Flooding – dam incompetence

Impetus

Markcheese wrote: »

What would reinstating the weir and fixing up the canals do ?? ( I thought the weir was still there ?? )

One of the weirs is actually forcing water into the low capacity South channel. If anything, that weir needs to be partially broken to cause less water to flow into the South channel, and instead use the North channel. No reinstatement of any of the weirs is required. It is a matter of removing the blockages.

Impetus

There is an open source modelling software program called Kalypso, downloadable free from SourceForge. It has six modules:

• Kalypso Hydrology (rainfall-runoff simulation)
• Kalypso WSPM (one-dimensional steady hydrodynamic simulation)
• Kalypso 1D/2D (coupled one- and two-dimensional unsteady hydrodynamic simulation)
• Kalypso Flood (flood mapping tool)
• Kalypso Risk (flood risk assessment tool)
• Kalypso Evacuation (evacuation strategy tool)

It was developed in association with Hamburg University of Technology.

Descriptive article taken from GeoInformatics magazine: http://www.bjoernsen.de/uploads/media/geoinformatics_2009.pdf

http://kalypso.bjoernsen.de/index.php?id=382&L=1

Download link: http://sourceforge.net/projects/kalypso/

It is a mature product, current version 15.1.1

Impetus

EU directive 2007/60/EC requires the government to make flood risk assessments (article 4) , and Article 7 of the directive requires a flood risk management plan to be prepared.

In the case of the River Lee, I see no evidence that the government has complied with this directive. I have no doubt but that the Shannon has similarly been neglected by the State.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060&from=EN

Markcheese

Impetus wrote:

One of the weirs is actually forcing water into the low capacity South channel. If anything, that weir needs to be partially broken to cause less water to flow into the South channel, and instead use the North channel. No reinstatement of any of the weirs is required. It is a matter of removing the blockages.

Sorry ,crossed wires there was referring to hytrogens comments on the ballincolig/ powder mills weir ...
The more control over river flow that the esb / county council / city council have the better.... bbuuuuttttt the more scope for balls up there is ....there'd have to be a combined river lee commission (probably including port of cork ) and if someone is asleep at the wheel during a flood ( as in 09 ) disaster beckons ...

hytrogen

Markcheese wrote: »

What would reinstating the weir and fixing up the canals do ?? ( I thought the weir was still there ?? )

The wier was damaged in the 2009 floods, costed at over €1m to repair and as a result the canals in the regional drained. They are a nice setting but also could be reassigned to a flood relief support mechanism as well as a navigable tourist attraction to repay the costs of investment.

Impetus

Markcheese wrote: »

The more control over river flow that the esb / county council / city council have the better.... bbuuuuttttt the more scope for balls up there is ....there'd have to be a combined river lee commission (probably including port of cork ) and if someone is asleep at the wheel during a flood ( as in 09 ) disaster beckons ...

It smells like a 'committee' (ESB, County and City councils, port of Cork) rather than any one individual taking responsibility and making decisions. If every business was run that way, the world would be as poor and dysfunctional as the worst off state in Africa.

Whoever is sleeping at the wheel was allowing the river level to go below 2.8m at the Maltings reference point up to low tide (PM) on 30.12.2015. Since then they have not left it fall below 3.4m, with the exception of New Year's night when somebody was back on the Champagne, and the river level was allowed to fall to 3.2m. The reduction in minimum river level allowed the discharge of larger quantities of water. But that did not happen until the N22 and Lee Road were both flooded.

http://77.74.50.157/cfw/

The basic physical resources are present. All it needs is management of the river system that is not asleep, clear responsibility to an accountable person, and high resolution data on water levels with multiple sensors and access to 10 day rainfall forecasts, and the authority to tell the ESB or any other power generator when they can open and close their sluice gates.

It is no different to the poorly configured traffic light management system. Every road user with anything between their ears can see all the wasted junction time by needlessly prolonged red lights. Phase times should be driven by traffic movements, or better still no phase times and the control system just reacts second by second, based on an algorithm. Pedestrian crossing phases operating, when nobody is crossing, can reduce junction capacity by 25% or so. River flooding and traffic management are very similar concepts. As are traffic accident management policies. In Ireland, if there is an accident on a busy road (eg M50, N7 etc), everything grinds to a halt for several hours. In other parts of Europe a cop is dispatched on a motorbike, with a can of fluorescent yellow spray paint so he can spray the road to mark the position of the evidence (vehicles etc). The cars are then moved to a safe place and the traffic continues to flow.

