Subtropical Storm OLGA was Late Season Tropical Depression 94

[49erman]

If you thoght Santiago was a sh*thole before, you should see it now. It seems a concensus by everyone on this board that it is every man for himself here. although you only have to look as far as New Orleans to see the U.S. isn't much better in regards to responding to a huge disaster. But really, it is awe inspiring how underdeveloped, corrupt, indifferent and ignorant the people are who are running this country. Very sad, and very shocking to see this in the 21st century in the Western Hemisphere.

[pyratt]

Originally Posted by 49erman

If you thoght Santiago was a sh*thole before, you should see it now. It seems a concensus by everyone on this board that it is every man for himself here. although you only have to look as far as New Orleans to see the U.S. isn't much better in regards to responding to a huge disaster. But really, it is awe inspiring how underdeveloped, corrupt, indifferent and ignorant the people are who are running this country. Very sad, and very shocking to see this in the 21st century in the Western Hemisphere.

Exactly my point in spending the last 5 years of my life writing about, teaching and implementing preparedness procedures in this Hemisphere, unfortunately those DR officials I visited with earlier this year chose to eat the covers from the books (rather than read them) and chose to not utilize any of the extra resources (except those that were free) that were shown to them......

When a fish stinks it stinks from the head.

[Dag]

Chip,

The specfic information in my previous post is or has been available online at the websites of INDRHI, the CDEEE, and ACQ Asociados. My background is that of an informed amateur. I am not degreed though have some training in basic fluid dynamics. I've had a long term personal interest in rivers in general arising from over 20 years whitewater kayaking. Much of what I know about dams comes from time with the paddlers advocacy organization American Whitewater (AW) when I was contributing to various projects related to the US FERC relicensing process for hydroelectric projects. I admit a bias here though it should be noted that my opinions were not always popular with the folks at AW as I have a pragmatic streak. There is such a thing as a good dam.

I first came to this country in 1997 as a tourist and worked winters here organizing and guiding whitewater paddling trips from 1998 to 2004 so I have a strong degree of familiarity with many of the rivers. I no longer have work here though I do have family now and have been spending as much of my time as possible here while trying to figure out what direction to head.

re: inflows > outflows

I'm assuming that when you state "as long as the gates aren't opened during the analysis" that you mean as long as the position of the gates is not changed as they were already open during what I presume to be the period of time in question. In my previous post I ended the portion discussing this aspect with the loose conditional of "without further information". Were an active track of water levels in the impoundment available for comparison with the presumably constant outflow one could arrive at a fairly accurate inflow estimate.

"as long as the gates aren't opened during the analysis, 100% of the time the outflow will be less than the inflow. This is because of the effect of the available storage of the retaining structure."

As written, this assumes that inflow will be always increasing which will not be the case over a meaningful period of time in regards to the initial question here. At some point in time, incoming flows will peak and then begin to drop and the same delay created by storage capacity will be in effect from the opposite direction. An effective analysis need be conducted over a period of time during which the gates were opened. The big problem here is that there is not sufficient nor sufficiently accurate information available in the public forum to make a definitive statement and the information that has been available tends to be inconsistent thus of questionable value.

With experience in hydrology, one can "know" that the stated inflow/outflow value of 5300 m3/sec over 7 hours is a simplification for the public. The inflow would have been rising to and falling from a peak flow. The outflow would have also been changing during this time period as the quantity of water discharged would indicate the gates were full open. My contention is that the flow of 5300 m3/sec was created by opening the gates. While the water needed to be discharged in one fashion or another, it did not need to be discharged at that volume had the discharge been better managed. In effect INDRHI was stating "We released 5300 m3/sec because we were releasing 5300 m3/sec". Huh?

re: "the statement that there is generally greater rainfall in the watershed basins of the referenced resevoirs as opposed to Santiago only helps there case that a record "event" of rainfall happened."

How so? Please support.

The water the Presa de Tavera is designed to utilize is not that which falls on Santiago, which is located downstream. Note that INDRHI never mentioned Santiago specifically, that was me being charitable. I've not yet seen specific numbers for precipitation totals in relevant zones but from the forecasts I'm assuming somewhere between 150 and 200mm as broad average ober the watershed. Santiago receives ~1000mm annually. Jarabacoa, halfway up the watershed, receives ~1500mm annually. Higher elevations receive more than this. Referencing the later quote from INDRHI, how does 150-200mm storm total equal one third of 1500mm+ annual total for the watershed?

Just read today that the water level in the Presa de Tavera peaked at 329.9 msnm. If this were the case it was mandatory to conduct an emergency drawdown as the CDEEE structural recommended maximum is 329.8 msnm. Or is it? I reread a copy of a CDEEE emergency operations manual for the Presa de Tavera and it states "En ningún momento se debe sobrepasar el “nivel máximo extraordinario”, 328.80". Huh? Yesterday they were saying that the maximum level was 327.6 exceeding a maximum allowable of 327.5. What fun.

I welcome any further input/corrections etc. Learning keeps us from getting too old.

regards,

Dag

[Chip]

Dag

With regard to the inference of the inflow based on the outflow, yes this is only valid if the gates characteristics aren't changed in any way, ie opened up.

As far as the amount of rainfall, I misunderstood your original statement. Needless to say a lot fell and I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least 15-18".

Hopefully the truth will come out about the resevoir gate settings, but it does not appear we can trust their rainfall measuring stations.

[carynf]

Originally Posted by dms3611

".........and smart people don't build in floodplains".

Yes Bob, you are right......but the poor (financially), the desperate, and the displaced do build there.

