Overall maybe not but for some people I am sure its just as bad. Those people happen to be the farmers who always get flooded, not by nature, but by government choosing them over the people downstream.  It would be nice if the government choose them to use more of the nation's wealth on rather than the people downstream. I'm sure they aren't happy to be flooded as they know, they won't gain any benefits from it. Meanwhile Bangkok gets more and more tax dollars to make Bangkok even better with new trains and wonderful waterfront properties, etc. How about spending more money to make the force-flooded communities have better schools, hospitals and roads than the people in Bangkok. It wouldn't take much. If the rural people really saw the big picture, I'm sure a lot of them would question why they are even Thai since there really is very little benefit in it for them. They just get used and forgotten while Bangkok is always first and always gets better treatment from the government that should be treating all people equally. This regime needs to do more, something special, for the people getting drowned to save Bangkok once again. Until it does, the government's actions are more of a crime than a solution.

When will you learn

This is NOT flood water, simply rain water waiting to drain away 

I dont think it will reach the expectations of 2011. What i personally think is important is why the government that cares SOoooo much about its people is doing nothing to protect the people from buying more and more properties and buliding in bkk when its sinking. Its not just some parts just some more than others more rapidly and lets face it the oceans not getting lower.

I rented a nice house in ratburanah for a while. The land sank 8inches in just under a year. Within 2months i couldnt drive my car in the driveway without it scraping. From scientific studies my wife and i manged to lick over we read one statement that stated that in 5years that area, our rented house would be underwater for most of the year and under in 10... We were about to buy it as an investment. Lucky to avoid that disaster.... There is occasional stories about this sinking and oceans rising but the fact of the matter is bangkok doesnt need a sub. It needs a wall! Or better still relocate. Its also delightfully refreshing for the powers that be to really show no shame or guilt and only think about themselves and the here and now. My wifes parents house floods every year. Too stubborn and proud to move. How anyone is ok sleeping whilst turds are floating around them is mental!

That movie shows the dams are only half full now, then why are they increasing the waterflow by opening them???

14 minutes ago, fruitman said:

That movie shows the dams are only half full now, then why are they increasing the waterflow by opening them???

Dam walls probably cant take it? Another cheap labored job perhaps. Thats all i have been pondering about this. Makes no sense otherwise.

A mate who lives on the Ping River rang me yesterday to say a wall of water had just gone down the Wang river valley taking trees houses and all kinds of stuff with it. This is the same valley which was devastated by floods last month with bridges washed away and landslides and that water ended up in the central provinces which are now flooding. This new deluge will only add to the flood waters so if it continues like this then there could be big problems downstream. If anyone believes that 'global warming' isn't real then think again, the extreme weather patterns are happening now and will only get worst over time.

Bangkok is built on a river delta. It has always flooded, will always flood and anybody who believes there is a solution to control it, stop it or mitigate the damage to anything other than a minor, insignificant extent is living in fantasy land.

 

Some years due to seasonal variation , timIng and locations of higher intensity rain floods will be minor and others major and future flooding under the rght conditins will be far worse than ever experienced.

46 minutes ago, fruitman said:

That movie shows the dams are only half full now, then why are they increasing the waterflow by opening them???

 

They wanna drown the poor provinces on purpose to save BKK

35 minutes ago, MaxLee said:

 

They wanna drown the poor provinces on purpose to save BKK

 

Guess what? Bangkok is downstream at the lowest end...

 

Some dams were at 108% i saw in that movie, i also wonder how that's possible but maybe it is.

It's also possible the dams are cracking so the waterlevel has to be lowered, i don't know but they do have warningsystems for cracks.

 

They have to build floodingarea's and use them in periods like this. People who build houses in them will see them go floating to the sea so that should be prohibited.

 

Oh well, the Thai never learn from any mistakes so it is what it is. We got 20.000 baht in 2011 for the damage iirc. The damage was far above that though...time to buy a 4wd i would think and a rubberboat on the roof just in case.