Ireland suffers from 'government' by rigor mortis.

Markcheese

To be fair the carrigrohane staight and lee road flooding for a few days - meh -(as long the houses in the area are ok )
If you increase the flow from the dam above river bank level , it's a flood..
I don't doubt that the flow levels could be managed a lot better (hopefully without a quango) --but to be fair the lee hasnt done much damage in these floods.. to date..

Impetus

Markcheese wrote: »

To be fair the carrigrohane staight and lee road flooding for a few days - meh -(as long the houses in the area are ok )
If you increase the flow from the dam above river bank level , it's a flood..
I don't doubt that the flow levels could be managed a lot better (hopefully without a quango) --but to be fair the lee hasnt done much damage in these floods.. to date..

The Lee fields are a flood plain. Better to flood upstream and store the rainfall, releasing it as fast as the river system can handle it.

A chain of priorities

1. Avoid city centre flooding (a last resort, as was abused in 2009)
2. Avoid Lee fields flooding beyond the grass area
3. Avoid excess water levels above 90% capacity in the most upstream reservoir.
4. Avoid/minimise the need to rent flood land from land owners.

The system should be engineered to reduce the risk of damage to the city with 99.999% chance of success. The reservoirs only have a storage capacity of about 45 million m3 of water, leaving little margin for error. Renting floodable land from land owners could increase the capacity to 60 million m3 or so.

There is a draft flood risk study on the internet - ie it is only a talking document with no sign-off on how to fix the issue. It refers to a cost of 100 € million for a combined river and sea flooding protection as 'may be prohibitive'. The 2009 floods cost €244 million for Cork and the Shannon region - and the Cork element of this is at a guess around 200 million €.

The report talks about putting a tidal barrier from Monkstown to Great Island, and how this would make the other sea flood protection measures redundant. The report mentions this in the context of Cork city and Midleton. It seems to me that Midleton would remain at sea flood risk because of the second channel between East Ferry and the Great Island.

One has to ask oneself what planet do the people who wrote this draft flood management proposal live on? These floods repeat themselves every few years.

http://www.lee.cfram.com/downloads/documents/REP005_draftFRMP.pdf

(This document does not comply with the EU directive, as it is only in draft form - since 2010. There is no evidence of any plan of action to mitigate the issue. It is no different to a prototype car - it might look good, but you can't go to your local dealer and buy one. The document talks about setting up a virtual talking shop (my words) at leecframs.ie - this URL has no website of its own in 2015, instead it points to the OPW website - the most incompetent, bureaucratic organization in Europe)

Impetus

An article on flooding in today's Irish Times puts a large part of the reason down to a lack of local democracy.

'As flooding gets worse, we will have to spend enormous amounts of money on engineering solutions. But in fact one part of the solution doesn’t cost any money at all. It’s called listening. Or, to give it its political title, it’s called genuine local democracy. Top-down, very expensive technocratic measures may have to be part of the response. But they will only work in a political culture that has eyes to look at the land and ears to listen to what people know about it. '

More:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-genuine-local-democracy-part-of-the-solution-to-flooding-1.2484701

hytrogen

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/former-canals-may-be-useful-in-alleviating-future-flooding-1.2484961

A perhaps unpopular suggestion due to the costs but as the locals suggest every millimeter counts. What Colin Becker may not be quoted on or mentioning is the economic opportunity through tourism and trade of extending the navigation through these derelict parts that could be recouped.

xband

Bear in mind that the height of the river vs its walls at various points isn't he danger point.

Cork City sits on a network of underground rivers that flow under some of the main streets and reclaimed land.

What looks like safe height at the quaysides may not be in the city centre as culverts can cause water to come up from below.

Also, to be fair this time Cork City has (touch wood) remained basically flood free and there has been pretty active management of the dams.

I think though those dams need to be prioritised as flood defences, not power generation. The power generation at times like this should be incidental really. Cost to the economy of a major flood is astronomical compared to the power generated by those dams.

I would rather see them managed by something more like an inland waterways authority.

Impetus

xband wrote: »

Bear in mind that the height of the river vs its walls at various points isn't he danger point.

