Paris Flooding, Again

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen

 

Paris_Flooding_AgainParis, France is flooding again.  The River Seine has risen over its banks and streets are covered with slowing moving yellowish water.  The Louvre is building sandbag barriers to protect its statuary.

There is talk, as always, that the culprit is the dreaded modern boogeyman — Climate Change.

As our introductory image states, Paris is not just flooding, it is flooding again, and again, and again, and again.

“Why does the Seine, famous for its bridges, flood at all?

As one of France’s major commercial waterways, the river is closely monitored so it can accommodate a constant procession of barges and other commercial vessels. The river begins in Burgundy, in east-central France, and meanders 485 miles westward until it reaches its mouth, near the port city of Le Havre.

Upstream from Paris, four large dams control the flow of the Seine and three of its major tributaries: the Aube, the Marne and the Yonne. According to Charles Perrin, a hydrologist at the National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, in late spring the dams start stocking large reserves of water that can be released in the drier summer months.

Dams and locks normally keep the water level consistent, particularly in the Paris region, where the Seine’s traffic is especially heavy, in part because of tourist and other recreational vessels. If the water level drops too far, the barges could scrape the riverbed and get damaged. If it gets too high, vessels cannot pass under the city’s lowest bridges.”

Last spring “The dams were already at 95 percent capacity when heavy rains started in late May, so their ability to take in the excess water was limited.”  So, Paris flooded — again.

“Public authorities said they expected the Seine to crest on Sunday at up to six meters, or about 19.6 feet. In the floods of June 2016, which killed four people in France, it peaked at 20 feet.”

“Although some experts said it was hard to determine whether global warming was behind the current flood, others warned that a worrying pattern was emerging.

“Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,” said Florence Habets, a senior researcher at the C.N.R.S., France’s national center for scientific research. “No matter what we say, the more we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the more we reduce our impact on droughts and floods.”

The French scientist tells us that “Because of climate change…”  the flooding frequency will remain the same.  Brillant!

What is the flooding frequency?   Every recent flood is compared to the great flood of 1910, “in 1910, a January deluge turned Paris into Venice for a week — river levels rose nearly 30 feet above normal — causing roughly $1.5 billion worth of damage, in today’s terms.  …  Topographically, Paris is a basin, with hills in Montmartre and Montparnasse rising in the north and south of the city, respectively. When it comes to flooding, that means big trouble for anyone who lives in the city center, which in 1910 was not so different than it is today”  [source].   “A very severe period of high water in January 1910 resulted in extensive flooding throughout the city. The Seine again rose to threatening levels in 1924, 1955, 1982, 1999–2000, June 2016, and January 2018.” [source]

The New York Times carried the story of the 1910 Paris flood — read the full original report on the front page of January 27, 1920.

Jan_27_1910

This “worrying pattern”  really began in the 17th Century with major Paris floods being recorded in 1649, 1651, 1658, 1690, 1711, 1732, 1740, 1779, 1795, 1802, 1830, 1836, 1879-80, 1882-83, 1886…..you get the idea here.

What’s the deal here?  Again, as with Bangladesh:  GEOGRAPHY.

Geography_of_Paris

There we have it.  Four rivers flow into one another and converge just before Paris:  The Seine itself, the Aube, the Yonne, and the Marne.

Google Earth reveals that the Seine is no longer a river but a channeled and closely controlled canal, complete with flood control devices and locks for the river traffic.

Locks

We see once more that the efforts to control great rivers and put them solely to our own purposes leads to unforeseen, or at least, unacknowledged, problems.  The upriver dams, used to store water against the dryer summers, to maintain river levels appropriate for shipping,  are allowed to fill in the Spring, find themselves nearly full — and if late summer rains come, there is nowhere to store the resultant excessive river flow — floods start upstream and spread down the river to Paris.  We see this same pattern with the great rivers of the American Midwest — the Mississippi and the Missouri.

Of course, the Europeans have known all about this situation for years and years, and publish reports and recommendations such as OECD Reviews of Risk Management “Policies  Seine Basin, Île-de-France: Resilience to Major Floods”.

Still, Paris floods and the blame gets shifted to anything but the real cause — inadequate action to remedy the known problems of Seine River managenment.

Remember our expert Climate Science opinion:   “Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,”

# # # # #

Author’s Comment Policy:

 Love to read and respond to your on-topic comments.

Paris floods — that’s weather — so it must be Climate Change.

If you want me to respond specifically to a question or comment, address it to “Kip…” so I am sure to see it.

# # # # #

 

 

Advertisements

217 thoughts on “Paris Flooding, Again

  1. Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo said the city was coping – but said that the flooding, coupled with recent summer heatwaves, was “clearly a question of the town adapting to climate change”. What an idiot. How do these people get elected?

    • Once over 10% of the constituency is convinced of something, the smart thing to do is to address their concern, no matter how unsound it is. If I was the major of Paris I would also be talking about climate change to get reelected. If you want to be truthful, you don’t get into politics.

    • Climate Change provides the ultimate political scapegoat for poor management and mismanagement. A convenient excuse for politicians to use against an ignorant public.

    • icisil – I don’t think it’s so much that I’m an idiot, but rather that I believe their promises. I’m almost always disappointed. (Except for 2016 election – jury’s out, but so far, so good.)

    • We’ve got the same problem in Brisabane, Australia. The city & it’s suburbs are built on a flood plain which floods from time to time. 1890 (twice in 2 weeks), minor flood 1956, major flood 1974, similar level flood 2011. We have dams for mitigation but nature always throws a curved ball from time to time. Get your timing wrong & you’ll take a bath!
      Any way we had a guy named Tim Flannery tell us we’d never see rain again in our lives.
      Tim is not qualified in anything except Anthropology, but our politicians don’t know what anthropologists actually know about climate! But they employed him anyway to scare everybody including themselves!

      • Beat me to it, Graham. The dam engineers believed Flannery when he said the dams would never fill, so they kept the flood mitigation dams as full as possible even when the forecast was for very heavy and sustained rain. Thus, a flood occurred “due to global warming.” Much the same as Paris, now, from the looks of it.

    • Kip and rms,
      The issue of scale comes to mind.

      Atmospheric Rivers are common in California. Is France impacted by extreme weather events?

      • Kip,
        Extreme wind and related rain events are common in Europe resulting in Annual insurance claims in excess of 1 billion.

        Seems like your post points out inadequate weather forecasting sufficient to alert River Management in France.

      • John M ==> The problem is lack of physical infrastructure to deal with the flood waters — this has been going on forever with the Seine River….historical floods recorded starting in the 1600s.

  2. Here in Southern California we have flood control basins with big dams and flood gates that are kept bone dry all year waiting for flash floods. Apparently this technology, implemented here in the 1940’s, has not made it to Europe.