Unfortunately, this was also the case in the U.S. in New Orleans a coule of years ago - it was the lower regions inhabited by the poor that were the most devastated. The more upscale areas of New Orleans were left intact.

And the help from our government - FEMA, was to bring in trailers for the displaced - most of which didn't arrive for weeks or months - which were later condemned as having unsafe levels of off-gassing toxins in the interiors, and being noteworthy for their lack of being hurricane safe.

I'm thinking about you folks and hope things are reaching a level closer to calm today, and there is help to find people shelter and get them out of the flood plains.

[Chip]

One thing to keep in mind about flooding is that it can happen anywhere in the world in flood plains. And as most communities/cities in the world over were established before the advent of relatively recent flood plain mapping it is no wonder that the US like any third world country can suffer tragedies associated with flooding. The only difference is that in the US, redevelopment in these areas is prohibited in 99.99% of the cases.

Furthermore, the ACOE realizes there are lots of valuable properties and lives still in floodplain areas but also know until a flood happens or people try to redevelop there is not a whole lot they can do to remove people from these areas thus preventing loss of life and valuable property due to flooding.

Case in point New Orleans, a city built centuries before the advent of flood mapping. This is more than likely the best example of having valuable property and dwellings in a floodplain in the US because many areas of the city are below the elevation of sea level. After the ACOE was created at some point it was tasked with trying to "fix" the flooding problem in New Orleans and prevent major catastrophic flooding as well. This, after the City was already developed. This by no means would be an easy task as would be deciding the "level" of the design event that they were targeting. Typically, in the US the floodplain is defined as the elevation the floodwaters would rise to during a storm event that would statistically occur once every one hundred years. In coastal areas, a storm surge component is added as well. What this means is that the in the case of the New Orleans retrofitting, the ACOE's engineers will use a variety of programs to predict a flood elevation and then drainage systems that ensure that the amount of rainfall or strom surge could be adequately handled by said system.

As we all know by now, the system did not work and many lives an property were lost. According to my research based on the amount of rainfall, the storm was right at the "limit" of the design. Therefore, the drainage structures would have to have operated at maximum efficiency in order to be able to handle the storm, and they of course didn't .

The next question is what to do in the future in New Orleans. If it were any other area in the country redevelopment would be prohibited or severly restricted, however, given the historical significance new drainage systems will be implemented with a greater factor of safety. However, all this will be for naught if the design storm is exceeded, something which by far the majority of the public does not know.

Therefore, it should be clear that there are few places on this planet that can be 100% prepared for catastrophic flooding due to still large amounts of property below the floodplain elevation protected by questionable drainage systems and nature's inablilty to follow and not exceed our design limits.

With regard to the DR, what the difference is between it and the US, I am uncertain if they even have many areas of this country mapped for floodplains that would prohibit development or redevelopment in these areas. Also, what good is it to restrict development in floodplains if the law enforcement agencies don't enforce said restrictions and people do not take heed and put their dwellings in known floodplains regardless of the consequences?

[Lambada]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly

Silvio Carrasco, a former boss at INDRHI, has been veryexplicit as to the law regarding the handling of Tavera. The FINAL word is with CDEEE. IF the people at Indrhi opened the gates they did it under CDEEE directives or they did it illegally.... HB

Silvio Carrasco's statement is also in El Nacional. He refutes INDRHI's argument that the dam was about to collapse (because it had the dual safety system which dag referred to in an earlier post) & calls the decision to open the dam at max outflows one taken in fright.
El Nacional, la voz de todos

And where is Héctor Rodríguez Pimentel, Director of INDRHI today, Friday? Helping out in Santiago? No. Visiting some of the other areas further down the river & affected by the Tavera release? No. He's in Puerto Plata engaged in political activities to get the President re-elected, & meeting with various groups of as yet 'undecided' voters. As an example of crass indifference and insensitivity to those in Santiago and beyond this has to take the biscuit. I hope he faces some tough questioning among other things which the conventions of a public forum prohibit detailling.
Puerto Plata Digital

[Chirimoya]

You'd think he'd be the last person they wheel out for campaigning right now.

[Lambada]

Originally Posted by Chirimoya

You'd think he'd be the last person they wheel out for campaigning right now.

They probably went by the 'manual' (or diary) & this was probably organised in advance & no-one had the sense to change it.

Did you see how they have changed the day when slow release began from Monday to Sunday?
'Desde el pasado domingo, cuando el presidente sostuvo un encuentro con todos los funcionarios del área, nosotros iniciamos el desagüe de la presa de Tavera y de otras............'
Tormenta Olga - RodrÃ*guez Pimentel afirma que lluvias influyeron más en inundaciones que desagüe de presa Tavera

And today on INDRHI website:
'Dotel manifestó que desde el momento en que se anunció la entrada de la tormenta Olga el Comité de Operación de Embalses se mantuvo en constante monitoreo, no sólo de la presa de Tavera, sino de los demás embalses existentes en el país.'
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Hidráulicos -INDRHI-

Whereas before Maximo D'Oleo's statement in El Nuevo Diario (that release should have started on Sunday), INDRHI was saying they started this Monday
'El funcionario dijo que ese embalse comenzó a desaguarse de manera gradual desde el lunes acorde a los parámetros técnicos previstos en estos casos por el manual de operaciones de la presa en casos de emergencia'
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Hidráulicos -INDRHI-

Do they think we don't notice this sort of thing? Do any of the technical posters know if water release is logged on a work sheet? Time of start of release, amount, duration etc? Because if the day when they started keeps changing it makes you wonder if there was any 'slow release' at all.

[drtampa]

Miss Lambada, I anxiously await your weekend news report for this weeks events.