Good afternoon and welcome to the press conference on the occasion of
the government's visit to the Savinja region, which was affected by
the floods in August.
We are joined by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia, dr.
Robert Golob, Mayor of Braslovče Tomaž Žohar and Rok Fazarinc, member
of the Council of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Flood
Recovery and Head of the Council of the Water Institute, who will be the
first to take the floor and present the expert solutions for the areas of
the municipality of Braslovče affected by the severe floods in
August. Please excuse me.
I would like to briefly outline the broader, somewhat broader issue of
flood safety in the area of Letuše and Male Braslovče.
You need to turn on the microphone.
So, as I said before, I will start by giving a slightly broader picture of
the area in terms of flood risk.
The figure above shows the current flood safety classes.
That is to say, the classes represent the conditions under which
we can locate in flood zones.
These yellow structures represent the low flood risk class at the
100-year flow for these areas.
This flow was significantly higher in this year's event.
In the intermediate flood safety classes, according to the existing
legislation, all buildings can be built without any problems, except
for sensitive buildings, so basically all these buildings located
in the flood zone of Roje and Letuška gmajna and Male Braslovče are built
properly, in accordance with the currently applicable regulations.
The second thing, which is slightly different and shows up differently,
is the picture below, which represents the water area of the
Savinja. We know that two years ago we had a referendum on coastal land,
bypass land.
There is a certain zone that is exclusively dedicated to water, where
water has a dominant influence.
And this zone is limited to 15 metres in urban areas and 40 metres
in non-urban areas.
And we have quite a few facilities built within this coastal zone.
That is to say, we have the opposite problem here, that some facilities do
not comply with the current regulations.
But that's not so problematic.
The problem is that in this area, when high water comes, which is
higher than the calculated 100-year high water, there is overflow of the
banks, mainly to the left towards Rojam and to the right past Letuška
gmajna and further towards Male Braslovče.
Well, and these phenomena were much more intense in this event in August
than those that have been recorded so far.
On the left of this figure are the high water waves that are considered
to have been measured or calculated in this part of the flood area.
This blue line, the 100-year return line, showing the 100-year
level or the 100-year return flow, shows the limit up to which it was
possible, for which the regulations applied.
But because the phenomenon was much more intense, there was this overflow
and all these catastrophic consequences in the area.
Unfortunately, this is not adequately addressed by the current
legislation. These phenomena that have a return period
of 100 years. And that's why there are so many injuries.
This first picture represents the situation as it is approximately as
it happened on the fourth of August.
That is, the consequences of flood depth.
We can see that we have between two and two metres, and even higher.
In these deepest parts.
But that's because the water was trapped by the embankments along the
Savinja and these depths were in fact the greatest.
This is the first picture.
The second image represents the situation.
If we had implemented all the measures of the National Spatial
Plan, which was adopted more than ten years ago.
In such an intense event, it is concluded that these arrangements
would not guarantee flood safety or that the events would be as critical
as they were on August 4.
The authorities planning developments on this stretch have
tried to find ways to protect existing urban areas through
various options.
That is to say, to exclude them from these floodplains, to enclose them
with some kind of embankment or in some other way to save them from
being flooded. This is represented by the right picture, the third one
And instead of these lost areas, an attempt is being made to activate
additional floodplains between the Savinja and the slope of Mount
Oljka, or the railway line.
We would have gained these lost volumes on the left,
but it has been found that any such solution
is not positive.
If we were to close the flood zone, if we were to exclude
them, we would worsen the situation especially in the areas of
Polzela and Breg.
Further afield, to Šempeter and even to Celje, the impact would be very
high if all the distribution areas from Letuše to Celje were
closed in this way.
Of course, if the situation were to be fully realised, it could be
catastrophic. That's what we've tried to show in this figure.
The top left image represents the flooding in Celje over the whole of
this wave, which developed in the Lower Savinja Valley, came to Celje
and would have had an average water depth of about one metre in Celje.
It may look a little worse in this picture, but then the average depth
is more than 1 metre. But in certain areas, say critical infrastructure,
hospitals and nursing homes, the depths would be even greater.
The right picture shows only high water in Celje.
Taken from a drone, but only with the yellow line where this
cross-section is made.
This flood area was just under two kilometres wide.
But in essence.