    • And they largely work, too. Until they don’t. San Gabriel Dam was finished just in time for the big 1938 flood. But that flood filled the reservoir and they lost control as water poured over the spillway. Washed out the western end of “The Long Bridge” in Duarte. Cogswell had advocated building three dams: One on the West Fork (now named after him), one on the East Fork, and one on the main channel (San Gabriel Dam). The East Fork dam was never built.

      A repeat of the 1938 rainy season would be mitigated by the newer Santa Fe Dam, with a large impound basis downstream. But that would not protect the cities above the dam. We will never have absolute protection from unpredictable weather.

    • They don’t have flash floods in Europe- this flood was already pre-set up. The French just failed to do anything about having 95% full dams and predictable more rain. Brisbane in Australia failed to do anything about its full dams and so it flooded.

      • The some of the effects of the last major Brisbane flood we accentuated by the mismanagement of the Wivenhoe Dam, which is part water storage, and part surge capacity for flood mitigation. Unfortunately, due to Queensland having experienced a severe drought in the preceding 7 years, that dam was allowed to retain water well in excess of its water storage design capacity. So when the serious rains returned, there was no options but to release very high volumes of water at short notice. The consequences were tragic, but maybe understandable given the circumstances.

      • Cloa5132013 —
        Oh yes we do! Possibly not on the scale of parts of the US but being generally more compact and therefore more crowded, the impacts can be just as severe!

      • @ Henryp
        Here is a newspaper report from years ago: “The conditions were so bad that Tim Flannery, now Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner, declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.

        Some claim that because of Flannery the dams were more full than they should have been if flood control issues were considered. LINK

        Learn more by searching with Wivenhoe Dam and Tim Flannery.
        Jo Nova’s site had posts.

    • “worrying pattern was emerging.” Yeah , idiots in charge of the flood mitigation/management regime. e.g letting the dams get to 95%

      • StephenP ==> Some environmentalists are opposed to dams because “rivers should run free”. Dams, of course, were man’s first great source of power to run mills and factories. “:In 2015 hydropower generated 16.6% of the world’s total electricity and 70% of all renewable electricity, and was expected to increase about 3.1% each year for the next 25 years.”
        In my view, the natural way is the rain falls on high places so that we can capture the power of its race to the sea.

    • Donald ==> When I was a boy, I lived within a block of one of Los Angeles’ great storm drain canals. The system is mapped here. The concrete lines canals (we called them “ditches”) were empty almost all the time, but filled to the top when flooding rains came. Although technically illegal, we boys used the canals — running the ditches — as quick easy routes to places we wanted to get to.

      • Kip,

        “The concrete lined canals (we called them “ditches”) were empty almost all the time, but filled to the top when flooding rains came.”

        We called them “washes” out in “The (San Fernando) Valley” when I was lad (way back in the Pre-Carbonefarious), and yeah, they remove a chitload of water come big winter storms . . but are not at all river-like in terms of scenery, transport, habitat or adventuring . . I checked the site you linked there, and it turns out I lived a couple blocks from the Los Angeles River !! ; )

      • JohnKnight ==> I have, in my time, actually seen the Los Angeles River full to nearly overtopping the channel.

      • And the water zips along then, such that when you stare down from a bridge (almost flat with the general terrain, so one doesn’t usually think of them as bridges) you can “feel” the tremendous movement of mass going on just beneath you . . ‘at’s a big rain gutter I tells ya ; )

  3. Paris is flooding (again) because of this:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/24/todays-food-is-a-modern-agricultural-miracle-so-why-is-it-under-attack/

    We know this because the report tells us that

    The River Seine has risen over its banks and streets are covered with slowing moving yellowish water

    The operative word in there is ‘yellow’
    Unless something epically catastrophic gas happened upstream, the water should NOT be yellow. or brown. or red. That is farmland dirt washing away.

    The reason Hidalgo and ‘most everyone else blames Climate Change for that is simply because they eat the mush described in the link above.

    Very very simple – yet a mush eaters will (try to) make it ever so, *ever so*, complicated so as to protect their own fat, lazy and brain dead backsides.
    Yet its the consumption of mush that causes that causes the braindeadness.
    A perfect positive feedback.
    Will doubtless have a Happy Ending, because mush eaters tell us that positive feedbacks are good, stable and long lasting things.

    • Peta ==> Floods are always muddy — lots of rain washes lots of dirt down into the rivers and down to the sea. That is the way the world works — always has — agriculture or not.
      The land upstream of Paris is flat river floodplain — and not particularly prone to erosion. See Google Earth.

  4. To be fair this classic , heads you lose tails I win, is the standard approach in climate ‘science’ Hence why this easy life attracts so some third-raters looking for cash.

  5. Even to this day Paris lacks what goes for modern sanitation just about anywhere except India. The Seine is the French sewage “removal” system … hence the brown-yellowish color depending of the proportions of excrement and piss that has a daily cycle of brown in the morning and yellow in evening.

    On another thought the Seine serves as an analog model for the Paris Accord and the UN-EU that controls it!

    Ha ha

    • A quick look at the link immediately above shows that Paris has a sophisticated sewage system with construction beginning in about 1860 and largely completed by about 1915. Bazalgette sorted out London at about the same time with interceptors picking up rivers like the Fleet which had been covered and turned into sewers. Dickens and ohers described conditions in earlier times.

      ‘Sweepings from Butchers Stalls, Dung, Guts and Blood,
      Drown’d Puppies, stinking Sprats, all drench’d in Mud,
      Dead Cats and Turnip-Tops come tumbling down the Flood’

      Jonathan Swift, 1710

      http://www.londonslostrivers.com/river-fleet.html

    • “hence the brown-yellowish color depending of the proportions of excrement and piss that has a daily cycle of brown in the morning and yellow in evening.”
      ———————-
      The Seine is brown-yellow only during floodings. The rest of the time, it has the color of water.
      A river is brown or not depending only on its content of mud and has nothing to do with pollution.

  6. There may be a kernel of truth in Habets’ comment, “…the more we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the more we reduce our impact on droughts and floods.”

    Reduce your “greenhouse gas emissions” enough, you will not have the money to do anything about the effect of droughts and floods.

    • “Reduce your “greenhouse gas emissions” enough, you will not have the money to do anything about the effect of droughts and floods.”

      This is a part of natural reality that seems to escape millions of people (who prefer to believe otherwise. So they remain stubbornly mind blind. And, by the way, you won’t have money with which to subsidize the cost of so-called “renewables.”

    • But surely France’s use of nuclear and hydro as sources of power mean that the energy sector is virtually carbon free already.
      So what causes France to fail to meet its CO2 emission targets as imposed by the EU ?
      Cars ? How would the French respond to demands that they give up their traditionally fuelled Peugeots , Renaults , etc?

