50 Thai provinces warned by DDPM of heavy rains

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, 473geo said:

Maybe I did not explain well enough Rob - or maybe you were looking to disagree

my comment " It becomes apparent that more quality controllable water storage is required" ie building more dams, would indeed serve to negate the gambling on weather patterns and releasing water at the most inopportune times to increase flooding.

 

Also a point not to be missed and frequently made, this time by Lonewolf

"Thais have even forgotton to build their homes on stilts in the last 40 years."

 

Many of the home owners in my area of Issan have raised the floor level their property over the years I have known them, steady away a couple of truck loads of soil a year. Many new homes are built well above 'ground level' in the countryside.

Makes you wonder if these smart guys should perhaps be running the country

 

My points were about pre releasing water instead of getting your hand forced and having to do it at the worst possible time and in even great quantities. I agree about having to build more controllable water storage. That was the whole point of contention 2011 has taught us what happens if you release water too late and at the worst time.

[473geo]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

My points were about pre releasing water instead of getting your hand forced and having to do it at the worst possible time and in even great quantities. I agree about having to build more controllable water storage. That was the whole point of contention 2011 has taught us what happens if you release water too late and at the worst time.

All about timing, requirement, and capacity Rob

pointless having to release water to drain away, due to lack of capacity else why have a dam in the first place?

As I stated, more capacity is required, and I believe was a plan in the pipeline a few years ago? Also maybe China will do the job slowing the Mekong flow?

Perhaps if the flood plain level drops causing more hardship Thailand will build a new reservoir to compensate? Maybe a hydro electric set up?

 

[robblok]

Just now, 473geo said:

All about timing, requirement, and capacity Rob

pointless having to release water to drain away, due to lack of capacity else why have a dam in the first place?

As I stated, more capacity is required, and I believe was a plan in the pipeline a few years ago? Also maybe China will do the job slowing the Mekong flow?

Perhaps if the flood plain level drops causing more hardship Thailand will build a new reservoir to compensate? Maybe a hydro electric set up?

 

Right now we have to make due with the capacity that we have, retaining water and leaving no margin for error causing worse floods (again you ignore the lessons from 2011) is not what we want. Its better to pre release water so we have some spare capacity as we are still in the middle of the rain season.

 

I don't disagree that they have to build on expanding capacity, but as you also stated.. its hard to know where to build those new dams as the weather patterns are changing. 

 

I am constantly amazed at how little is done and how the same measures of closing gaps are bought up year on year and how the same weak spots collapse all the time. I wonder if its lack of funding or corrupt lower officials taking their cut.

[CGW]

3 minutes ago, 473geo said:

All about timing, requirement, and capacity Rob

pointless having to release water to drain away, due to lack of capacity else why have a dam in the first place?

As I stated, more capacity is required, and I believe was a plan in the pipeline a few years ago? Also maybe China will do the job slowing the Mekong flow?

Perhaps if the flood plain level drops causing more hardship Thailand will build a new reservoir to compensate? Maybe a hydro electric set up?

 

This is a common POV, the alternate view is are we not trying to live and farm areas that should just be left alone, building more capacity for storage brings about all sorts of negatives?

[473geo]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Right now we have to make due with the capacity that we have, retaining water and leaving no margin for error causing worse floods (again you ignore the lessons from 2011) is not what we want. Its better to pre release water so we have some spare capacity as we are still in the middle of the rain season.

 

I don't disagree that they have to build on expanding capacity, but as you also stated.. its hard to know where to build those new dams as the weather patterns are changing. 

 

I am constantly amazed at how little is done and how the same measures of closing gaps are bought up year on year and how the same weak spots collapse all the time. I wonder if its lack of funding or corrupt lower officials taking their cut.

 

3 minutes ago, CGW said:

This is a common POV, the alternate view is are we not trying to live and farm areas that should just be left alone, building more capacity for storage brings about all sorts of negatives?

 

I doubt Rob and his pals in Bangkok would agree with your return to nature Dams can actually enhance some environments, and the product i.e. hydro electricity even more so. But yes there are negatives if that would be your focus rather than benefits.

 

[473geo]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

Right now we have to make due with the capacity that we have, retaining water and leaving no margin for error causing worse floods (again you ignore the lessons from 2011) is not what we want. Its better to pre release water so we have some spare capacity as we are still in the middle of the rain season.

 

I don't disagree that they have to build on expanding capacity, but as you also stated.. its hard to know where to build those new dams as the weather patterns are changing. 

 

I am constantly amazed at how little is done and how the same measures of closing gaps are bought up year on year and how the same weak spots collapse all the time. I wonder if its lack of funding or corrupt lower officials taking their cut.

You are waffling on about 2011 Rob this was now 6 years ago and no move to increase storage capacity, only the monkey cheeks flood the poor to save Bangkok solution!

[robblok]

Just now, 473geo said:

You are waffling on about 2011 Rob this was now 6 years ago and no move to increase storage capacity, only the monkey cheeks flood the poor to save Bangkok solution!

Because you forgot 2011... and the reason why it was so bad. The reason was that the government wanted to catch as much water as possible (to save the rice farmers). Then more water came and they had to release at an uncontrollable speed and during the high tides o October (look it up drainage to the sea is far less).

 

This is a lesson well learned that is why they now do controlled releases that do cause harm to some people but spare us from a bigger disaster on the 2011 scale. 

