Paper 08 Protecting the City of Cork from Flooding Dr J. Philip O’Kane CEng FIEI Emeritus Professor, School of Engineering, University College Cork Irish National Hydrology Conference 2020 Professor Emeritus Dr. J. Philip O’Kane, CEng Chair of Civil Engineering (1845) 1990-2008 National University of Ireland (NUI), Cork - University College Cork (UCC). Former Dean, Faculty of Engineering, NUI and UCC. Honorary Fellow and Visiting Professor 1974-present at the (UNESCO-) IHE Water and Environment, International Institute for Water Education, Delft, NL. Former UNESCO Chief Technical Advisor, National Commission for the Environment, Lisbon. Former Member of the joint UNESCO-Italian Government Committee for the Safeguard of the Lagoon of Venice. Former President, Hydrology Section, and Council Member of the European Geophysical Society (now EGU) Former Senior Scientific Officer, the Water Research Association, Medmenham, UK (now WRC). The Irish National Committees for the International Hydrological Programme and the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage annual, not-for-profit National Hydrology Conference, supported by the UNESCO International Hydrological Programme and the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. Irish National Hydrology Conference 2020 O’Kane 1 08 - PROTECTING THE CITY OF CORK FROM FLOODING Dr. J. Philip O’Kane CEng FIEI Emeritus Professor, School of Engineering, University College Cork. Abstract Conjunctive operational control of improved ESB dams on the Lee with a tidal barrier (similar to the Lagan Weir and tidal barrier in Belfast 1), at any of four possible locations (See figure 47): 1. Tivoli , with larger low-head tidal pumps (similar to those in use at the Singapore Marina Barrage 2), 2. Blackrock , with smaller low-head tidal pumps, 3. The Jack Lynch Tunnel, or 4. Lough Mahon exit with no pumps, are realistic and viable alternatives to the OPW’s ‘14.5km of embankments, walls, walls with gaps and demountables, and groundwater pumps’ scheme, offering the prospect of 1. Saving half the cost of the OPW scheme, 2. Protecting a much greater area of the city from fluvial, tidal and groundwater flooding, 3. Avoiding the conversion of the Central Island into a building site for the second time in a generation, 4. Conserving the character of the eight hundred year old port city with its open quays built on a marsh, 5. Enhancing the amenity and environmental quality of the urban waters of the Lee by actively controlling water level within the City, for example, to facilitate passage under bridges and landing from pleasure boats, to cover anoxic mudflats at low Spring tides as in Belfast , or to exclude sea-water and tide entirely, as in Singapore, where a constant level is maintained for all kinds of recreational activities such as boating, windsurfing, kayaking and dragon boating, on a coastal freshwater-supply and flood-control reservoir. Imaginative urban planning of this quality for the State's second City is impossible with the OPW scheme. The evidence presented in this paper challenging the OPW scheme comes from a quantitative and fully automatic, conjunctive control and simulation system, CC-SS-Lee, composed for the operation of the Lee Dams and a tidal barrier. 1. INTRODUCTION In many "common law countries … hydro-generating dam owners [such as the ESB] do not owe a duty of care to prevent flooding downstream, over and above the natural flood 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagan_Weir 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Barrage Irish National Hydrology Conference 2020 O’Kane 2 attenuating effect of the dams” 3, appealing to the doctrine of "don’t worsen nature". ‘Nature is not worsened’ when the discharge rate from the dams is always less than the inflow rate on the rising limb of a flood, thereby attenuating the flood peak by ~20% in the case of the two ESB Dams on the Lee. Consequently, the ESB can declare (erroneously) in an infographic 4 on its website that its Lee Dams are good for small floods but not for big ones, such as the flood of November 19 and 20 2009 that inundated almost the entire Central Island of Cork. See figure 1. The OPW’s ‘embankments and walls’ scheme for protecting Cork is a logical consequence of these propositions. Since July of this year they no longer carry legal weight; there is now an opportunity for OPW and ESB to change to a much better, realistic and viable solution for protecting Cork from floods: improvements to the Lee dams and the Lee Fields, a conjunctive control system that attenuates ~70% of a flood peak, no embankments and walls in Cork city, and a tidal barrier downriver. In a land-mark majority judgment on 13 July 2020 the Irish Supreme Court [Record No. 70/18] ruled that the "the law imposes a duty to confer a benefit (in this case the benefit which would be caused to downstream landowners and occupiers by