  7. oh no Paris floods again… must be something with the system as here we got no floods. or at least the designed flood zones did flood, but that’s why they are there.

    why do i say this? i live just 260 miles up northeast of Paris and we had the same amount of rain as paris had but Belgium has a completed “sigma plan” (bit like the delta works in the Netherlands) to avoid river flooding.

    it worked pretty well there are just 2 zones that are nearly finished that experienced some minor flooding. but that’s because they are built in flood prone area’s

  8. Paris is flooding for the exact same reason Californian dams are breaking. Instead of spending their public money wisely, and building needed infrastructure, they wasted their money on ineffective climate change policies. France, however, didn’t make the mistake Germany did, and at least they use Nuclear Power. That was a very wise decision, that is until they become a Califate and that nuclear material will be used to produce bombs. Open Borders and Nuclear Material is about as idiotic a policy progressives have ever devised, and they put all the world at risk.
    This isn’t Paris. It’s only men here’ – Inside the French Muslim no-go zones where women aren’t welcome
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/french-bar-tells-women-isnt-paris-men/

  9. California is suffering from the same mental disorder, it is called Progressivism.

    Hey California!!!, Wind and Solar Don’t Work in a Flood
    I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Climate realists like myself have been trying to call attention to how dangerous the misallocation of resources caused by this war on climate change truly is. Now California is finding out…too late. Live updates: Evacuations below Oroville Dam remain in effect as officials … Continue reading
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/hey-california-wind-and-solar-dont-work-in-a-flood/

  10. Given all the civil works controlling the Seine, I am reminded of the Corps of Engineers and their role in New Orleans. link

    Everything is Hurricane Katrina — nobody thinks about the levees … link

    Kip’s point is well taken:

    Still, Paris floods and the blame gets shifted to anything but the real cause — inadequate action to remedy the known problems of Seine River managenment.

    • I remember the earlier stalwart work of the Core of Engineers when they blew up a log jam in the Colorado river and ended diverting it about 100klicks further down the coast affecting oyster beds and causing massive coastal erosion because up coast there was no input of sediment…… power to you guys!

      • Jonny ==> Are you sure you have the right river? The Colorado flows (well, what’s left of it, which if often nothing) into the Gulf of California in Mexico, between Baja California and the Mexican west coast.

      • You must have been very young if this was the Texas Colorado. A log jam was removed allowing the flood of 1929 to break a delta out into the bay in 1932, across eastern Matagorda Bay by the end of the decade to the Gulf. Similar thing happened on the Red River in Louisiana, (blamed on one Captain Shreve, hence Shreveport) and much later the downstream Atchafalaya in 1973, the latter due more to sediment accumulation and diversion of Mississippi River water. Oyster reefs were destroyed from the Colorado event where diversion plans into the bay were later developed.

        The biggest oyster reef (Pt. Au Fer Reef) in the world was at the mouth of Atchafalaya, destroyed well before these events, date uncertain. While there was some erosion, in both cases there was new delta formation. Oysters off the Atchafalaya River mouth now only grow in the Gulf to the west.

        Not sure about the mouth of the Seine. A lot, maybe most of the fishery was in the south of France where it got fished out in the 19th century. The origin of the ecosystem concept (as in biocoenosis) came from study of oyster communities there by a German (Karl Möbius). While a different and a little more cold and less flood adapted oyster, it was subject to climate change, especially, like grapes, at it northern edge of its range.

    • tmitsss ==> Very apt. Like seaports that are exposed to sea level rise, high tides, and storm surge, river ports like Paris exist because of the access to the river and the transportation it supplied (more important in the past then the present — but in France, still important.).
      River ports are by definition on the river and rivers rise and fall. River docks are always a foot or three above the mean river level for convenience.

  11. If “climate change” didn’t exist as an excuse for not addressing actual problems, they’d have to invent it.
    Oh wait, they did.

  12. This is not climate change, this is building in a low spot that has a habit of flooding.

    https://bangordailynews.com/2018/01/26/news/hancock/flooding-ice-blamed-on-climate-change-damage-acadias-birthplace/

    On that note, in Maine, the Kennebec river has frequent floods. Ice jams being the culprit in most cases. Years ago when loggers were river driving, (floating woods down rivers to mills) they would have occasional log jams. If they couldn’t manually break the jams, dynamite did the job. Handy stuff…in the winter/early spring, they would use dynamite to clear ice jams. In more serious cases, the Army Air Corps would drop small bombs to clear them on the upper Kennebec river.

    Alas, those days are long gone. As are the river drivers (my father ran the last one in 76).

    Not gone are the buildings along the flood plain in the Hallowell/Augusta region now occupied by city slickers who have no clue about the rivers history.

    Flooding will happen again and they will blame globull warming instead of their own stupidity.

  13. Why couldn’t they store a little less water upstream in the Spring in anticipation of the late Summer rain?

    Must be some answer to this obvious question but I didn’t see it.

  14. If we are to see an end to heat waves in Summer, cold waves in winter, floods in Spring , droughts in Summer, …,some of it record breaking and unpredictable, there is zero evidence that it can be eliminated by anthropogenic CO2 control. Or as the IPCC might put that: extremely likely that 100 to 101% of it will not be eliminated by anthropogenic CO2 control.

  15. Ban on Fracking is Causing California’s Earthquakes
    Keeping with the spirit of climate alarmist fake news, I’ve decided to apply their best practices to the recent earthquakes in California. Best Practice #1: Start with a conclusion that supports your political agenda and work backward. I want to expose the Sophistry used by the Climate Alarmists. Best Practice #2: Identify a completely natural phenomenon, … Continue reading
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/ban-on-fracking-is-causing-californias-earthquakes/

  16. The cycle time of 86.5 years (GB, by my own result/ calculation) can vary because of various reasons.
    I suspect that this \Paris flooding now is similar to the 1924 flooding.
    Note that the tables 2 and 3 suggest that major US droughts are coming up soon….
    http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
    This is confirmed by my own investigations and history: i.e. dust bowl drought in 1932-1939 and 1845-1856

    Pity everyone there, like Nero, is still playing the violin.

    • Must say,
      I cannot find the Burroughs 1992 paper, showing the tree ring results proving the 90 year cycle [drought].
      Anyone there who has a clue what happened to it?

  17. ” “Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,”

    Yikes!

    It is the same, only different!

  18. Perhaps the experts controlling the water have been convinced that global warming means no snow to melt in the Spring. So they keep the dams full all winter because the record snow this season should never happen ? Is this too simple ?

  19. I highly recommend The Conquest of Nature by David Blackbourn. It is all about German water engineering. One of the unintended consequences of taming the Rhine was the exacerbation of floods due to the elimination of natural flood buffers.

  20. Their system needs a “relief reservoir”… a basin into which excess water can be temporarily diverted in flood situations to lessen the effect on Paris. After the crisis has passed they pump the water out of that reservoir back into the river.

