries in Thailand and to a certain degree Laos get the advantages, people in Cambodia and Vietnam pay. Is that fair?

The Mekong River Commission was established to deal with matters like these, but when powerful people get drugged by the smell of money, they don't seem to care. If you think luxury shopping malls in Bangkok are more important than the livelihood of tens of millions of people, by all means, you are entitled to your meanings, but sustainable, it is not.

There is no proof. Assume the worst. Do not go forward. Do not pass GO! Do not collect the rewards. Ned Ludd would be proud.

[zakk9]

Sorry that I didn't live near a dam more suitable for comparison. But most of the same old arguments were used, people have to move, fish will be affected, Maitland's flood plains won't get any silt, and the biggie then - we'll all be killed when it collapses. BS one and all.

Oz has little water and even less high ground, yet we still have one of the world's best hydro schemes on the Snowy which not allows production, but also energy storage by pumping uphill overnight.

Here people have monumental flows and huge height differentials but you are saying that an enormous amount of energy should be allowed to go to waste because fish stocks MIGHT be affected. If one species was detrimentally affected, what proof have you that another species would not then take over that habitat?

There is no proof. That's the problem in a nutshell. None has bothered to check. It's a complex system, with water flowing in and out of Tonle Sap, depending on the season. 40-50 million people to a large degree depend on this water and the fish that lives there. They mostly live in Cambodia and Vietnam. If they are negatively affected, do you think the Thai and Lao governments will pay compensation? Industries in Thailand and to a certain degree Laos get the advantages, people in Cambodia and Vietnam pay. Is that fair?

The Mekong River Commission was established to deal with matters like these, but when powerful people get drugged by the smell of money, they don't seem to care. If you think luxury shopping malls in Bangkok are more important than the livelihood of tens of millions of people, by all means, you are entitled to your meanings, but sustainable, it is not.

There is no proof. Assume the worst. Do not go forward. Do not pass GO! Do not collect the rewards. Ned Ludd would be proud.

Do not plan, do not think, do not care about others. Large parts of this globe have already been destroyed due to human greed and stupidity. A couple of rivers in Southeast Asia don't matter much, do they? Is it ok if I store my garbage in your garden then?

[boomerangutang]

Thailand seems to be completely reliant on the annual monsoon. I dread to think what would happen if one year the monsoon failed. I think it is theoretically possible.

Theoretical possible? As likely as sun rising in the West. Both factually nonsense.

I think also it's possible. Weather can change profoundly - even seasonal patterns. California, right now, is having a drought of Biblical proportions. The Gulf Stream going up to the island of Britain has been maintaining for a long time, but that too could change, and Britain, Scandinavia and northern Europe would chill considerably.

This is very bad news for the ricefarmers.

Think it's time to switch to another crop.

When Thais hear that, they probably think it's an all or nothing scenario. It's not. There will always be rice farmers in Thailand, or at least until Thai bars quit playing Hotel California. The switching can happen incrementally. A Thai farmer with 20 rai could devote 1/4 to rice, 1/4 to fruit or nut trees, 1/4 to avocados or hemp, and 1/4 fallow or partially in veges.

[boomerangutang]

To anyone interested in the 'Brazil Noi' trees I mentioned in an earlier post. Here are some of its attributes:

>>> I've noticed no pest problems. It's a strong grower. Evergreen

>>> easily propagated by rooted branch cutting, or seed

>>> yield nuts by 4th year. Could yield several kilos/tree by 6th or 7th year.

>>> sweet subtle smelling flower is also attractive

>>> nuts are nutritious and similar to brazil nut but smaller. can be eaten raw, but better when roasted. Could also make nut butter.

Anyone interested in some free seed, send me a message with your Thai street address. If anyone wants seedlings, I can supply dozens for cheap. You've heard of Johnny Appleseed? You can call me Boomer Brazil Seed. Not to be confused with Bo Bo Brazil or Haystacks Calhoun (my dad's favorite wrestlers)

[Robby nz]

Always wondered what happened to the 350 billion that the cabinet approved for flood relief (water management) back in 2012 I don't see anywhere that they actually got it, only statements by the minister of finance first that it would be obtained from overseas then later he changed that to obtained locally.

We do know that they got 120 billion and spent it:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/583795-thailands-bt120-billion-anti-flood-budget-exhausted/

BANGKOK, Sept 12 – The government’s Bt120 billion budget for the country’s massive flood prevention scheme has already been distributed to all state agencies concerned, according Deputy Prime Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong.

