On a sunny Sunday, around 150 spirited residents from Tambon Sa-Ieab in Phrae’s Song district came together to vocally oppose the proposed Kaeng Sue Ten dam. Their main concern? The project threatens to disrupt thousands of households and annihilate over 10,000 rai of lush, prime forest. The protest, which took place at the tranquil Wat Sri Don Chai temple, saw impassioned speeches denouncing politicians eager to revisit the dam plan in the wake of recent floods.
Leading the charge was Nattapakul Srikhampha, the vibrant chief of the Sa-Ieab Tambon Administrative Organisation. Energized and unyielding, Nattapakul expressed deep concerns over the caretaker deputy prime minister Phumtham Wechayachai’s plan to revive a colossal 200-billion-baht water management project to alleviate flooding in the Yom River basin. Similarly, he critiqued former deputy prime minister Plodprasop Suraswadi’s suggestion to green-light the Kaeng Sue Ten dam.
With conviction, Mr. Nattapakul articulated to the assembly and reporters why the villagers oppose the dam. At the heart of their resistance is the potential devastation of over 10,000 rai of pristine golden teak forest and the disruption it would bring to thousands of households. He referenced a comprehensive study by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that revealed the dam would only reduce flooding in the Yom River basin by a mere 8%, a negligible benefit when weighed against the incontrovertible ecological harm.
Furthermore, the study noted that the dam might block the flow of 11 tributaries, but this action would prove futile against the 66 other tributaries situated downstream. The construction, they fear, would wreak havoc on an enormous swath of forest—between 40,000 to 60,000 rai—and could paradoxically exacerbate both droughts and floods, thus threatening not just the environment but also the local communities’ livelihoods.
“Building the dam on a fault line,” warned Mr. Nattapakul, “could spell disaster.” A potential dam breach would spell catastrophe for provinces like Phrae, Sukhothai, Phitsanulok, and Nakhon Sawan, among others. His words echoed the collective anxiety of the gathering—anxiety that the villagers implored the government to heed. They pressed for innovative and sustainable water management solutions, ones that respect nature rather than clash with it.
Adding fervor to the cause, another leading voice, Prasitphon Kala-onsri, vowed relentless resistance. Residents from villages like Don Chai, Mae Ten, Don Kaew, and Don Chai Sakthong pledged to persevere in their fight against the dam. They called on the government to abandon the outdated, environmentally destructive project, advocating instead for progressive and sustainable alternatives to manage flooding throughout the Yom River basin.
“Mark your calendars,” Prasitphon urged, “on September 7, we rally again!” It was a call to arms for the community to continue their peaceful protest.
As the sun set on Sunday, the protests were underscored by fresh reports of flooding across three northern provinces and one northeastern province in Thailand. Floodwaters, though starting to recede in areas like Chiang Rai, Sukhothai, and Nong Khai, were on the rise in Phitsanulok. Persistent rain had transformed otherwise serene landscapes into waterlogged battlegrounds.
Chaiwat Chuntirapong, the vigilant director-general of the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, said the relentless downpour affected 3,979 families across 223 villages in these regions. Since mid-August, floodwaters had wreaked havoc across 23 provinces and resulted in the tragic loss of 22 lives. The impacted areas spanned districts including Khun Tan, Phaya Mengrai, Thoeng, and Wiang Kaen in Chiang Rai; Bang Rakam and Phrom Phiram in Phitsanulok; Kong Krailat, Muang, Sawankhalok, Sri Nakhon, Sri Samrong, and Sri Satchanalai in Sukhothai; and Muang, Ratana Wapi, Sangkhom, Sri Chiang Mai, and Tha Bo in Nong Khai.
The atmospheric tension and the tangible resolve of the protesters paint a poignant picture of a community at odds with an unwelcome future. As they brace themselves for the next wave of water—and resistance—their voices resonate with a singular, powerful message: the fight for their land and heritage is far from over.
I think the residents have every right to protest. Destroying 10,000 rai of forest for a mere 8% flood reduction is just absurd!
But what about the thousands of families affected by the flooding? They need a solution too.
There are better solutions out there that don’t destroy the environment. We just need political will to implement them.
Exactly, sustainable alternatives exist that can manage flooding without such devastating consequences.
Rainwater harvesting and wetland restoration could be key. They’re effective and eco-friendly.
Let’s not be too quick to dismiss infrastructure projects. Properly managed, they can bring a lot of benefits.
Isn’t it ironic how they oppose the dam but complain about flooding? You can’t have it both ways.
The dam wouldn’t solve the flooding problem! It could actually make things worse by disrupting natural water flow.
Not to mention the risk of building on a fault line. If it breaks, the damage would be catastrophic.
The fight isn’t just about the dam; it’s about protecting a community’s heritage and way of life.
This project is necessary for progress! Sacrifices have to be made for the greater good.
Progress at the expense of the environment isn’t true progress. It’s a step backward.
Exactly. There are smarter ways to handle this that don’t ruin natural habitats and displace people.
If the study shows only 8% flood reduction, the dam seems like a huge waste of resources. Why not invest in tech solutions like weather modification?
Weather modification is still mostly theoretical and could have unpredictable side effects. Not a reliable solution.
We need to respect nature’s balance. Such massive projects always end up causing more harm than good.
Why aren’t we talking about the economic impact? Destroying forests and relocating thousands comes with a heavy financial price that nobody seems to discuss.
True, and it’s usually the local communities who bear the brunt of these costs, not the politicians or developers.
Exactly, it’s as if they don’t even factor those costs into their plans.
I understand the concerns but managing floods is crucial. If not dams, then what’s the alternative?
How about building more reservoirs and focusing on watershed management? Those are proven methods.
The impact of losing 10,000 rai of golden teak forest is irreversible. We must protect our natural heritage.
This dam is just another example of outsiders deciding what’s best for our community without listening to us.
Why not have an independent assessment by international experts? That would provide a more balanced view.
We will not back down! Our heritage and future are more important than some politicians’ ambitions.
Having lived through the floods, I still believe we need a different solution. Dams are outdated tech in 2023.
Planting more trees and restoring ecosystems can naturally mitigate flood risks. Nature knows best.
I agree with EcoFriendly. Nature-based solutions often outperform man-made ones in the long run.
Maybe a public referendum should decide the fate of the dam. Let the people vote.
Every time we destroy a forest, we lose biodiversity. This has long-term consequences that many don’t see immediately.
Visited the area last year. It’s pristine and beautiful. Can’t imagine it being underwater.
If they can show this dam’s true benefits outweigh the costs, then maybe. But right now, the math doesn’t add up.
It would be great if media covered more success stories of sustainable flood management elsewhere in the world.