    • TD ==> Use Google Earth to view the Paris Basin. You’ll see the problem.
      They have at least four dams designed to control the river level — but when the dams are full, the excess water must run free.
      We saw this with Anthony’s Chico area dam last year, when overflow threatened to destroy the dam and flood a city there.

      • Just a simple emergency channel (tunnel) from where the Seine and Marne meet, south of the southern edge of the flood zone, to redirect a portion of the flooding river flow to a point further downstream from the flood zone

  21. What a surprise! All the urbanized, impervious surfaces there, and channeling of all the rivers, and it rains hard, and then………..

  22. “If the water level drops too far, the barges could scrape the riverbed and get damaged. ”

    So why don’t they just dig it deeper? Twice as deep would double the maximum flow capacity to handle the heavy rain periods and make it much easier to maintain a constant level.

    • Mike ==> There is a limit to the dredging depth — they eventually hit bedrock. The whole river system and the locks and all has been developed over centuries…..factually, the entire river has been turned into a 500 foot wide canal system. Canal systems have to have depth control — too shallow and the boats hit bottom — too high and the boats can’t pass under the bridges.

      • Mike ==> You forget that the flip-side is that they have trouble keeping enough water in the system. — this is a canal system with locks and flood control mechanisms — see the photo in the essay. The problem is much miuch more complicated than simple “volume of flow”. Read the OECD document (linked in the essay and somewhere here in comments.

      • Kip: ” … forget that the flip-side keeping enough water in the system. ….. this is a canal system with locks and flood control mechanisms ”

        The evaporation loss rate would stay the same. Those same flood control gates regulate the level.

        Kip: “The problem is much miuch more complicated than simple “volume of flow””

        No it isn’t. Flooding is from an inadequate capacity to move a given rate of flow with a given amount of head. This ain’t rocket science, you can make the river wider … or you can make it deeper. If you do neither it will get wider on its own.

      • Bryan A: “Just need to redirect 1/2 of that flow around the flood zone during the times of potential flooding”

        Which accomplishes exactly the same thing as digging a deeper channel – increased flow capacity.

      • Except that lowering the base of the river effectively lowers the Low Water Point during the summer months.
        The best way is to divert a portion of the flow during excessively high volume times

      • Bryan A :”Except that lowering the base of the river effectively lowers the Low Water Point during the summer months,”

        That’s what water level control spillways are for! Those establish the height of the water in the channel – not channel depth.

      • But then maintaining the greater water volume required to retain normal river height respective to locks effectively negates the extra depth gained by dredging and would still limit the amount of emergency flow room as the elevation space between the surface of the river and the city streets is still unchanged. You just have more water flowing through the city. Dredging drainage ways for increased potential volume does make sense but on navigable river systems used for daily transportation dredging has a negligible effect on potential flooding as the surface level is unchanged

      • Brian: “But… would still limit the amount of emergency flow room …”

        No. You seem to be purposely ignoring the use of active floodgates or wide passive spillways (if you can afford the real estate in the places you need to put them), or a combination of both:

        Such things are ‘ancient’ technology that still work and are used all over the world. They provide the required level control in normal conditions but can permit a large increase of flow capacity when needed. The river or canal ALSO has to have the capacity for that higher flow and that can be accomplished by it being wider or … deeper which is the only point I suggested.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganza_Spillway

    • Bryan A: “Then I have to ask…exactly how does dredging the base of the river deeper stop flooding?”

      By increasing the flow capacity of the river to be there when it is needed!

      There is no difference between making a river wider or deeper, either way increases cross sectional area.

      • But the flow capacity isn’t there if the river height is still maintained for shipping purposes. The difference would be instead of shipping on a river that is 20′ deep with a surface 18′ below street level you would be shipping down a river that is 30′ deep and 18′ below street level. Regardless, the distance between the surface of the river and the street level is unchanged. The extra depth is still full of water and gives no additional room between the surface and the street. Th Gove the extra room,.you would need to dredge AND lower/extend the other shipping infrastructure (locks, platforms, stairways, etc.) down to the new river surface level. Then you would need to dredge more than the area where flooding occurs, you would need to feather the dredged depth back into the normal depth much farther downstream.
        In essence, dredging the river deeper through the flood zone will only give you a deeper river but won’t affect the river level.

      • Bryan A –

        But the flow capacity isn’t there if the river height is still maintained for shipping purposes.

        It’s unclear what you mean by that. The nominal level of the water at normal flow would remain unchanged. The deeper depth will provide more cross sectional area and therefore a higher flow capacity.

        Regardless, the distance between the surface of the river and the street level is unchanged. The extra depth is still full of water and gives no additional room between the surface and the street.

        That’s correct and there is no need for “additional room” because with the added capacity the water isn’t going to rise anywhere near as much as it does now in flood stage.

        .. need to dredge AND lower/extend the other shipping infrastructure (locks, platforms, stairways, etc.) down to the new river surface level.

        Huh? Now you contradict what you stated above implying that the surface will be lower. No … it will NOT be lower and does not ever have to be lower! You were right the first time so there is no need to change existing locks, docks and stairways.

        Then you would need to dredge more than the area where flooding occurs …. you would need to feather the dredged depth back into the normal depth much farther downstream.

        Nowhere did I make the silly suggestion of dredging only the area where flooding occurs. Capacity has to be increased to be at or above some minimum “X” from the flooding point all the way downstream to the sea.

        In essence, dredging the river deeper through the flood zone will only give you a deeper river but won’t affect the river level.

        Basically repeating your wrongheaded assumption that I am stupid and suggested dredging only in the flood zone or that I suggested changing the level of the water. Neither is true and repeating it will not change that fact.

        Would it be a massive project? YEP! .. and I never suggested it would not. It’s possible that every single one of their level/flood control points (gates and spillways) would need to be rebuilt/augmented/expanded to accommodate the increased capacity.

        If they had started 150 years ago they would have been done by now which leads me to suspect that either Parisians really don’t care all that much about the occasional flooding or it has been doing it for so long (flooding in 1658 matched 1910) that they think it is something they are forced to accept.

        150 years ago the Mississippi presented massively larger flooding problems including issues like yellow fever, (1878). Lucky for us there had not been much of a population established along its banks for centuries before then thus affording a greater variety of options for mitigation such as the TVA for example.

      • Sorry Mike but I never once called you a name nor suggested/intoned you were anything but intelligent.

        I am simply stating that increasing the river depth will do nothing but increase the river depth. It supplies no additionall capacity for emergency flow because the additional depth (currently filled by earth) will be refilled with water before any emergency situation happens. Filled is filled either way and supplies no emergency buffer.

        There simply won’t be any added capacity if that capacity is already filled with water to maintain the existing water level for commerce.