Cork City sits on a network of underground rivers that flow under some of the main streets and reclaimed land.

What looks like safe height at the quaysides may not be in the city centre as culverts can cause water to come up from below.

Also, to be fair this time Cork City has (touch wood) remained basically flood free and there has been pretty active management of the dams.

I think though those dams need to be prioritised as flood defences, not power generation. The power generation at times like this should be incidental really. Cost to the economy of a major flood is astronomical compared to the power generated by those dams.

I would rather see them managed by something more like an inland waterways authority.

While one agrees with your statement that the dam use should be prioritized as flood defence, I think we have enough "Authorities" in name.

Look at the Dublin Airports Authority - it is an airport operating company, like FRAPort AG in Frankfurt or Flughafen Zürich AG - that should be there to provide a good service to the customer. Every time I arrive at Dublin or Cork airports, both run by DAA, the stench of urine from the 'designed to be dirty', badly maintained toilets is painful. Ireland has some of the dirtiest, most disgusting airport toilets in Europe. First impressions are lasting etc...

The word "authority" goes to peoples' heads and probably distorts their thinking, and it appears to me that it makes them forget their primary duty which, in DAA's case, is to operate a clean, efficient airport with a minimum of delays, with regard for public safety rather than a focus on compliance and robot-ism.

Something like 'Irish Rivers'. The less said the better.

There is no reason why a power station operator should not make 'huge amounts' of hydro power during heavy rain. They just have to recognise that it is coming down faster than they can ‘process’ it. The use of upstream storage, and flood contingency land licensing would increase the overall amount of water available for power generation – because the upstream reserves could be released in a more controlled manner.

Impetus

hytrogen wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/former-canals-may-be-useful-in-alleviating-future-flooding-1.2484961

A perhaps unpopular suggestion due to the costs but as the locals suggest every millimeter counts. What Colin Becker may not be quoted on or mentioning is the economic opportunity through tourism and trade of extending the navigation through these derelict parts that could be recouped.

The problem with tourism, boating and the river Lee is a) in Summer river and reservoir levels can run very low - which would make the choice of boat very limited - beyond a RIB, and b) It is the source of the city's water supply and therefore has to be kept as clean as possible. A dry-ish river is not very attractive to a tourist.

BoatMad

Water extraction and boating are entirely compatible. Every town on the Shannon consumes the river water for drinking and it's the biggest area of pleasure boating in the state.

xband

Impetus wrote: »

While one agrees with your statement that the dam use should be prioritized as flood defence, I think we have enough "Authorities" in name.

Look at the Dublin Airports Authority - it is an airport operating company, like FRAPort AG in Frankfurt or Flughafen Zürich AG - that should be there to provide a good service to the customer. Every time I arrive at Dublin or Cork airports, both run by DAA, the stench of urine from the 'designed to be dirty', badly maintained toilets is painful. Ireland has some of the dirtiest, most disgusting airport toilets in Europe. First impressions are lasting etc...

The word "authority" goes to peoples' heads and probably distorts their thinking, and it appears to me that it makes them forget their primary duty which, in DAA's case, is to operate a clean, efficient airport with a minimum of delays, with regard for public safety rather than a focus on compliance and robot-ism.

Something like 'Irish Rivers'. The less said the better.

There is no reason why a power station operator should not make 'huge amounts' of hydro power during heavy rain. They just have to recognise that it is coming down faster than they can ‘process’ it. The use of upstream storage, and flood contingency land licensing would increase the overall amount of water available for power generation – because the upstream reserves could be released in a more controlled manner.

Someone has never flown through Charles de Gaulle!

Impetus

xband wrote: »

Someone has never flown through Charles de Gaulle!

I fly through CDG frequently. The toilets there are excellent. And I'm not just talking about the three Air France terminals (T2E, T2F and T2G). Even in the crappy T1, as used by Aer Lingus has clean toilets. It seems to me that you haven't been to CDG for five years or so -- at least not to a toilet there.

Impetus

BoatMad wrote: »

Water extraction and boating are entirely compatible. Every town on the Shannon consumes the river water for drinking and it's the biggest area of pleasure boating in the state.

The Shannon is a big river, constantly flowing slowly. The Lee turns into a small river during dry summers (joke). There would be far less dilution in the Lee (of pollutants).