6 hours ago, Alive said:

Overall maybe not but for some people I am sure its just as bad. Those people happen to be the farmers who always get flooded, not by nature, but by government choosing them over the people downstream.  It would be nice if the government choose them to use more of the nation's wealth on rather than the people downstream. I'm sure they aren't happy to be flooded as they know, they won't gain any benefits from it. Meanwhile Bangkok gets more and more tax dollars to make Bangkok even better with new trains and wonderful waterfront properties, etc. How about spending more money to make the force-flooded communities have better schools, hospitals and roads than the people in Bangkok. It wouldn't take much. If the rural people really saw the big picture, I'm sure a lot of them would question why they are even Thai since there really is very little benefit in it for them. They just get used and forgotten while Bangkok is always first and always gets better treatment from the government that should be treating all people equally. This regime needs to do more, something special, for the people getting drowned to save Bangkok once again. Until it does, the government's actions are more of a crime than a solution.

The answer was given recently..

Although we have had a decent amount of rain in the North this year we have had nowhere near as much as we had in 2011, and that is the reason why Bangkok will not suffer the kind of flooding they did in 2011.   In 2011 it started raining in March and continued in large volumes until October.  All that water ran South and glub glub !

Will prayuth be held personally responsible as he holds Yingluk responsible for the last floods or does the amnesty also exonerate him from flooding the country

9 hours ago, Alive said:

Overall maybe not but for some people I am sure its just as bad. Those people happen to be the farmers who always get flooded, not by nature, but by government choosing them over the people downstream.  It would be nice if the government choose them to use more of the nation's wealth on rather than the people downstream. I'm sure they aren't happy to be flooded as they know, they won't gain any benefits from it. Meanwhile Bangkok gets more and more tax dollars to make Bangkok even better with new trains and wonderful waterfront properties, etc. How about spending more money to make the force-flooded communities have better schools, hospitals and roads than the people in Bangkok. It wouldn't take much. If the rural people really saw the big picture, I'm sure a lot of them would question why they are even Thai since there really is very little benefit in it for them. They just get used and forgotten while Bangkok is always first and always gets better treatment from the government that should be treating all people equally. This regime needs to do more, something special, for the people getting drowned to save Bangkok once again. Until it does, the government's actions are more of a crime than a solution.

 

3 hours ago, swissbie said:

The answer was given recently..

 

For you guys who live South of the Wall...  You know nothing, Jon Snow.

7 hours ago, Reigntax said:

Bangkok is built on a river delta. It has always flooded, will always flood and anybody who believes there is a solution to control it, stop it or mitigate the damage to anything other than a minor, insignificant extent is living in fantasy land.

 

Some years due to seasonal variation , timIng and locations of higher intensity rain floods will be minor and others major and future flooding under the rght conditins will be far worse than ever experienced.

 

It is possible to stop Bangkok from flooding. To do so you have to flood somewhere else though. Dammed if you do dammed if you don't. If it comes down to it though it won't be central Bangkok that suffers. 

They are much smarter this time around then in 2011. They started to drain water early instead of waiting for political reasons. Thus the scope of the flooding is limited. Anyone disputing that should see the difference the 200CU per hour extra discharge makes (as you see in the news just a bit extra discharge makes it a lot worse). just imagine how much extra water could have been drained if they started earlier.  Combine this with a bit less rain and you get a bad flooding but not 2011 scale

Yesterday (Thursday) the river was the highest I have seen it since 2011. Today it is higher again. 

 

The level right now is only about 90cm lower than the absolute peak in 2011.

 

I'm not saying that it is a disaster yet. It isn't. But there are for sure lots of people in Nonthaburi, Samut Prakarn and Bangkok (outside the flood walls) that are flooded now.

 

Probably not going to make the news today though.

Will Bangkok get flooded,let's hope so the same as the farmers.