      • Bryan A

        I am simply stating that increasing the river depth will do nothing but increase the river depth. It supplies no additionall capacity for emergency flow because the additional depth (currently filled by earth) will be refilled with water before any emergency situation happens. Filled is filled either way and supplies no emergency buffer.

        Wrong. You simply do not understand. As I stated earlier, deeper or wider makes little difference. Either increases the flow capacity by increasing the cross sectional area.

        A bigger channel can move more water … PERIOD!!!! How can anyone disagree with that?

      • You are correct that a bigger channel can move more water. But if the river surface height has to remain unchanged, the only way to increase the channel dimentions is to go wider rather than deeper and through central Paris wider isn’t an option.

        Right now, through central Paris, the Seine is 100 meters wide and around 8 meters deep with the surface of the water around 2 meters below the pedestrian walkways along the river bank. That 100 meter width is constrained by streets on both sides so going wider isn’t an option.
        If your river height must be maintained at 2 meters below pedestrian riverbank sidewalk level (7 meters below street level) for river traffic to flow and ease of access for pedestrians then that traffic doesn’t care if that river is 5 meters deep or 10 meters deep. (additional water flow wouldn’t care either)
        To maintain river traffic access to the river bank pedestrian sidewalks, the river would need to be maintained at 10-11 meters deep instead of 6 or the boats would be 7 meters below the walkways.
        If you fill this extra space with water to maintain the original river level, you still only have 2 meters to the walkway and 7 meters to street level.
        You have a 370 km distance to the sea (as the river flows). If you have a river that is derdged 5 meters deeper, you would likely need to either gradually feather out the western portion or dredge 370 kilometers to the ocean. Either way you now have a river that is 13 meters deep instead of 8 and water that is 11 meters deep instead of 6 still with 7 meters of space between the river surface and street level.

      • Think of it this way
        Take 2 water bottles. Cut one off at 3″ from the bottom and the other at 4″.
        The cut represente the street level and the bottom is the river bed.
        Mark the 3″ deep one at 1″ from the top as this is the level that must be maintained for shipping.
        Now mark the 4″ deep one at 1″ from the top. (this is the level that still must be maintained for shipping)
        …The extra inch deep is the new dredged river depth
        Now fill the 3″ deep one to the mark, this is the regular water height. Now add an additional 1.2 inches of water into the 3″ deep container (doesn’t hold it)
        So now for the dredged river
        Again fill the bottle to the mark (there can’t be any less water for shipping to function) and then add the 1.2″ of water into the 4″ deep bottle
        A Bottle of constrained sides or River with constrained banks Still won’t handle the emergency flow even though both have a greater volume IF that volume is full prior to the emergence flow situation.

      • Bryon “the only way to increase the channel dimentions is to go wider rather than deeper”

        No, you are wrong. Given identical head, a bigger channel has greater flow capacity than a smaller one regardless of whether it is wider or deeper.

        I defy you to explain how that cannot be true! `(Don’t bigger pipes have a higher flow rate at a given head?)

        In your earlier explanation you stated there was no difference if there was water at the bottom of the deepened channel or dirt. Yes there IS a difference because water FLOWS … dirt does not.

        Bryon “…:even though both have a greater volume IF that volume is full prior to the emergence flow situation.”

        Static volume is irrelevant here, only cross sectional area matters. (CSA)

        Flow rate = CSA * average velocity.

        You cannot get around that simple fact.

        I can’t believe all the time I’ve wasted on trying to educate you.“Go to school and pay for a course in hydraulics. Here’s a calculator if you still don’t believe me – http://www.engineering.com/calculators/open_channel_flow.htm

        If you don’t like the results that that gives you when you increase channel depth – pester them not me because I give up!

        (it shows a more than doubling of flow from doubling the depth because there is a smaller wetted perimeter to CSA ratio the larger the channel gets. Use N=.015)

      • Mike,
        Your pipe analogy is slightly flawed. Yes the larger pipe will carry more but the pipe is larger in radius (every direction.) Not just deeper.
        The key is in your statement

        By increasing the flow capacity of the river to be there when it is needed

        This implies that the capacity will not be used when not needed but the deeper river will still be filled to the point of 7 meters below street level to maintain shipping level. This effectively uses the additional capacity before it is needed and renders it unavailable as additional capacity. It isn’t additional unused capacity if it is being used. Again refer to my bottle analogy.

      • Bryan – I already told you that static capacity has nothing to do with the improvement of flow capacity. You refuse to believe me and ignore my examples and explanations. You are wrong and I’m done trying to explain it to you, go bother someone else. Keep it up and I’m just going to keep giving you this same answer.

      • Bryan A and The Original Mike M,

        I think you guys are both right, and don’t realize it. TOMM says that making the river deeper will increase its flow capacity, which Bryan A doesn’t disagree with. But Bryan A maintains that if you make the river bottom deeper, and *still want to maintain the current surface height*, then you’ll need more water in the river (more flow) in non-flood conditions, which is true, and then where’s that water going to come from? And given that the increased flow (compared to the present situation) is going to be there all the time in order to maintain the surface height, how does the river’s capacity to deal with floods get any better?

      • Steve Keppel-Jones –

        “I think you guys are both right, and don’t realize it. TOMM says that making the river deeper will increase its flow capacity, {A}which Bryan A doesn’t disagree with. But Bryan A maintains that if you make the river bottom deeper, and *still want to maintain the current surface height*, then {B} you’ll need more water in the river (more flow) in non-flood conditions, which is true, and then where’s that water going to come from? And given that the {C} increased flow (compared to the present situation) is going to be there all the time in order to maintain the surface height, {D} how does the river’s capacity to deal with floods get any better?”

        {A} False. I claim that making it wider or deeper will accomplish the same thing. Bryan has repeatedly claimed that that is not true.

        {B} False. More water in the river is not the same as “more flow”. It will simply be slower flow than it is now.

        {C} False. Flow rate at any time is managed by river level control points as it always is – making it wider or deeper only increases the FLOW CAPACITY (which is NOT the same thing as volume capacity).

        {D} The same way a bigger drain pipe can empty your bath tub – a higher flow rate.

      • Corrections

        {B} False. More water in the river is not the same as “more flow”. It will simply be slower velocity than it is now for a given flow rate.

        {D} The same way a bigger drain pipe can empty your bath tub faster – a higher flow rate.

      • But if that larger bathtub drain pipe were constantly 3/4 full instead of completely empty, the bathtub would still drain just as slow as the smaller empty pipe. The river is like the pipe that is constantly 3/4 full.

