Flood protection in Miesbach-Kleinthal: Four approaches are intended to solve the Floigerbach problem in the settlement

Created: 05/11/2022, 11:40 am

By: Dieter Dorby

Off into the tube: The Floigerbach is led into an underground tube in the upper section of the Floigerweg.

Two variants envisage moving this point upstream.

© Thomas Plettenberg

The flood protection for the Kleinthal district of Miesbach has made some progress - after a working group (AK) expanded with residents was installed in October 2020 (we reported).

Two landowners were found on the Floigerweg who are willing to talk about a transition of the Floigerbach through their properties.

This results in further solution variants, which are now to be prioritized using an evaluation matrix.

Managing Director Frank Kleist and his colleague Johannes Jungnickl from the SKI office in Munich presented the current status of the planning to the city council.

New options through reconciliation

The willingness of those property owners had increased the possibilities, Jungnickl reported.

This means that redirecting the Floigerbach is also an option.

As reported, the flood problem in Kleinthal lies in the interaction of the Floigerbach, which flows down from the southeast and meets the Talerbach coming from the south in the area of ​​Kleinthalstraße, with which it unites to form the Miesbach.

Also read:

The flood protection in Bergham and Kleinthal is currently dependent on this

For a long time, the solution was to give the Floigerbach the right of way while the Talerbach was held back by a dam.

However, if there is the possibility of directing the Floigerbach to the open agricultural area, both streams could be dammed behind the dam and drained in a controlled manner.

Important here: both measures would be suitable because of the retention basin for a flood with a probability of 100 years - a HQ100 - and thus - essential for the city finances - fully eligible for funding from the Free State.

Four variants are tested

As a result, there are four variants that are to be evaluated using a matrix;

the AK can also make a recommendation, as Mayor Gerhard Braunmiller (CSU) added.

Variant 1 envisages directing the Floigerbach into the pipe at the upper confluence of the Fliederweg (bypass), then leading it through the properties in the further area of ​​the lower Fliederweg, whereby the existing pipe would remain in place at the further Floigerweg.

Variant 2 consists of the bypass, dispenses with the transition and, according to the priority principle, leads the water downwards through a pipe that is then to be enlarged.

Variants 3 and 4 do not pipe the Floigerbach until later and consequently correspond to the two variants 1 and 2.

Also read:

This is how the working group came into play in October 2020

According to Jungnickl, all four variants are now being planned.

The prerequisite is that the outflow is guaranteed and that there is no deterioration for those lying below.

But there is also the individual view of some residents, who in turn want to see their wishes and ideas realized.

Markus Seemüller (FWG) referred to this and suggested thinking about the terrain modeling that Kleinthalers wanted instead of the basin.

Because: "Without the willingness of the local residents, it doesn't work".

Also read:

noise about flood protection in Kleinthal - mayor asks the question of confidence

A move that Kleist clearly rejected: Without a retention basin, there would be no HQ100.

In addition, the more buildings you build, the more expensive the project becomes.

“The Free State only supports the cheapest option.

Stefan Griesbeck (CSU) agreed: “We have to buffer 60,000 cubic meters of water.

A bit of terrain modeling won't do that."

Another topic: the planning costs

The city council unanimously followed the proposed procedure, according to which the administration created and weighted the parameters of the matrix in consultation with AK, planners and other findings in order to recommend a preferred variant to the city council.

This time, too, the discussion did not come without the topic of planning costs.

So Paul Fertl (SPD) warned to come to an end and stated in the direction of the SKI office: “You have already earned a silver nose.

It doesn't have to be a golden one." In view of the constant stream of new planning orders, Kleist had stated: "We don't block ourselves against orders, but we move in a loop.

And that's not a nice way to make money.”

ddy