To summarise, if we were to seal off the ground, if we were to drain the
ground, if we were to prevent flooding in the Lower Savinja Valley,
the situation downstream would be much worse than it is today.
If we were to come up with solutions, for example for the Roje
area itself, that is to say the left bank of the Savinja between the
confluence of the Paka and the Savinja, we tried to analyse in such
an imaginative way what would happen in the future, or what could be done,
and what would then be the consequences if we did
build a dike that was high enough to prevent floods such as this
one, when we had flood depths of more than one metre or one and a half
metres. Then we simply close the natural outflow of surface water
towards the Savinja, towards the drainage channel.
We prevent a natural process from happening
because we are also creating this flow, not only surface
flow, but also groundwater flow.
The Savinja River communicates with the hinterland above the layer.
This would prevent the stagnation of this water behind the embankment.
This should be addressed by adequate drainage and pumping stations.
And then we will see another picture at the end.
We then expect an additional steady inflow of these
backwaters. They would be a problem in heavy rainfall.
Even in Ljubljana, there are always problems.
When there is a storm with underpasses and the like, it could
also happen in this area.
The problem would be with the sewers.
Today, the area is not sewered.
With these high levels in the Savinja, there would be
sources of reverse flow in the area of the septic tanks and discharges
into the septic tanks, so the problem would arise there that would
have to be dealt with technically in some way.
What does this mean in practice?
Let's take a couple of examples from a few years ago, where water
embankments were used.
The top left image shows the Vič area in Ljubljana looking like the
Bled Island. The top right image is from the same area.
Four years later, we see that the sun is shining, but the embankments,
the railway embankment or all along the Little Graben, prevent the
outflow of these flood waters.
The bottom left picture shows the dividing line to this industrial
zone, which was also flooded and then the motorway was also flooded.
But the last picture is usually the one I like best.
This is the Marijagraška bend in Laško, which is now protected by a
mobile flood wall.
Well, to protect these facilities that are within this intersection.
However, because the pump was not working, the area was just as
flooded as if it had been, as if it had not been protected.
This is a brief presentation to outline the problems in dealing with
embankments in this way.
However, it is necessary to address in some way in advance if such areas
are to be encroached upon, so that flood-resistant construction is
carried out.
That is to say, if, even though we have an embankment, we have to build
in such a way that we have a ground-floor part of the building
that does not have damage potential, or that does
not pose any great damage, or that we are not at risk.
In the lower part, let's say, everything that is important
infrastructure to be placed in the upper parts, let's say, the opposite
of what we have in Celje, let's say, the hospital in Celje.
Part of the hospital is half underground and half above ground, so
we avoid these things.
And that is what I hope it will be.
These regulations that are in force today will be changed in the future,
so we will be more attentive to these areas.
And finally, here's another slightly unusual picture of Železniki.
We see that the water has been retained in the
building and then flows into the letterbox.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. The Mayor of Braslovče, Mr Tomaž Žohar, will
present what all these expert solutions mean for the inhabitants of
these areas, who are eagerly awaiting this solution.
Thank you very much, and greetings on my behalf too.
I must preface by saying that we have certainly pursued three key
objectives. As far as the local community is concerned.
The most important thing is that, as a first priority, remediation work is
carried out very quickly, mainly for the protection of people and the
protection of the banks, which would mean further erosion.
In case of autumn rain.
It is essential that it is implemented in some way on the ground
and that, as I said, actions count.
The second, and certainly extremely important, objective is to help
people socially and financially.
Many of them had already built up a lifetime of savings, leaving them
in their homes.
In a few hours, the torrential Savinja River swept them all away,
and they are, in fact, helpless socially, on the verge of survival,
of despair. And that is why it is so important to find a solution for
them. How to help?
Above all, it is the long-term view that is extremely important, namely
the long-term solution.
That is what we all basically have to stare at so that this never
happens again.
Now, related to these, I will say, expert facts and expert opinions, the
fact is that we have to look at the whole of flood protection measures in
the whole of the Savinja river basin.
The law itself says that we cannot improve one person's flood defences
at the expense of making another person's situation worse.
This is very clear and is not allowed in practice by the
Constitution. Only integrated measures make any sense.
And linked to these expert facts, that any high barriers or banks or
walls on the disputed part of the left and right banks of the Steuton
river are not appropriate solutions.
We remain committed to finding the optimal solution based on our
responsibilities and our foundations.
Now many in the past days.