ESB managing the dams in a way which would give rise to less flooding than would have occurred if the dams were not there)". Furthermore, the Court found the ESB was negligent during the Lee flood of November 2009 in not "manag[ing] the dams, in at least some circumstances, in a manner designed to improve conditions downstream". The degree to which the ESB must now provide flood-protection downstream "in at least some circumstances" is not resolved in the judgment, but it will require a root-and-branch revision of the ESB’s Lee Regulations for the operation of the Lee dams. See figures 2 and 3. When flood-protection has priority over hydropower, when floods are likely, a flood-attenuation of ~70% is possible, with complete protection of Cork during a repetition of the November 2009 river flood without the OPW scheme . Flooding from the sea must then be addressed with a tidal barrier operated conjunctively with the ESB Dams. 2. NEW ESB LEE REGULATIONS – THE NEED FOR AN EX ANTE FLOOD CONTROL TARGET 5 The ESB Lee Regulations for the operation of the Lee Dams contain no strategic ex ante targets for flood-control in Cork city. The Hydroelectricity Acts do not require it. Consequently, for 3 Quotations in double inverted commas are taken from the three-page summary on the Irish Courts website: THE SUPREME COURT. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK – NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT. SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND JUDGMENTS. 2020 IESC 38. 3 pages. https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8b7fd10a-16e3-40c2-98a3- 1e0dc8242593/2020_IESC_38%20Summary%20of%20Issues%20and%20Judgments.pdf/pdf . Single inverted commas are for emphasis, not quotation. 4 https://www.esb.ie/docs/default-source/education-hub/river-lee-information 5 This will not be welcomed by the ESB, since it implies flood liability. Irish National Hydrology Conference 2020 O’Kane 3 the ESB, flood alleviation is an inadvertent side effect of hydropower generation, an accidental and unintended collateral benefit. Following every major flood event, the ESB carries out an ex post evaluation, which concludes: Had the dams not been present, the flood would have been worse. With no ex ante targets, there is no need for accurate and precise forecasting of river flows above and below the dams (not even one-hour ahead forecasts at present), no need to measure the soil-hydro-meteorology of the Lee catchment and its tributaries, and no need for forecasts of flood peaks or tidal surge in the City several days in advance. The very modest demands of ex post evaluation set 'no-need-to-know' limits to monitoring, data collection, and quality assurance, allowing the ESB to claim its systems are, after seventy years of use, fit-for-purpose and compliant with the law. The Court of Appeal agreed; but the Supreme Court found otherwise. An ex ante flood-control target of 350m 3/s would not flood the City. The CC-SS-Lee software system shows that 350m 3/s is a viable and realistic target that could be implemented immediately to protect the city from the river without the OPW scheme and without an elaborate forecasting system. However, as forecasting is developed and tested we envision the ex ante flood control target varying with time. The results in this paper show that an ex ante target well below 350m 3/s is possible and realistic. The OPW's design flow for its scheme to wall-in the Central Island and North and South Channels is 550m 3/s because it mimics the highly inefficient ESB Lee Regulations in its simulations of the operation of the dams. The probable culprit is the doctrine of "don't worsen nature" constraining the discharge rate from the dams to be always less than the inflow rate on the rising limb of a flood. The CC-SS-Lee software system does not follow this doctrine. The gain in efficiency is very big, from 20% to 70% attenuation of flood peaks as they pass through the cascade of dams, when they are controlled with the "one-hour-ahead clipped conjunctive Space Rule". There is a second constraint on the ex ante flood-control target . When the proposed tidal barrier is closed during a tidal surge, river water accumulates behind the barrier. The storage behind the barrier and the capacity of tidal pumps to dewater the upstream storage, must be greater than the target, otherwise the city is flooded. The CC-SS-Lee system facilitates the calculation of the minimum additional pumping rate required, a lower bound on the required size of pumping station. The smaller the ex ante flood control target, the smaller the required size of pumping station. The hourly releases from each reservoir calculated by CC-SS-Lee ensure that water levels in the reservoirs remain within the combined ESB TTOL (target top operating level) and flood-pool 6 ranges during given floods (design mode) or uncertain forecast floods (operational mode).