        Now for the dredging.
        While feasible, the dredging operation, if worked from the confluence of the Marne, to the end at La Harve, the operation would require removing (presuming a 5 meter deep dredge is what you alluded to) 5 meters deep by 100 meters wide by 370 kilometers long.
        This is roughly (5 meters X 100 meters X 370Km) 185,000,000 M³ of soil that needs to be excavated and barged and dumped someplace that it won’t effect fisheries or recreation areas.
        It also equates to a surface area of 71.42 mi² 1 meter deep

      • Bryan A – “But if that larger bathtub drain pipe were constantly 3/4 full instead of completely empty, the bathtub would still drain just as slow as the smaller empty pipe. ”

        It what universe is an empty pipe draining any water at all?

      • For the bathtub drain to function it has to be clear otherwise it is clogged and water will not flow…that is what I mean by empty. When the bathtub is full of water, much like he upstream dams, the drain pipe IS empty, But the river is 3/4 full. When you remove the drain plug, the tub empties into what was an empty pipe. In this case, a larger pipe will still only drain as fast as the tub drain size allows. But when the water gates (drain plugs) are opened on the dams to alleviate potential problems from rain overflow, the river isn’t empty it is 3/4 full. If the drain pipe on the bathtub were partially clogged (constantly 3/4 full like the river) the tub would only drain as fast as the smaller pipe. The only space for additional emergency flow is the space between the top of water and the street level (the unclogged portion of the pipe)
        It is the air space above the river that is the emergency flow space

  23. Large companies saying they will relocate after Brexit can already guess who is going to pay for any long term fixes for Paris’ problem… Better to remain in a City that is ahead of the curve on flood prevention/mitigation? Nobody droned on about global warming when the Thames Barrier was on the drawing board.

    • michael ==> They have plans….and plans….and plans…. what they don’t have is action — construction … or the necessary political will. There had been a “pause” in really serious flooding until 2016 (Paul Homewood wrote about last years flooding here.) With flooding out of the public eye, action was delayed and put off.

      • Kip I remember Paul’s post, it is like deja vu! The same comments “unprecedented” “its worse than we thought” when in reality it is neither of those things, the river level markings on the statues prove that. As others have said the Seine is not the same river it was decades ago so comparing like with like is impossible.

      • andrewmharding ==> Well, the sad news is that the Seine IS the same river it was decades ago, and centuries ago — so it still floods PARIS!
        Tough the problems are well known and well studied, and plans have been formulated, not enough has actually been done to safeguard the city from flooding.

      • Which is most unfortunate, during the lull times is the time to act while during emergency situations is the time to react. California should have been preparing for the potential Oroville situation during the drought instead of needing to react to it after the El Nino rains.

      • Indeed, Bryan A. There you have it.
        Global warming is being used as both the scapegoat for past inactions while simultaneously being used as justification for [taxation for] future actions. Future actions which are not even being started, despite the efforts being spent on the explanations of why we should “do something”.

        The dissonance is incredible. As Yoda said, “Do, or do not. There is no try.”

  24. Don’t you realise that logic and facts are constructs of the Western, imperialist, white, male patriarchy? Narratives and, muh, feelings are a way valid basis for organising society. (sarc)

  25. If climate change gets blamed for droughts on the one hand and flooding on the other, shouldn’t it get recognized and praised for all the good stuff in between?

    • Climate change was recently blamed for reducing the extreme rainfall events somewhere in the southwestern US and affecting streamflows. Everything climate change does is bad bad bad!!!

      • Kip, when I was in Paris two years ago I had a good long look at a few historical maps of that city. Sure enough, a good deal of the terrain was originally swamp with, as you say, a river crossing. Mostly the modern post-Haussmann drainage systems cope with the extra influx of flood water, but every so often they prove inadequate. Like, as several other posters have pointed out, the great flood of 1910.

  26. Seems their only option is to deeply dredge the 123 mile path to the sea and accelerate the 115 ft drop.
    Is that insane or in some sort of theory with no other considerations buy water flowing downhill is it possible?

    • Steve ==> We have a few civil engineers who read and comment here….maybe they will give opinions.
      The major problem is that the Seine is not a free flowing river — it is a major transportation canal, use Google Earth to view is — follow it upstream and downstream and you’ll see what I mean.
      The problem is what to do with all that water when the heavy rains come. Paris is in the center of the “Paris Basin”…the name gives a hint.
      You point out the salient point of Geography….Paris is only 115 feet above mean sea level. The distance by river to the sea is 240 miles. That gives an average drop of less than six inches per linear mile …. almost no drop at all…..
      By contrast, Albany, NY (the capital of NY State) has an elevation of 312 feet and a distance to the sea of 150 miles — a drop of 2 feet per mile.

      • Kip, thanks for replying to my pondering. That much greater distance by the curvy river certainly makes a big difference. Although my checking shows the waterway to be 344KM or 213 miles.
        But humor me more. Suppose a straight canal were dug? Or rather a 213 mile long, straight spillway dropping 115 ft?
        If money were no object and all other impediments waved would such a spillway work?

      • Steve ==> I am no hydrologist — but — sure — creating a giant new riverbed capable of handling the flows of the flooding rivers would solve the problem……but that’s a 100+ mile channel several times the size of the Seine running through cities and farmland and who knows what all….See GoogleyEarth….
        I think the Eu plan calls for capturing much of the water before it gets to Paris, filling upriver catchments and controlled release.

      • Great article. One thing though: highest point in Albany is over 300 feet. The lowest is,effectively, sea level. The river there is tidal. Technically, an estuary.

      • Rick ==> Ah — ya caught me. The river is tidal all the way to Troy, just north Albany. There is, however, a substantial enough drop that the river flow is quite strong in the southerly direction when the tide is out at NY Harbor.

        That said, the tidal flow north is string as well when on the flood.

        When I sail my little Force 5 sailboat on the Hudson, I have to check the tides so I don;t get caught trying to get home against the tide in low wind conditions.

    • That’s correct, a bigger channel can move more water whether it is widened or deepened. With water surface levels kept the same the locks can remain as they are so the only other thing needed is to increase the flow capacity at the flood/water level control points to handle the higher flow rate when needed.

  27. Maybe they should talk to the folks that did the diversion for Winnipeg. I mean this is an engineering problem that is easily solved. WTF is the problem France? Too distracted with tabloid junk just like everywhere I guess.

      • Easily solved with extreme care. Digging a channel to draw off water could easily get out of hand if uncontrolled amounts of water start swilling down the new channel gouging out a new path.
        It seems that the reason for the collapse of the hydraulic civilisation at Angkor Wat and its abandonment was the digging of a new channel which was disasterously lower than the rest of the canal system, leading to a catastrophic uncontrolled flow out of the higher drainage system. If true a whole sophisticated city collapsed as a result.

  28. Good post Kip. It is amazing how people knowingly built in flood prone regions, have experienced severe flooding in past 200 years yet still mindlessly blame CO2 climate change for natural variability, like in Houston, New Orleans, etc.

    • Jim ==> Yes, very much like New Orleans especially, with its relation to a tightly controlled major river.

