The Thai government is gearing up to resurrect a substantial 200-billion-baht water management initiative to address the recurring issue of severe flooding in the Yom River basin in the North. This move comes amid a cacophony of voices both for and against the controversial Kaeng Sua Ten Dam plan. Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister, Phumtham Wechayachai, disclosed this ambitious step while distributing 200 relief bags to flood-affected residents in Sukhothai province.
Phumtham revealed his intention to propose to the cabinet next Tuesday, making water management a national priority with a hefty budget of 200 billion baht. This blueprint was initially set in motion by the Yingluck Shinawatra administration but got sidelined due to a coup.
Recent torrential downpours in Chiang Rai, Nan, and Phrae have dramatically increased water volumes flowing into downstream provinces like Sukhothai and Phitsanulok, exacerbating the urgency of this initiative. The Yom River, which originates in the Phi Pan Nam Range in Phayao province’s Pong district, serves as a vital water resource for Phrae and Sukhothai before merging with the Nan River at Chum Saeng district in Nakhon Sawan.
“If we have everyone’s consensus, the government would reconsider and devise a plan to ensure that the Yom River possesses flood storage areas akin to those for the Ping, Wang, and Nan rivers,” Phumtham elaborated. He emphasized that opposition voices should engage in dialogue with those who are currently suffering from floods, insisting, “The voices of flood victims matter.”
Phumtham had previously discussed this water management strategy during a trip to Nan province, where he assessed flood relief operations and delivered supplies to the afflicted. He mentioned that once the new government is in place, this crucial project will be presented for further consideration.
Last week, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra recommended at a local forum that the new government should focus on several “megaprojects,” especially those aimed at resolving the nation’s chronic flooding and drought issues. Meanwhile, former Deputy Prime Minister Plodprasop Suraswadi advocated for the construction of the Kaeng Sua Ten Dam in Phrae to curb flooding in the North.
Plodprasop shared his insights on Facebook, pointing out that Phayao, Nan, and Phrae received an astonishing 500-700 millimeters of rain within just five days. This equates to a staggering five billion cubic meters of water, flowing through the Yom River in Phrae at a rate of 1,700 cubic meters per second.
He criticized the current measures in Sukhothai, where authorities opted to erect soil barriers or concrete walls alongside the riverbanks with minimal structural reinforcement, particularly at the foundation. While these walls may offer some protection if water levels do not skyrocket, controlling overflow becomes a herculean task if levels rise too high.
The strong water currents, especially at river bends, have caused several walls along the Yom River in Sukhothai to crack, posing a significant risk to the community if they were to collapse, Plodprasop warned. He argued for an immediate water diversion initiative using the Had Saphan Chan water gate over a 30-kilometer distance within the next year, cautioning that similar flooding may recur next year otherwise.
However, not everyone is on board with the dam construction. Hannarong Yaowalers, chairman of the Foundation for Integration of Water Management, opposed the idea, stressing, “Anyone who believes the Kaeng Sua Ten Dam should be built needs to understand the issue thoroughly.”
Hannarong highlighted that while the planned dam aims to hold 1,175 million cubic meters of water, a feasibility study indicates a potential flooding area of 45,625 rai. He referenced research suggesting the area could extend to 65,625 rai—a discrepancy of 20,000 rai. Given the study is over 30 years old, he urged for a new examination to account for present-day data.
Why are we still debating this dam when it’s been stalled for over 30 years? Seems like it’s time to move forward and actually get something done.
Because dams destroy ecosystems and displace communities! We need sustainable solutions, not outdated megaprojects!
Sustainable solutions are great in theory, but what do we do about the people suffering from floods right now? Immediate action is necessary.
Absolutely, make something happen! Tired of endless debates.
This water management plan is just going to be another big waste of taxpayer money.
How can you say that? Properly managing water resources is essential! People’s homes and lives are at stake.
We’ve heard these promises before. I’ll believe it when I see real, effective results, not more bureaucratic red tape.
Agree! Politicians always find ways to line their pockets with these ‘initiatives’.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Corruption is a problem, sure, but doing nothing isn’t an option either.
A 30-year-old feasibility study? Really? We need up-to-date scientific data before embarking on such a massive project.
Sometimes old studies are still valid. Not everything needs to be redone if the fundamentals haven’t changed.
The fundamentals do change! Climate patterns shift, population dynamics change. Ignoring new data is irresponsible.
Imagine waiting 30 years for something to be done and then being told we need to wait for another study. Frustrating!
It’s more frustrating to waste billions on an ineffective solution. Let’s make decisions based on facts, not frustration.
Dams are not the answer! We need to look at natural flood management techniques like reforestation and wetland restoration.
Idealistic but not practical for the volume of water we’re dealing with. We need infrastructure.
Sustainable methods can work on a large scale if given the proper investment and planning.
Can’t we do both? Build some infrastructure while also investing in natural methods?
It’s a compromise, sure, but history shows that once we start down the infrastructure path, nature often takes a backseat.
In the real world, though, compromises are necessary. The situation is dire.
This initiative could provide a significant economic boost through job creation. Why is there so much negativity around it?
Because these ‘boosts’ often benefit the few and leave the rest of us with the bill.
It’s not perfect, but job creation and infrastructure investment are necessary for long-term growth.
What about the environmental impact? No one seems to be addressing that adequately.
Environmental impact assessments are part of the planning process. It’s not being ignored.
Too often those assessments are just a formality and don’t result in meaningful changes.
As someone from the flood-prone area, I’m desperate for any solution that works. The devastation is real.
I feel for you, but we need a solution that won’t create even bigger problems down the line.
Understandably, but when your home gets destroyed every year, you become willing to try anything.
Why not focus on smart irrigation systems and better water management technology? We’re in the 21st century, after all.
Technology alone can’t handle extreme weather events like the ones we’re seeing. Infrastructure is still necessary.
Tech is part of the infrastructure! We’re not replacing, just upgrading and integrating better solutions.
We should be more focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies rather than just reacting to disasters.
Prevention is ideal, but when homes are underwater, immediate reactions are also necessary.
What about the indigenous communities in the proposed dam area? They’ve been ignored for too long.
Indigenous rights are always overlooked in these big projects. It’s a disgrace.
Groundwater recharge strategies and rainwater harvesting should be part of the plan too.
Totally agree! We need a multi-pronged approach that includes various methods.
Relief bags? Really? Isn’t that just a band-aid solution? It’s time we think bigger.
Band-aid solutions are at least better than nothing. It’s a stop-gap, not the end game.
We shouldn’t settle for stop-gaps when permanent solutions are desperately needed.
Do we even have enough data on water flow and flood patterns to create an effective management plan?
Good point. Accurate data is crucial, yet often hard to get.