There have been complaints that there is too little impact area in
the Left Bank, too little spill area and that there is no need for spill.
My answer is this: the primary objective is not, in a sense, to hold
back the water on the left bank, but to save lives.
This is our responsibility.
My responsibility as Mayor.
The responsibility of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the
President at its head, to save lives by eventually building dykes and
walls, makes the whole situation much worse in the future.
If things get worse over the next twenty or thirty years.
That the pumps do not work, as has been said, that it breaks through the
wall, we have practically a pot full of water there, and we have not only
the lives of the present generation at stake, but also of future
generations. On the other hand, there are also firefighters who
rescue when rescue is needed.
So that is our responsibility.
That is what we will pursue and that is the primary objective.
I will also say that, last but not least, when it comes to
accountability, it is important, because in my eyes and in my heart,
we are accountable to the next generations.
It is not a question of whether or not something similar will come, it
is a question of when it will come.
And that is why we need to look holistically, holistically at the
whole river basin, so that we do not make it worse for others.
There have also been many accusations that we are saving Celje
on our shoulders.
Certainly not.
The infrastructure is ours too.
Celje is also home to our hospitals, our doctors, our beds.
When we need it, it's our primary and secondary schools and colleges.
And they are our jobs.
And we don't have to divide ourselves into ours and yours.
We are human beings and we need to look at the whole picture, and that
is what we will pursue for our local community.
So, as far as these technical facts that have been proven are concerned,
We continue to work constructively with the inter-ministerial groups in
government to come up with absolutely optimal solutions to
ensure the safety of these people.
And we will work to ensure that their safety is not only ensured, but
at least their quality of life is maintained, if not improved.
And above all, as I said at the beginning, it also helps financially
and socially, so that those who are left with practically minimal
pensions, or with the minimal income of a young family as such, and
possibly with loans, who cannot even get a new one, can also recover
financially and socially.
But our primary objective is solely to pursue the interests of the
safety, the quality of life of the people in our municipality, and I can
say that most of them.
Thank you.
Thank you And the Prime Minister.
Let us say that the Municipality of Braslovče this week received the
advance payments promised by the Government, so Prime Minister, the
floor is yours.
Thank you very much. I would like to underline two things.
I have already visited the municipality of Braslovče, very soon
after the floods, and even then I was able to see that it was in fact
the sacrifice of the firefighters and a good deal of luck that led to
the fact that we did not and you did not have any deaths in your
municipality. I think that this lesson that nature has given us, we
need to listen to it and learn from it, actually come out of it more
resilient to what the future brings.
At that time, I also realised that there was a real possibility that
within the municipality of Braslovče we could really realise this slogan,
which says: We will not only deal with the consequences of natural
disasters, but through reconstruction and development we
will make the whole environment significantly more resilient to
future disasters, as well as more attractive for people to live in.
And I would like to start by saying that when I listen to the experts who
have been tasked in recent months to look at one thing and one thing only,
and that is what is the level of threat to life and property.
And this is the ultimate criterion by which experts make their decisions
and which they pursue.
Flood safety is, of course, one of the factors that influence this.
But it is the threat that we measure the way we make decisions.
This applies both to flooding - in Braslovče, flooding is a problem -
and to landslides in some other municipalities, including the hamlet
of Struge. Because I know that this is a dilemma.
Unfortunately, our country was not prepared for disasters of this
magnitude. It was not legally prepared.
In the past, we have had some really bad and severe natural disasters
locally. If you like, the avalanche under Mangart, Železniki, the floods
in Železniki and so on.
And then it took a year, a year, for the experts to figure out what the
right professional solutions were.
Not two months not three months, a year and a year have been, if you
like, people in limbo. This time it will not last a year.
I assure you.
This week, which is upon us, experts will visit all the populated areas
where there are not isolated cases, but populated areas where these
dilemmas are open today.
And this week, all people will get a direct answer and clarification from
the experts on what the level of risk is.
Today, listening to Mr Fazarinac, one metaphor seemed to me the most
illustrative. We are all familiar with the images of the Ljubljana
underpasses, where water is held back when there is groundwater
ponding or a breach in the embankments.
And no, we do not want you to invest today in such measures, measures that
will also build a chassis in your municipality where water can start to
accumulate every time it rains.
Every time your pump fails, you will have sewage and groundwater
overflows.