PS have you looked at the water inspection reports for water systems that extract water from the Shannon, and how clean the water is?

BoatMad

Impetus wrote: »

The Shannon is a big river, constantly flowing slowly. The Lee turns into a small river during dry summers (joke). There would be far less dilution in the Lee (of pollutants).

PS have you looked at the water inspection reports for water systems that extract water from the Shannon, and how clean the water is?

Yes. But that is a function of untreated public sewerage and farm runoff

The situation is improving however

BoatMad

Impetus wrote: »

I fly through CDG frequently. The toilets there are excellent. And I'm not just talking about the three Air France terminals (T2E, T2F and T2G). Even in the crappy T1, as used by Aer Lingus has clean toilets. It seems to me that you haven't been to CDG for five years or so -- at least not to a toilet there.

CDG is the biggest dump on the planet. It's a science fiction dytopian fubar

hytrogen

Impetus wrote: »

The problem with tourism, boating and the river Lee is a) in Summer river and reservoir levels can run very low - which would make the choice of boat very limited - beyond a RIB, and b) It is the source of the city's water supply and therefore has to be kept as clean as possible. A dry-ish river is not very attractive to a tourist.

Again the reason the water systems dry up during the summer is again by mismanagement of the reservoirs for the power generation systems. Last summer was probably had the wettest one on record and yet boats were still running aground on the Shannon and canals.
Overall it shows we have severely neglected our waterways over the past century, from building on flood plains to failing to dredge out canals and navigable drainage systems to even basic housekeeping of keeping the bathing water quality in pristine condition by allowing Jolly jack the Sailor bring his new superfast powerboat up a navigation way without scrubbing her hull and therefore contaminating the local eco system with Zebra mussels (Shannon during the Tiger days)

hytrogen

Impetus wrote: »

The Shannon is a big river, constantly flowing slowly. The Lee turns into a small river during dry summers (joke). There would be far less dilution in the Lee (of pollutants).

PS have you looked at the water inspection reports for water systems that extract water from the Shannon, and how clean the water is?

Agreed on the dilution part but there shouldn't be any human Fecal matter found in any of our waterways in the first place had we the correct infrastructures.

Impetus

BoatMad wrote: »

CDG is the biggest dump on the planet. It's a science fiction dytopian fubar

If you don’t like concrete architecture, you won’t like Charles de Gaulle T1. However, it has more direct flights to more locations than any other airport. It was designed from the ground up to have 9 terminals.

They were built over the years and are now in place. It has two railway stations, one of which has TGV service direct to French and Belgian cities without the need for transiting Paris. CDG to Lyon (500km) is about 2h and to Brussels (283 km)is about 1h30 by rail. It has four runways – Dublin has only one, and Heathrow only 2. It has a site of 32 km2, so big that it is in three local authority areas. You can park a car in T2F for example and the walk from your car to the gate is only a few hundred metres. It has an automated train system to take you from long term car parking to the terminals which run every 3 minutes or so.


The Air France terminals 2E, 2F and 2G have probably the best airline lounges in the world, with the best food. I use CDG several times a month.


It is run by ADP, a corporation not an authority.

Can we please move back to back to River flooding in IRL?

xband

Impetus wrote: »

If you don’t like concrete architecture, you won’t like Charles de Gaulle T1. However, it has more direct flights to more locations than any other airport. It was designed from the ground up to have 9 terminals.

They were built over the years and are now in place. It has two railway stations, one of which has TGV service direct to French and Belgian cities without the need for transiting Paris. CDG to Lyon (500km) is about 2h and to Brussels (283 km)is about 1h30 by rail. It has four runways – Dublin has only one, and Heathrow only 2. It has a site of 32 km2, so big that it is in three local authority areas. You can park a car in T2F for example and the walk from your car to the gate is only a few hundred metres. It has an automated train system to take you from long term car parking to the terminals which run every 3 minutes or so.


The Air France terminals 2E, 2F and 2G have probably the best airline lounges in the world, with the best food. I use CDG several times a month.


It is run by ADP, a corporation not an authority.

Can we please move back to back to River flooding in IRL?

Yeah, it has transit connections and planning but ...
It still scores 3/10 on Skytrax and was rated most hated airport in the world by CNN a few years ago. I've personally found it a really unpleasant experience a few times. The toilets pre check in in T1 were covered in graffiti last time I was thorough and I had the horrific experience if a guy urinating against the wall of the coach of the RER-B then smashing a wine bottle on the floor....

