Jakawal passionately argued during the session that Sukhothai’s predicament is largely due to its inadequate watergate infrastructure. He painted a vivid picture of the alarming water influx from the Nan, Phayao, Uttaradit, and Phrae provinces, which gushes into Sukhothai at an astounding rate of 1.7 billion cubic meters per second. This staggering volume of water is simply too much for the province’s existing single watergate to manage, let alone control to minimize damage.
“We are facing a crisis here. Sukhothai’s lone watergate is overwhelmed. We usually have trouble even with a flow rate of 1.2 billion cubic meters per second, but this year’s peak at 1.7 billion has thrown us into chaos,” Jakawal explained with evident concern. He emphasized the dire lack of dykes and underscored the urgent requirement for sufficient funding to enable the Royal Irrigation Department to construct four new watergates in the province. This has been his unwavering request in the House.
However, while Jakawal’s focus lies with resolving Sukhothai’s water management issue, he didn’t forget the human aspect involved in the Kaeng Suea Ten Dam project. He acknowledged the repercussions it would have on the local population in the Kaeng Suea Ten area. Recognizing that the dam construction would inevitably displace many residents, he assured that there would be comprehensive measures to provide new homes and sustainable livelihoods for those affected.
Meanwhile, the sentiment in Phrae, particularly in tambon Sa Iap of the Song district, couldn’t be more different. Local opposition to the dam project is strong and vocal. Seng Kwanyuen, a former village headman and the current leader of the anti-Kaeng Suea Ten Dam group, criticized the gargantuan budget of 100 to 200 million baht earmarked for dam construction as not just wasteful but misplaced.
Segn’s perspective is rooted in a pragmatic approach, suggesting that the same funds could instead be channeled into smaller, community-driven projects that aim to tackle the problem at its source. “If we invest in upstream solutions to block the water where it begins, we can resolve the issue more efficiently and without displacing people. Big dam projects gloss over the real, localized, and often simpler remedies,” Seng argued.
The debate is poised to continue, as both sides present compelling arguments. On one hand, Jakawal’s appeal prioritizes enhanced infrastructure, long-term planning, and safety for the broader Sukhothai region. On the other, Seng champions smaller-scale, cost-effective, community-focused solutions that promise to be both effective and socially responsible. The challenge will be in finding a balanced solution that aligns the needs of the many with the rights of the few.
Jakawal’s plan is short-sighted. A dam will destroy the lives of too many people in Phrae.
I disagree. The dam will bring long-term benefits to Sukhothai by managing the floodwaters effectively.
But why should Phrae pay the price? They need a solution that won’t displace families.
Daniel, Phrae’s current situation isn’t sustainable either. Smaller solutions might not be enough.
Sustainable? The environmental impact alone should make us pause. We need to explore alternatives.
If the dam proposal has even a 10% chance to solve flooding, isn’t it worth it?
Not if it means displacing entire communities. That’s just too high a cost.
I understand, but floods also devastate communities. We need a sacrifice for the greater good.
Greater good for whom? Sacrificing Phrae to save Sukhothai isn’t fair!
It’s all about priorities. Do we care more about people or infrastructure?
Infrastructure can save lives in the long run. It’s not an easy choice but necessary.
Prioritize people! Focus on smaller, community-driven solutions like Seng suggests.
Jakawal is looking at the bigger picture. Flooding is a massive issue that needs strong actions.
I think Seng is right. Smaller projects could be more efficient and humane.
Smaller projects are great but are they enough? The numbers are daunting.
This isn’t just about water management. It’s about social justice. We can’t ignore the displaced people.
Exactly. It’s always the marginalized who get the short end of the stick.
But ignoring infrastructure could also result in social injustice. It’s a complex issue.
Complex indeed. But simplicity or feasibility shouldn’t override human rights.
100 million baht is a huge waste on an outdated method like a dam.
Let’s invest in modern water management technologies and avoid the dam altogether.
Modern tech might not be scalable for such a large volume of water.
Perhaps, but with proper research and funding, we could find a better solution than displacing people.
Maybe we can find a middle ground—improve water management in both Phrae and Sukhothai.
Why aren’t we looking at renewable solutions like advanced flood plain management?
Good point, Tony. Modern, renewable solutions are often overlooked.
Does anyone know if there’s been any environmental impact assessment yet?
Both sides raise valid points. Balancing the needs of communities and infrastructure is tough.
True, but maybe more community involvement could help create a balanced plan.
It’s fascinating how quick we are to think huge projects solve everything. Seng’s approach is more practical.