Forewords‎ > ‎Reviews‎ > ‎

Extended Comment on Papar Dam

posted Jul 20, 2019, 7:49 AM by jeffery jim

Remarks: 

1. Kindly refer to previous post on Kaiduan/Papar dam

2. Newspaper article


Dr Felix reiterates the point I gave in my last posting about Papar Dam especially on the issue on sediment load and transportation.

The issue is based on the type of soil which produced mostly micro particles - smaller than 70μm which hardly flocculates at high Q or high V value in the equation. Apart from that, soils at the catchment areas have high K value due to the hydrologic soil group which consists mainly of clay. This increase the possibilities of turbidity level at the receiving end which is bad for flora and fauna - destroying the food chain surrounding it.

It is not about human, it is about nature. If we have water problem, start to make sure efficiency of the pipe supply. Then utilize the construction of selected areas with high infiltration rate as reservoir and so on. I don't see any complete hydrological study. EIA is not a full-proof report as it only talks about current finding which need remedies or mediation. Running Mike21 or HEC-RAS as simulation does not prove anything as well since it only shows number and possibilities.

Secondly, in hydrology, hydrogeology and geohydrology studies, these software does not include possible micro-weathering and impact for holistic assessment. I will not discuss on the spillway and how Q value affect the people downstream from socio-economic point of view and other agriculture and aquaculture affected by such development.

Nature is our wealth, just give a second thought before you erratically decide on a project of such scale and destruction. There are so many other ways to revitalize and re-utilize runoff water to generate power and water consumption.


Comments