  29. My first big job as a fresh new engineer was a big one indeed – doing hydrological investigation along the right-of-way of the to-be constructed Greater Winnipeg Floodway. We, too, and the folks in Fargo, ND and points south on the Red River of the North had frequent major floods. The towns and cities along the Red were also on the lake bottom of the Pleistocene Lake Agassiz and the floods were essentially a refill of the ancient lake. Being out in the plains as well when the floods came the area inundated was enormous. Here is a photo of an inundated railway bridge in the big 1950 flood – I filled sandbags in my community of St James, Manitoba as a boy scout.

    From Wiki: “The construction was a major undertaking with 76.5 million cubic metres (2.75 billion cubic feet) of earth excavated—more than what was moved for the Suez CanalAt the time, the project was the second largest earth-moving project in the world – next only to the construction of the Panama Canal.[7] The total cost at the time was $63 million (CAD), equivalent to approximately $505 million today.”

    • Gary ==> Maybe you could do a piece on how Winnipeg was saved by engineers. ? There are a lot of flooding stories covered here at WUWT.

    • Excavation of the Winnipeg floodway unearthed gypsum crystal clusters that had grown in the clay, some several kg in weight. There are gypsum deposits north of Winnipeg and probably gypsum powder ground from the deposits by Pleistocene glaciation wound up being dissolved in Lake Agassiz, later to grow in the lake bottom muds. Gypsum is moderately soluble ~2g/L.

      https://www.minfind.com/mineral-559717.html

      • That takes me back to my youth, Gary. I recall digging for near perfect gypsum crystals, often several inches long, in clay mounds left from local building projects in Central England. I could understand the excitement of a miner or gold prospector.

    • $505M seems well worth it…especially since it has allegedly saved over $10B in flood damage.

      Instead, France will probably subsidize $500M of solar and wind, claiming it will reduce future flooding.

      • “Instead, France will probably subsidize $500M of solar and wind, claiming it will reduce future flooding.”

        People of Galveston TX are lucky the storm in 1900 didn’t happen in 2000 because instead of spending to build sea walls, jack up important buildings and elevate the terrain they would gotten the “benefit” of the most expensive climate models our tax money can buy.

    • Bravo Gary – just saw your comment now.

      from wiki:
      Since its completion in 1968, the Floodway has prevented over $40 billion (CAD) in cumulative flood damage.”[3] It was designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 2000, as the floodway is an outstanding engineering achievement both in terms of function and impact.”

  30. “Warming will cause a predictable increase late summer rain which we will not be able to predict, causing us to leave insufficient room for it in our reservoirs.” In other words, Gorebal warming causes brain damage. Finally a warmist proposition I can agree with.

  31. There doesn’t seem to have been much thought given as to why flood plains are called … flood plains.

  32. From the French vigicrue site. Google it . It is interactive. This the central paris data with past flood levels

    • Go to the website and click on the image. If the image opens in another window, and the URL address ends in .JPG, copy the URL (http) address and paste it into your post. If clicking on the image does nothing, right click on it and select PROPERTIES, part way down you will see the image tag with the .JPG extension. Try copying and pasting this into your post. At the top of this website in the gray bar is the test page. Try posting the image there and see if it posts first.

    • Stephen ==> For the image to post, the url must end with .jpg (maybe .png works as well). Nothing allowed after the .jpg (file type). The image url must be on its own line as well, I believe.

  33. Yep the French have figured out how to control the weather . Must be all those X NASA climate fabricators they are recruiting .
    Most places would be happy with some extra rain .

  34. Now hold it, weren’t the predictions extreme drought from climate change? Or, I guess maybe I did hear that it could also cause flooding, depending on your location and the regional precipitation upstream. Man… Climate Change just hits us daily.
    (sarc factor 7)

    • You mean like the worst drought in a century currently hitting Cape Town, expected to run out of water in April.

      • Cape Town’s population has grown from 2.4 million to 4.3 million since 1995. Water supply storage has increased merely a small fraction.

        Following the last increase in storage in 2009, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry warned that demand would exceed supply by 2013 without any water conservation management and demand measures – and that those would only delay this until 2019. The catch was that this was based on “normal” rainfall levels. Drought conditions would muck this up…and that’s exactly what happened.

        You can even go back to 1990 when water supplies were eerily projected to “dry up in 17 years time” by the Water Research Commission.

        Level 4 water restrictions were not imposed until the end of May in 2017. Level 5 wasn’t imposed until September. Cape Town passed last May on a proposal that would have supplied 100 million liters of desal before the end of 2017 and then a full 450 million liters (2/3rds of Cape Town’s needs) by the end of 2018.

        The drought has simply exposed the poor planning, lack of preparedness, and utter ignorance of government.

  35. All,
    Not good at teasing numbers. Do I see a cycle showing. Just looking at the numbers it looks like 30 years (was looking for 60 year cycle AMO). I am not sure that all of the floods mentioned are of the same magnitude and of course the man caused effects (channeling) will cause far more problems. We also lack enough data and lots of noise to make any type of claim. Just my old eyes seeing a pattern that may or not be there.
    “A very severe period of high water in January 1910 resulted in extensive flooding throughout the city. The Seine again rose to threatening levels in 1924, 1955, 1982, 1999–2000, June 2016, and January 2018.”

    This “worrying pattern” really began in the 17th Century with major Paris floods being recorded in 1649, 1651, 1658, 1690, 1711, 1732, 1740, 1779, 1795, 1802, 1830, 1836, 1879-80, 1882-83, 1886…

    Mac

    • Macusn ==> We can’t count on those flood year numbers being accurate…that is, they may not represent rainfall amounts. For flooding of Paris, a lot depends on when, over how many days, exactly where, and hydrological conditions in the four rivers prior to the event. Some Paris flooding had to do with ice dams and broken ice dams….so — we just don’t know.

  36. Looks like Paris, like Bangladesh, is just in the wrong place if you like dry ground all the time.

    C’est la vie.

  37. Like to see how the French PM can stop flooding by banning ICE powered cars in 20 years. What was that? Paris flooded many times in the past long before the industrial revolution, coal and cars? Gosh! Shock! Horror! History trumps models and alarmism.

    And on Ten news here in Aus tonight, a woman stated this flooding was due to global warming. Then countered by a French meteorologist who stated it was the result of unpredictable weather. Guess he will be out of a job soon.

  38. Back in 2002, I received a threatening email from a furious man who said he held me personally responsible for the flooding of Prague. Yes, me! Flooded Prague! Amazing!

    I pondered my new-found powers, which I did not know that I possessed, and replied:
    “Yes Sir, you are entirely correct! I am the One, personally responsible for the flooding of Prague! Now “buzz off” – or I’ll do it again!”

    That seemed to solve the immediate problem, but it appears that I tempted the Fates, and have now unwittingly unleashed the deluge on Paris.