 

I was personally flooded collected all the information here was how it became so bad. There were even news articles stating that the YL government did not release the water to protect the rice, then when they had too it was at a far greater discharge rate and in October when drainage to the sea was at its lowest.

 

That is not waffling that is learning from experience. The monkey cheeks are a good solution but more is needed. YL did squat about it all.. and neither did Prayut do much. So I am not blaming any particular goverment for what is happening now. But I do about 2011. 

 

Again I agree that new water storage capacity should be created.. I only disagree with your unfounded ideas about not releasing water as not to having to do it later at a higher rate and when there is less drainage capacity. 

[473geo]

Just now, robblok said:

Because you forgot 2011... and the reason why it was so bad. The reason was that the government wanted to catch as much water as possible (to save the rice farmers). Then more water came and they had to release at an uncontrollable speed and during the high tides o October (look it up drainage to the sea is far less).

 

This is a lesson well learned that is why they now do controlled releases that do cause harm to some people but spare us from a bigger disaster on the 2011 scale. 

 

I was personally flooded collected all the information here was how it became so bad. There were even news articles stating that the YL government did not release the water to protect the rice, then when they had too it was at a far greater discharge rate and in October when drainage to the sea was at its lowest.

 

That is not waffling that is learning from experience. The monkey cheeks are a good solution but more is needed. YL did squat about it all.. and neither did Prayut do much. So I am not blaming any particular goverment for what is happening now. But I do about 2011. 

 

Again I agree that new water storage capacity should be created.. I only disagree with your unfounded ideas about not releasing water as not to having to do it later at a higher rate and when there is less drainage capacity. 

No you are waffling Rob you are trying to make political gain and air your views on 2011. We are in agreement regarding more capacity, we are in agreement about limited progress, and you are labouring some point about releasing water which I understand, but if there is a requirement for more water then this, pouring away methodology should be addressed No?

[CGW]

20 minutes ago, 473geo said:

 

 

I doubt Rob and his pals in Bangkok would agree with your return to nature Dams can actually enhance some environments, and the product i.e. hydro electricity even more so. But yes there are negatives if that would be your focus rather than benefits.

 

On a "high' level doubtless there are benefits & if you are not one of those affected by the negatives your POV is understandable. At the end of the day there is no guaranteed solution! we live in a world where there are too many people, trying to tame an ever changing nature in the long term is rarely if ever successful.

[473geo]

1 minute ago, CGW said:

On a "high' level doubtless there are benefits & if you are not one of those affected by the negatives your POV is understandable. At the end of the day there is no guaranteed solution! we live in a world where there are too many people, trying to tame an ever changing nature in the long term is rarely if ever successful.

Where ever a dam is constructed there is impact on the region,  and always resistance to change,however I was raised in an area where there are 5 reservoirs within a 15 mile radius, there was of course displacement, those concerned were compensated, and of course years on, the now underwater communities are forgotten. Just an old stone bridge that appears when one dam is really low serves as a reminder.

The environment has recovered and the reservoirs are more and more seen as a thing of almost natural beauty.

Disappointing not one of them turns hydro power units.

 

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, 473geo said:

No you are waffling Rob you are trying to make political gain and air your views on 2011. We are in agreement regarding more capacity, we are in agreement about limited progress, and you are labouring some point about releasing water which I understand, but if there is a requirement for more water then this, pouring away methodology should be addressed No?

At first I did not want to make political gain about this, called it the goverment but your denial of exacerbating  circumstances made me feel you wanted to ignore it because by doing so you would have to accept YL made mistake. 

 

Pouring water away to keep a safe limit as not to have to pour water away later is a wise move one the general has learned from 2011. I agree as much water as possible has to be saved but not at the risk of making things worse flooding wise. 

 

I guess you don't understand or because of your political alliance does not want to understand that its safer and better to release a minimum amount of water so there is still room for more (and given the rain season is not over its likely more will come).

 

Its better to flood only a little bit of land then all of it in a try to save it all and taking risks that could make things far worse.

[473geo]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

At first I did not want to make political gain about this, called it the goverment but your denial of exacerbating  circumstances made me feel you wanted to ignore it because by doing so you would have to accept YL made mistake. 

 

Pouring water away to keep a safe limit as not to have to pour water away later is a wise move one the general has learned from 2011. I agree as much water as possible has to be saved but not at the risk of making things worse flooding wise. 

 

I guess you don't understand or because of your political alliance does not want to understand that its safer and better to release a minimum amount of water so there is still room for more (and given the rain season is not over its likely more will come).

 

Its better to flood only a little bit of land then all of it in a try to save it all and taking risks that could make things far worse.

 

"Its better to flood only a little bit of land then all of it in a try to save it all and taking risks that could make things far worse".

 

Yep it is called building a dam Rob

[quadperfect]

Why not just say may 1 to january 1 weather will be 0 to 100 percent wet dependi g on province .Possible flooding can occure at any time. When not raining it will be hotter than you remember.

From january to april weather will be mostly fine.

 

 

[473geo]

2 minutes ago, quadperfect said:

Why not just say may 1 to january 1 weather will be 0 to 100 percent wet dependi g on province .Possible flooding can occure at any time. When not raining it will be hotter than you remember.

From january to april weather will be mostly fine.

 

 

And buy/Build your home accordingly

 

Sorted