These so called flood prevention schemes would (should) have in fact been water management which would (should) have included provision for drought years.

There plans were indeed called "Water Management Plans" :

Posted 2012-02-29 05:44:03 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/537014-dams-in-thailand-to-be-kept-50-to-60-full/

BANGKOK: -- The government is adjusting its water-management plan in line with His Majesty's advice and the current situation. Under the new scheme, the volume of water in dams will no longer be kept at or below 45 per cent of their total capacity.

But the chairman of the Water and Flood Management Commission at the time was none other than Plodprasop of 1000 propellers fame so just what happened would be anyone's guess.

On back to the low dam levels. As you can see from the Govt policy the dams were allowed to drop to around 50% of capacity in 2012 to make provision for rain that never came because of the developing El Nino effect which the weather forecasters were warning about at the time.

There has not been enough rain to refill the dams since then and El Nino gets stronger.

[Worried Ayutthayan]

Lowest water levels in Bhumibol for 51 years! The story has just begun!

Interesting blog, unfortunately it died out after three days.

A shame, as I can't find much else on this subject since this announcement in the news on June 14th.

Now more than five months later, we can see several responses were spot-on, and the concern that floods would be back in six weeks was based on ignorance and lack of data.

Some facts (and some projections) for all to consider:

1. Bhumibol was completed in 1964, which is why the news stated "lowest level" in 51 years, at 410 MCM. It is 2015 right?

2. The water levels continued to subside for the next five weeks, reaching a low of 120 MCM of usable water from Bhumibol on June 20th, 2015 (less than 1% of max capacity). Fortunately the rains began and water levels slowly started to climb.

3. True, as some conjectured, the monsoon season was abysmal, at least in the North, Northeast and Central. The west was quite typical, as were the east, and south. North, Northeast, and Central, as of today, Nov 26th, have received water input for the year that is between 30% and 45% of the prior five year average (likely El Nino affect). Don't expect a lot more between now and Dec 31st.

4. As we now end the monsoon and rainy season, the dams are also at an all time low since they started filling Bhumibol in 1964. And yes, it did take six years to fill Bhumibol per Wikipedia.

5. Last year, on Dec 4th, 2014, there was 2,451 MCM of usable water in Bhumibol, and 3,140 MCM in Sirikit. Total available water for release between that date and the next heavy rainfall (that was not absorbed by dry soil, and actually made it to the reservoirs) for all Northern dams combined was 6,685 MCM. Today, per the RID, all Northern Dams combined have 3,728 MCM of available water for release over the coming 8 month long dry season (with Bhumibol at only 1,230 MCM available). This is 45% below the start point for 2015, and we had a serious drought issue published on June 14, 2015. I do not believe this bodes well for the Chao Phraya river, for 2016, based on historical water management performance.

6. Don't count on help from Chollasit as it is a drop in the bucket with only 1,000 MCM max capacity, compared to 23,000 MCM max capacity for Bhumibol and Sirikit combined. Chollasit is also well below average levels.

7. Without proper management, or without a blessing of early and heavy rains/monsoons (aka: 2011), and the Chao Phraya River Basin will be a disaster in May thru July 2016. Proper management means the release of less than 12 MCM per day for the next 8 months.

8. No short term fixes.

9. Others have noted that in November, 2011, that the Northern dams were full. Yes, in fact, they were at 100% of max capacity in November 2011, and still at 99% to start Dec 2011.

10. The dismal water management of 2011, which created the flood, continued in 2012, with the overzealous knee jerk reaction to release 55% of the dams 100% capacity (yes, both Bhumibol and Sirikit). By late July 2012, the water level in Bhumibol was at 45% of capacity, while Sirikit was at 44% of max capacity. With 28% to 30% of max capacity being unusable, as it is below the fully opened spillways, this means that both dams only had approximately 15% of maximum useable capacity in the dams 8 months after the floods of 2011. Amazing Thailand!

11. It is true, the drought of 2015, and the more severe projected drought of 2016, will go down as a direct result of these overzealous heavy releases in 2012.

12. Water is a precious resource, and Thailand wasted a huge reserve available in 2012, as they feared another flood. We simply dumped these precious reserves out to sea.

Water conservation will be critical, management of water releases starting NOW just as critical, while alternate sources of water are paramount. Finally, .... we should all pray for early season monsoons! That will be the only happy ending to this saga.

Worried Ayutthayan