The state cannot afford to invest resources in this and to persuade you
to stay there. It is our job, and we will deliver.
We are very clear on a house-by-house, area-by-area basis.
What is the threat level?
And where it is too big, we find an alternative solution and then we
implement it in a way that is fair and equitable to you as investors.
That is our task.
Today, we will hold a consultation or government meeting in Žalec to
discuss the intervention law, which will be aimed at just that.
It will be for the people.
First, how will the money come faster to advance payments for
damage, faster to the people.
Just as it has come to municipalities, it has come to the
economy. I am talking about advance payments.
And at the same time, how to get a list of buildings at risk and whose
habitation is no longer only recommended, but no longer allowed.
This is the task of the State.
Of course, we have to come up with alternatives, and the alternatives
have to be financial, not only neutral, but they have to be such
that you are not penalised or punished for it.
This part is very important and I am emphasising it now.
And one more thing, which is extremely important.
This list, which will be the definitive list, will have to be
fast. We will not wait a year.
This list will have to be finalised by the end of next month for the
whole area, not only for Braslovče, I stress by the end of November for
all. Where there are concentrated settlements like Braslovče, it will
be, as mentioned, this week.
The same applies to Struge. In the coming week, expert teams will visit
the site and explain directly to people each object in that area.
I think it is our duty, and it is also the right of the people to be
informed, to find out as soon as possible.
I understand everyone's emotional attachment.
I would have it to my home too.
But to live in fear every time it rains and to know that we live in a
basin where the consequences of every downpour will actually be worse
than outside the basin.
But it is not something I would suggest to anyone.
But I am not an expert, I am speaking as a human being, I am
speaking as a father and I am speaking as someone who is trying to
empathise with where my children should live and sleep.
And it seems to me that this part is something we must never forget.
Thank you very much. Now it's time for questions from the press.
Please come to the microphone.
Introduce yourself and which media you are from.
The microphone is on that side.
Barbara Štor, TV Slovenia.
Hello! Basically, I have a question about Struge.
Yesterday we were waiting to hear whether they would move.
I think we are all interested in this today.
The 150 houses in the Letuška gmajna that are awaiting this decision,
resettlement yes or no.
Will resettlement happen or no?
I will repeat what I have said.
Sometimes it is necessary to repeat three times.
No problem, it's not a political decision.
This is a decision to be taken by the experts.
The expert opinions have already been presented, you have seen it
today. The expert opinions will be presented directly to the people at
the citizens' assemblies, because they are the ones who need it.
This week, these expert opinions that have been produced will be
presented. The opinions are clear, the policy is that when the expert
opinions are clear, definitive, that we take care of the groundwork so
that all the compensatory measures can then be implemented.
Measures that tell people how we are going to compensate them will be
compensated by them.
But this is a question of policy.
And I'll say it again.
The law that addresses this, the Intervention Law, will be discussed
today at a government meeting in Žalec.
Are you satisfied with this in your municipality?
As far as the local community is concerned, I will say, in relation to
what has been presented, we are satisfied today.
Why? Because, after all, we have had the relevant expert opinions
presented, and they have been presented today.
And in the light of this expert opinion, it is clear that absolute
safety cannot be guaranteed at the current location of the left and
right banks in Letuše.
If we do not take flood protection measures, I will say that the
corresponding measures in Male Braslovče will also be taken, which I
will say is also of the utmost importance.
If we do them, individually, we jeopardise Parižlje, which is also in
our municipality, and last but not least Polzela, Žalec and Celje.
So from that point of view, the answer is clear.
However, it is also clear that, as the President said, it is imperative
that we meet with local residents over the next week to discuss each
individual case or situation individually.
So we have a clear path.
But it is also clear that it is up to us to make this work optimally for
the benefit of the people and for the benefit of the people alone.
Next question. Maybe it's just me who doesn't understand, but expert
opinions nonetheless.
You said they were clear.
We can read between the lines that it's dangerous there.
Why then are people not simply told?
But you mention that again.
Next week's meeting.
Already have the exact date?
Because those weeks have now moved away very, very often.
Will there really be a time next week when you have something fixed so
that you can finally say something more concrete to the people?
As for the date, I can say that we coordinated over the weekend.
That's Wednesday, Thursday.
We will know how and what things will turn out.
The fact is that it is the people who can be informed at the right
time. The information today was also crucial for the local community to be
able to organise itself properly, that is to say, to meet.