The signage is also very, very bad. It's one of the few airports I've been literally lost in.

I'm not a fan of the place (especially T1) and it'll take some convincing otherwise

Anyway back to Ireland's inundation...

I see transport infrastructure Ireland TII is going to raise the height of areas of the N25 Cork Waterford road as a matter of urgency and has given Cork County Council the go ahead to start!

Macha

[mod] Yep, let's leave CDG out of this discussion. [/mod]

xband

So what do people make of this TII (NRA) proposal to rapidly higher sections of the N25?

Markcheese

How much are they going to raise it by -and anyone know what caused the sudden problem .. ( dont say the rain :-)

Impetus

xband wrote: »

Yeah, it has transit connections and planning but ...
It still scores 3/10 on Skytrax and was rated most hated airport in the world by CNN a few years ago. I've personally found it a really unpleasant experience a few times. The toilets pre check in in T1 were covered in graffiti last time I was thorough and I had the horrific experience if a guy urinating against the wall of the coach of the RER-B then smashing a wine bottle on the floor....

The signage is also very, very bad. It's one of the few airports I've been literally lost in.

The signage system at CDG was completely re-done about five years ago, and is a model of clarity.

Visit the airport again!

xband wrote: »

Anyway back to Ireland's inundation...

I see transport infrastructure Ireland TII is going to raise the height of areas of the N25 Cork Waterford road as a matter of urgency and has given Cork County Council the go ahead to start!

Wonderful! While I am not blaming the current government for the design of the N25, whoever did it way back demonstrated little regard for the customer who paid their salary

And then there is that little matter of a river flooding management system, combined with tidal management for the greater Cork city area which involves a population of about 300'000. The best long term solution would be sine form of flood barrier along the Passage to Great Island and Great Island to East Ferry channels. You could use the same barrier to create a new road between Great island to the mainland (it only has one at present - R624). Fortunately the limitation of the road system has made the suburban rail service to the island very popular for many years. It might even carry a rail bridge to bring freight to Ringaskiddy port and even provide suburban rail to Passage / Cork SE suburbs in the long term.

Speaking of which, there used to be a land use and transportation study in Cork which planned these things for the long term. Alas no longer.

hytrogen

Markcheese wrote: »

How much are they going to raise it by -and anyone know what caused the sudden problem .. ( dont say the rain :-)

From driving it both directions on the same day the weekend as it got closed I saw the strip west of Middleton around healy bros milequarry was deepening as the evening set in as well as the estuary just west of Middleton too. Also to the east at Lough Aderry the lake was starting to overflow onto the roadside as it had already encompassed the layby carpark.

Impetus wrote: »

The signage system at CDG was completely re-done about five years ago, and is a model of clarity.

Visit the airport again!


Wonderful! While I am not blaming the current government for the design of the N25, whoever did it way back demonstrated little regard for the customer who paid their salary

And then there is that little matter of a river flooding management system, combined with tidal management for the greater Cork city area which involves a population of about 300'000. The best long term solution would be sine form of flood barrier along the Passage to Great Island and Great Island to East Ferry channels. You could use the same barrier to create a new road between Great island to the mainland (it only has one at present - R624). Fortunately the limitation of the road system has made the suburban rail service to the island very popular for many years. It might even carry a rail bridge to bring freight to Ringaskiddy port and even provide suburban rail to Passage / Cork SE suburbs in the long term.

Speaking of which, there used to be a land use and transportation study in Cork which planned these things for the long term. Alas no longer.

As I mentioned the estuary west of Middleton thst leads to the east side of great island was a contributor to the flooded parts, bear in mind that that whole area is very very shallow even out into the harbour from east Ferry to Whitegate terminal it's a very shallow shelf in the harbour. A flood defence around that would make little contribution to reduce the flooding, in fact it would probably worsen the drainage needed in the upper courses of the surrounding tributaries

Macha

Impetus wrote: »

The signage system at CDG was completely re-done about five years ago, and is a model of clarity.

Visit the airport again!

[/mod] *Clears throat* [/mod]

Macha wrote: »

[mod] Yep, let's leave CDG out of this discussion. [/mod]