Part 1
There are very low chances for a flood of more magnitude than that of 1990 to occur. The probability of occurrence of the 1990 flood was 0.06. This indicates that probability of occurrence of the flood in the year was substantially low. 6/100 is a substantially low frequency. This means that, probability of occurrence of a greater flooding than this is insignificantly low because it is less than six percent, hence, it is negligible. A flood of a greater magnitude than that of 1990 is unexpected; this is an important point to consider in determining what prevention measures are worth implementing in the town owing to the cost constraint. There would be no point of incurring too high cost of prevention of an occurrence that has negligibly low chances of happening. This indicates that raising the wall by 0.5 M would be considered more viable than raising it by one unit. This is because raising the wall will just be a precautionary measure, just to be risk averse incase the unexpected happens. The rest of the funds can be used to invest in other productive areas.
Part 2
Increasing the height of the existing levees is viable just to be precautious. Risk is something always present in any given setting, the party who enjoys in the aftermath of a risk occurring is the one who is proactive. The flooding which occurred in the 1990 is a good example of how risk operates; although there was very limited chances of flooding (P=0.06), it still happened and definitely caused unexpected damage. To add to this, floods are natural disasters which cannot be controlled or predicted with excellent precision, therefore, the only precaution that people can take is to be proactive with preventive measures because the risk cannot be insured, Keller & Devecchio (2012).
In the case of Nyngan River, there are two alternative precautions available. First, there is the option of raising the levees by 0.5 m and there is the option of raising the same by one meter. Both the precautions would be considered for preventing flooding of the river should circumstances similar to those of 1990 occur. Comparative analysis of the two indicates that there is parity between the costs of the two. Cost of the first measure is three point five million while for the other alternative the cost is four point eight million. To determine the viability of the two and choose the one which translates into more returns. Weighting the two alternatives here is determined by risk and cost. In this situation, there are very limited chances of a flood surpassing that of 1990 occurring, the probability of such an event is tending to zero which means that the chances are utterly limited. However, because chances of flooding were very low in 1990 and it still occurred, it is inevitable to take the necessary measure to prevent future unforeseen loses.
Part 3
In part two, it has been established that it economically viable to increase the height of levees by half a meter in order to prevent the risk of the river flooding in future. However, there are several reasons for not yet in initiating the move. First, there may be unavailability of qualified personnel for building the levees. All the other requirements for increasing the height of the levees may be available; however, it is until when the necessary qualified work force for the construction that the work can begin, Kerzner (2009)
The second reason for the delay may be simply out of procrastination. In this case, procrastination can easily arise; this is because what parties are struggling to control has very negligible chance of occurring. The parties may, therefore keep on postponing the day for the construction since they may have the notion of relative security from floods due to the low chances of occurrence of the phenomenon. However, this is not advisable since no one knows when disaster may strike, Erik (2000).
The other problem that may cause delay in commencement of the project is may be lack of adequate capital. The proposal for increasing the height may be passed, however, for the ground to be broken for the project there must be enough capital necessary for supporting the course of the process. There may still be other factors hindering commencement of the project like negligence. The plan may be there but it can be always be overtaken by other projects considered to be more viable and hence neglecting construction of the levees, Karzner (2009). Another hindering factor may be poor planning which may lead to setting dates within which the project cannot be undertaken.
Project managers must address several other factors before commencing with the heightening of the levees. Strength of the bedrock is a crucial dynamic in any construction. Before heightening the levees, the project management team must ensure that the bedrock is strong enough to support the extra that will be introduced by the extra materials added onto the levees. There may also be risk factors worth considering, for example, necessary precautions must be in place to prevent diseases that may outbreak when water collects along the levees creating favorable breeding sites for parasites. There must be consideration on the impact of the project in the environment. The project should ensure that the Mother Nature is preserved. The team must also consider durability of project to ensure that it will still be preventive in the end.
Bibliography
Erik, L. (2000). Isaacs storm: A man, a time and the deadliest hurricane in history. USA: Vintage
Karzner, H.R. (2009). Project management case studies. USA: Wiley
Keller, E.A & Devecchio, D.E. (2012). Natural hazards. USA: Prentice hall
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. USA: Wiley
United state Army office of the chief engineers. (2007). Design and construction of levees engineering and design. USA: Department of Army. Office of the chief engineer