And from that point of view, I will say this, as far as what has been
presented is concerned, I think it has been made clear today.
If I may speak on behalf of the local community, it is my
understanding that the left bank and the right bank of Letuše are
moving. There are clearly steps to be taken and, as I said, these are
expected in the second half of next week.
But there are clearly other details that need to be coordinated, because,
after all, we are talking about the profession as well as the government
team and, not least, the local community, and there are other
obligations as well. Therefore, the dates need to be properly coordinated
and communicated with citizens to maximise their participation.
Why does it only make sense to inform people directly at citizens'
assemblies? Because at the citizens' assembly, each of them has the
opportunity to clarify each of their dilemmas.
Believe me, no piece in any media can do that.
Press and TV appearances are limited to two minutes.
People have three hours, four hours at a citizens' meeting, each of them,
to see whether their doubts have been allayed.
This is the only way if we really want to inform people.
I was specifically in Struge to check.
We have planned for Wednesday, but it will be on Thursday.
And in Braslovče.
I understand the same because the same team will be explaining.
A similar team explained to people directly for each house individually,
each doubt individually and the team will have to have an answer even now.
What are the next steps?
This is very important.
One more thing that is important.
People will of course be interested to know what the difference is if
they stay financially.
What is the difference if they decide to leave their home or if they
are forced to leave their home?
And this will also be explained.
And people have different situations.
As I said, some have credit, others don't.
Some have a cottage, others have a house, some have business buildings,
others don't.
Every single thing needs to be explained to the people, not through
the media.
So you have to go to the people and explain to the people, you have to
have a basis, and you have to have a team that is trained to explain to
the people how much more money the state is going to spend when it is a
replacement building compared to when it is just a renovation of a
building. Of course, this makes sense to everyone, but people today
don't know that. When people are on site, they can ask for a specific
example, each for their own facility.
They won't get a concrete calculation, but they will get an
order of magnitude and the order of magnitude is ...
There is a big difference.
Because it has to be.
Mark Vidrih, I will refer to your statement that it is necessary to go
among the people and to Struge.
Citizens have repeatedly called on you publicly to go there too.
I understand that this is the third time Mr Šefic has been.
Why haven't you personally been there yet?
My first question and the second question, regarding this site that
you have seen today, can you explain a little bit what is going to be
planned there.
Maybe you don't know that I've been to Struge before.
are also recordings of this.
There are hundreds of buildings in Slovenia that are at risk in one way
or another and families that are unfortunately unable to stay in their
buildings. I can't visit each location several times.
That is the first, the second is more important.
Politics does not provide the answers.
The profession is the only one that can explain to people why an object
is at risk. It is not up to the Mayor, much less the Prime Minister,
to make a risk assessment on a site-by-site basis.
I hope you agree with this.
The role of the Prime Minister is to make sure that those buildings that
are declared by the profession to be at risk find a process by which a
replacement can be built in the foreseeable future, and that we have
the means to do so.
Because, unfortunately, no one else can do it except the Prime Minister
and the government.
And that is our job.
Any other questions?
I have an answer to the second question.
On an identified alternative site, which has been subject to a
professional urban planning review in this case.
The experts have also looked at the environment and space.
That is to say, it was not that it was not at risk of flooding.
It has the green light as far as the urban review is concerned, but our
aim was actually to ensure a similar quality of life to the current site.
That is to say, there are enough green areas, forested as such.
And it is from this perspective that the profession has defined the
surface. It has defined the layout in a way so that it fits into the
environment itself from an urban planning point of view.
The alternative site, as you have seen, adheres to an already urbanised
area is in close proximity to a primary school kindergarten, soon
also a health centre and a sports park.
I should also say that the plots will be treated individually.
That is to say, we have a property worth between €50 000 and €800 000 on
our existing site.
We absolutely cannot treat everyone the same.
Therefore, I will also say, the starting point will be different and
in a way, all those who are affected by relocation will be given
significantly more choices in terms of the way or the house and the way
they would like to live in the future.
What is important is that we want to listen to people individually and
really give them not only safety but also an adequate quality of life.
One last question, if anyone else has.
Because we have been quite comprehensive.
If it is not, I thank you all.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, everyone.
And we move on.
We still have a lot of work to do, so thank you for being with us.
Have a nice day.