    I must beat my breast in penance, and recite over and over again:
    Mea culpa, mea culpa, mae maxima culpa!
    Ideo precor beátam Maríam semper vírginem,
    omnes angelos et sanctos,
    et vos, fratres,
    oráre pro me ad Dóminum Deum nostrum.

    Having God-like powers is serious stuff!! You’ve got to be really careful what you think, and especially what you say. You never know quite what’s going to happen next – you can’t drink alcohol or smoke dope or even allow yourself to get angry – it’s really a lot more restricting than people think! Whew!

    :-)

  39. They know the lay of the land to the nearest mm, from river source to sea.

    They know the maximum and minimum rainfall to the nearest mm

    They know the water transport volumes and capacity.

    They have the finest brains, engineers and science.

    Yet

    They can do nothing except blame a small molecule and shrug their shoulders

    • GL ==> Oh, they have PLANS and PROGRAMS and lots of DIRECTIVES….it is the Eu afterall. They just have failed to DO ANYTHING definitive.

    • Well, actually, two “they”
      Those who have a solution ready since …. pretty much 1910 (actually, even before, as flood has been a problem for long). Engineer, builders of dams. Half of the project was effectively build.
      They can do nothing except blame a small molecule and shrug their shoulders AND block any few dam construction.

  40. When the last Paris Flood occurred 18 months ago, I found some details of recorded floods above 6 metres (19ft 8 inches) above normal at Pont Austerlitz since 1870.

    As can be seen, major floods were quite frequent from 1910 to 1960. Part of the reason for less severe floods is the decades spent putting in flood prevention measures after the 1910 flood. But the major reason is that the last 50 years had less major floods than the previous 50 years.

    What is significant is that the French authorities have an impressive array of emergency measures that they put in place. From giving people warnings of the rising levels; evacuating people; stopping all non-emergency vessels on the Seine; protecting those who live on the river; and putting into operation emergency procedures for the movement of art treasures out of basement storage in the Louvre. There is plenty of time to put measures into place, as the water levels climb very slowly. This time, water levels have been rising since the 15th January at around 1cm an hour or about a foot a day.

    https://manicbeancounter.com/2016/06/05/are-the-paris-floods-due-to-climate-changing-for-the-worse/

  41. This flooding is due to climate change! The resources that were wasted in the propaganda effort to socialize energy production, distribution, and usage, should have been spent on better forecasts of cyclical weather patterns that can give us a better understanding of our short-term and longer-term problems with water management and usage. And addressing short-comings of the system to handle unusual weather patterns that do occur over long time frames.
    The short-term problem is flooding.
    The longer-term problem is water storage that will supply water during periods of drought.
    The solution to both problems is better weather forecasting, and sufficient capacity of the system to overcome the extremes of both heavy rainfall over short periods, and extended periods of drought.
    To solve the flooding problem, we must know when flooding weather patterns will occur, before it is too late to take sufficient corrective action to prevent flooding. The corrective action may require additional capacity in the system. That capacity can be more storage, and more ability to drain water from the system, at a higher rate. But the key aspect of the solution is time, and increased accuracy of future weather predictions of roughly a week to 10 days.
    By fixing the flooding issue, you fix the water storage problem in the process. The goal of the water storage problem is to maximize storage when it rains, so there will be less shortages when it doesn’t. If you forecast properly, you will only flush excess water, when there WILL be more water coming to make up for the reduction in storage.
    This flood was caused by a failure to anticipate the amount of precipitation in the drainage area, and make corrective actions, before it was too late to do so. All the other excuses are just excuses for that failure. We can debate about the accuracy of forecasts, and the capacity of the system to handle forecasts that require action, but the system can be fixed with enough time to act, and acting before it is too late.

    • The evidence does not suggest that the current flood is due to climate change. See my comment at 8:26 am.
      In more detail see my post in 2016.
      https://manicbeancounter.com/2016/06/05/are-the-paris-floods-due-to-climate-changing-for-the-worse/

      Paris is located on a very flat floodplain. In the last 100 years extensive work has been done on reducing flooding. Are you saying that this is largely unsuccessful? Are you able to offer better advice on flood risk prevention than the French with decades of actual experience? Or maybe than the OECD in their 2014 report?
      https://www.oecd.org/gov/risk/Flood-risk-management-seine-river-executive-summary.pdf

      • Yes. My advice is to produce better forecasts of future heavy rain events. When you see those events coming in the forecast, start draining the system earlier. If the forecast is correct you will create more capacity to deal with the water. If the forecast is incorrect, take the money currently being wasted on the Phantom Menace of climate change, and use it to improve your forecasts. If you still can’t get better forecasts, spend the money on increased capacity in the system to store water upstream, and finding ways to increase the ability of the system to get rid of excess water. Chicago solved the majority of their flooding issues, through the construction of a “Deep Tunnel” project.
        It is only a question of whether you want to spend your time and money on a problem, that does not exist so you have something to blame, when you fail. Or whether you want to work on a problem that can be fixed, yet requires effort and wisdom.

    • This flooding is due to climate change WARRIORS. Without them, floods in Paris would be a thing of the past, not snow as predicted by them.
      They wasted resources and stopped the project to manage water designed after 1910 flood. This included many dams and waterways, about half of which were actually constructed, the other half still on the drawing board.
      France experience no significant change of the pattern of raining, neither in quantities nor in frequency.

  42. “Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,”
    ———————-
    The irony is in France, just last summer 6 months ago, there was an “exceptional”, “catastrophic” drought with the lying press chock full of end-of-the-world headlines.
    And those same climate propheteers (aka profiteers) was all out on frontpages predicting that there will be more and more drought like this.. because of climate change.

  43. “Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,”
    ———————-
    Those enviromons predicted that drought would be the new normal in France, so what they say is the usual “it is worse than we thought” project: drought BUT not fewer flood than before.

  44. I’have just read rapidly the comments. It seems that I haven’t read anything about the artificial lakes that have been constructed several decades ago upstream from Paris to lower floodings. Here some interesting information (only in french):
    http://www.seinegrandslacs.fr/
    With these artificial lakes (storage capacity: 800 millions m3), floodings are about 50cm (1,5 foot) lower than they would be without. It’s not very much, but still better than nothing.
    A complementary project is under study, but it won’t be achevied before several years:
    http://www.seinegrandslacs.fr/la-bassee-0

  45. Hug ==> The “artificial lakes” are mentioned in the main essay — as “Upstream from Paris, four large dams control the flow of the Seine and three of its major tributaries: the Aube, the Marne and the Yonne. ”
    The plans that have not yet been completed are part of the “OECD Reviews of Risk Management “Policies Seine Basin, Île-de-France: Resilience to Major Floods” planning.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/flood-risk-management-seine-river-executive-summary.pdf

Comments are closed.