Heavy rainfall has brought widespread flooding to southern Taiwan, where city and county governments blame the Central Weather Bureau for making inaccurate forecasts and not warning local authorities early enough.
The Tainan City Government has said it would need NT$65 billion (US$2.1 billion) more over 30 years to complete its flood control and prevention plans. This is not the right attitude.
Politicians brag about their political achievements in terms of “solving” or “eradicating” floods, but hydrologists know that floods can never be eliminated.
There are plans to invest several hundred billion New Taiwan dollars in everything from flood control plans in flood-prone areas and integrated flood management within drainage basins to the creation of water environments as part of the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program.
However, this investment can only alleviate ponding and flooding in certain areas, and reduce the damage and losses caused by disastrous floods, because the design standards and degree of protection of every water control project are limited. Even countries with the most advanced flood prevention technology can never be completely free of floods.
The government must still accept the blame and shoulder its responsibilities, but no one should harbor the illusion that anyone can guarantee safety forever.
Experts suggest mitigating floods by means of “sponge cities.” A few years ago, flood detention basins were popular in flood prevention; more recently, the trend has been the use of “intelligent rivers” to provide early warnings and prevent disasters.
Every method is right and effective in its own way, but even a multipronged approach using multiple methods has limits.
When a “sponge city” has absorbed as much water as it can, the excess water that it cannot absorb could cause a disaster. Flood detention basins are effective, but how big can they be and how much rainwater can they hold? If they overflow, it would cause ponding and flooding in nearby areas. Intelligent river management can provide early warnings, but that would not necessarily eliminate deaths, injuries and property damage.
Science and technology are limited, rendering weather forecasting a difficult task, but even more advanced technology and more accurate forecasts would not solve all the problems.
Standards for urban drainage in some localities only call for a five or 10-year return period, meaning that floods can be expected to recur every 10 years on average. It is useless to authorize pumps to deal with torrential rainfall if all the nearby waterways are overflowing and there is no place to pump the water.
Hoping that disastrous floods will never happen is wishful thinking. Even if the government were to spend huge sums of money to expropriate land and demolish buildings, with no concern for public opinion, and enlarge flood channels, the effect would be limited.
Perhaps the return period should be lengthened to 50 or 100 years. Even Taipei, with a return period of 200 years, had widespread flooding when Typhoon Nari struck in September 2001.
Countries with the most advanced flood prevention, such as the US and Japan, have also experienced disastrous floods in the past few years.
Climate change is causing ever-greater extremes of drought and flooding, and existing standards might not match real conditions.
Forecast technology must be improved and links between central and local authorities strengthened, but the public must also be educated about disaster prevention. Disasters can only be mitigated, not eliminated.
Local governments should not seize resources with a pledge to “solve” or “eliminate” floods. Any such promises are empty — they only give the public beautiful, but sadly unrealistic dreams.
Chang Yen-ming is a retired water resources officer.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath