surprise surprise... flood going to be even worse then 5th ever

Actually there is nothing accurate about your analogy. They did not write it off - they repaired it. If they wrote it off - they would have bought these properties in the same manner that you surrender your vehicle in lieu of a settlement cheque. You have to appeciate the finalities when trying to fly your anaolgy or else it's just empty rhetoric. And future flood compensation is a given - not a dream, so your defensive statement on that is also empty.

I believe they bought people out that didn't want to up-grade their eleevations. They ended the yearly circus.
Again, do you have private flood insurance? (I know you don't)

Interesting that MPIC analogies have come up.

MPIC never repairs flood damaged vehicles. They are always written off as "parts only" salvage. They do this to prevent future claims based on long term corrosion, particularly of electronics.

Jondo, your house may only be damaged once every ten to seven hundred years. What would be your position if the place was flooded every year? Claim every year? Even you must agree there should be some sort of limits to this coverage.

There is.

Doesn't anybody remember all the publicity over this a few years ago?

The government played hardball. Some people wanted to be allowed to stay in there homes and were given that option...but at their own risk.
If Jondo bought one of those homes, the realtor may have misrepresented some facts about the place. That's the nearest that I can think of the reason for that position.

I'll say again - this property was raised to requirements following the 1997 flood. With that being the case (of myself and hundreds of others), understand that we're talking about future flooding and the legal liability for same.
Regarding your irrelevant question on insurance - try getting fire insurance when your neighbour is a known and repeat arsonist. The only real insurance available to us here is hope that the government will stop raising their gate. Knowing that will never happen - their problem will continue until they conclude the matter with finality. Had they done so - this property would not have been on the market in 2005 for a premium price.
Further to your poor analogy earlier. That would be akin to MPIC writing off your car, not paying you for it and then re-selling your car to somebody else, including collecting taxes on the resale. Interestingly, the provincial government had been doing just that (taxing the resale of cars and not rebating the earlier transaction) until they were exposed and made to publisize the mechanism for rebates. It's a side point to be sure however it is the kind of thing that they get away with until they are held to account. The flow of accountability in the flooding matter is just as transparent - if considered with integrity (honesty helps too).

If your house was raised to the proper elevation, what's the problem then?

My point about insurance is that if you are in a flood plain and the place continually gets flooded out, insurance companies won't insure you. That was the case here, so people wanted compensation from the government. The government responded appropriately and fixed the problem.

In all fairness Jondo if there is a likely possibility of flooding why buy there?

I accept the problem is partially caused by the government. Fair enough. But knowing the government might flood you out why buy there AND expect the taxpayer to compensate for damages???

What it boiled down to last round was one side blamed the government entirely, while the government said it mattered little whether a house had 6' of water in it or 8' of water. Opening the gates made no real difference to the overall effect.

At least that's what I remember of the arguements presented at the time.

Thanks. The problem is that this years forecast now anticipates higher than 2006 elevation. In 2006 we lost half of our post-1997 dike do to peak elevation flood erosion. Our septic field was also saturated and non-functioning (written-off without settlement). We've been in a holding pattern wondering what to do about these serious issues. Now those two problems including further erosion will repeat this year. It also seems (due to global weather pattern changes) that this will be a more common occurance than the usually referenced 100 -700 yr cycles. In 1997, most everybody raised their homes and stayed (few if any "took the buy-out offer and left" - I've never heard of that option). What the Gov't should do after this year is buy the properties immediately on the river and be done with it. I'd vacate in a minute. That's where it becomes their decision - and I'm fine either way - they can keep dealing with this annually or buy these properties and be done with it. And if the realtor is accomplice to the larger scheme then they can be brought into the picture when things get resolved finally however I can assure you that I will not be left holding the wet bag.

Jondo,
Why on earth did you buy this house in the first place?

grumpy old man wrote:In all fairness Jondo if there is a likely possibility of flooding why buy there?

I accept the problem is partially caused by the government. Fair enough. But knowing the government might flood you out why buy there AND expect the taxpayer to compensate for damages???

The situation is this - the gov't calculated it's future City flooding costs and constructed the dike. Their expected/deferred damage costs were realized by them in 1950 and 1997. These costrs will continue to be graduated until they buy out river proximinity properties. They "finalized" their complicity by granting dike construction costs to these properties. The dikes have now been eroded by the very high elevations since. My neighbour has spent $100,000 fighting the erosion of his gov't funded, gov't specification dike over the last 3 years. I'm now faced with the same thing. Consider it this way - we're returning our dikes under the Consumer Protection Act covering inadequate goods.

Why would I buy this place Grumpy and Time Lord ask. A better question would be to consider why it is that every single property in the area in question is inhabited by family homes - now atop post-1997 dikes. The risk was "eliminated" - by the governments calculation - and I suppose that is the confidence shared by the homeowners. In actuality, the last few year has revealed unstoppable and unmanageable erosion damage due to ongoing high levels of water. I've indicated two of those problems - septic and dike related. The drainage pipe network from the homes are inbedded in the dikes in most cases - and those dikes are now breaking away toward the river. This cannot be my problem. Are any of you aware that the riverbank directly north of us near Pembina and Bishop Grandin is undergoing tens of millions of dollars of enbankment reinforcing? Those are the visible rocks and netting that will stabilize the erosion you're experiencing even without the high flood-gate level we have south of you. The 10 wealthy estates along that stretch are not reponsible for funding that cost. I'm guessing that doesn't come as a surprise to you. That would be the Province's project cost. I could ask those homeowners why they live there but they wouldn't understand the question. So, as usual, that's what it comes down to - the money. People - the floodgates solved your annual flooding problem and as usual - there's a natural law that implies there's a cost for doing anything. In this case - it should be obvious where and what those costs are. The irony here is that we contribute (through taxation) to the ongoing cost of the floodway and yet some feel we should find a hundred million dollars of our own money to stabilize "our" problem in our back yards.

The bad side of this is that those houses sold and vacated end up being resold and occupied... They should be either destroyed or relocated to higher elevation (and not just lifted...).
Another question, that has to do with the neighbor down south, is why don't they save the floodwater in their man-made reservoirs? Is it maybe because the water is contaminated??? This water ends up in Canadian rivers and lakes, and Canadian peoples' tap water...

The man-made reservoirs you refer are the voids left in the yard from where the dirt for the dike came from. I don't know what you mean by wondering why we don't save the floodwater in these holes? Of course, every year, after the ocean disappears - those ponds are full - as they always are.

I'm all for riverbank erosion protection on the municipal and provincial dime. But until such time as that is the case for homeowners buying property on riverbanks they are on the hook for protecting against erosion and the subsequent damage.

The riverbanks have been eroding through Winnipeg, dangerously, for years now. That is nature at work isn't it? However if the floodway is advancing the problem then the province needs to step up. But not by subsidizing homeowners every year but by purchasing the property and razing the houses. Let's not simply allow others to move onto riverfront houses without being fully aware of the problem and accepting responsibility. I do accept this is a difficult situation...

That is fair no?

Well of course the floodway is the problem. The water rises before your eyes as soon as they command the gate. It literally rises 10 feet overnight. In my case that means the river goes from being 100 yards away to 20 feet away within a few short days. That brings it 1/2 way up my dike. By no coincidence - that is the new fault line on crumbling dike. How could the floodway not be implicated? It is directly implicated with no other factors at work. Yes they should buy these properties. For sure.

Jondo wrote:The man-made reservoirs you refer are the voids left in the yard from where the dirt for the dike came from. I don't know what you mean by wondering why we don't save the floodwater in these holes? Of course, every year, after the ocean disappears - those ponds are full - as they always are.

I wasn't saying south of WPG, I meant south of the border. The Americans have dug up so many reservoirs, why don't they use them properly???

grumpy old man wrote:There is an ever increasing amount of eye-gouging posts here. Please stop.

Clown shoes and boxers indeed...

Just for the record folks, this rule does not apply to the site administrator.

Winnipeg is completely safe! I would worry about global warming, or the start up of IKEA, or worse yet the start of a rapid transit system, or the noise that opening the floodway gates will cause!

HurtinAlbertan wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:There is an ever increasing amount of eye-gouging posts here. Please stop.

Clown shoes and boxers indeed...

Just for the record folks, this rule does not apply to the site administrator.

Heh heh. What a maroon. At least pick a relevant post. Your selection only makes you look foolish.

Jondo wrote:Huh?
You start by typing that the gov't intentionally did this and then you finish by typing that it is not something caused by the City or Province. How can you express an opinion that is to be taken seriously when you don't have a grasp or the intellectual interest to understand the actual issue. I'll re-state the part for you to focus on. The Gov't intentionally floods the south in an effort to save the City. It's an economic decision, in that it is cheaper to build a $500m diversion than it is to replace Wpg every so often. It was pretty dumb to build Wpg at the junction of the great rivers and I've always wondered who would be stupid enough to do so. Back to the point - that was your people - and now you flood me with your corrective actions. I won't even get into other obvious facts including that the area is treated no different than anywhere else (taxation, insurance, real estate prices etc). So if everybody else wants to get real then I'll get in that line also. And yes I am friend's with Terry. You say you would scream loud and hard to stop it (I assume you mean the compensation for flood damage to my property). Would you say something so ignornant after you've read the above - or will you reply and apologize to my people (victims of intentional flooding) for your ignorance?

Sorry I will make it clearer for you Snows in the states will melt and come north , River will swell and get much wider . People living by manmade structure built to save the city of Wpg , will have back yard and home flooded . Sorta like most of the valley , difference is that these people were offered to be bought out and did not take it cause they were not going to get enough . Sorta like when they offered it to my Grandfather when the floodway was built .
See I do have grasp better then you about subject. And just so you know Iam part native so don't play the ignorant card with me . Don't either way .

The flooding is added to but not caused by the city or province , and if you built to spec you should be safe and your septic field will probably be done way with any way as most of the area will be put on city over the next few years . The plans are in the works .
Keep looking I don.t apologize to anyone who insinuates Iam ignorant .

So, someone bought a house in an area not protected by the floodway, and based on "government" calculations, the house is high enough to weather flood conditions similar to 1997, but if flood ocnditions exceed that, then the government is responsible. What crap! You bought a cheap house and now expect me to pay everytime it floods.

The Winnipeg Floodway was built to protect WINNIPEG. Floodway or not, there would still be flooding south of the City, but some forward thinking, rare for politicians, constructed the floodway to save billions of dollars in damage to the metropolitan area. IF THE FLOODWAY DIDN'T EXIST, YOU'D PROBABLY STILL GET FLOODED, ALONG WITH 800,000+ PEOPLE CURRENLTY PROTECTED BY THE FLOODWAY.

You're not saying that some people want their cake and to eat it too are you? lol

JTF wrote:You're not saying that some people want their cake and to eat it too are you? lol

Good grief. I won't even respond to the other two but this one sums it up perfectly. What cake? Kind of like the written-off car that doesn't exist either. And Pavlov - read the posts and then try and form a reply with a point in it somewhere - you're hysterical.

flood now forecast to possibly exceed 1997 levels... depending on storm brewing and set to possibly hit ND this week.....

JTF wrote:You're not saying that some people want their cake and to eat it too are you? lol

I like that expression, think I'll use it.

YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT.

Myabe we can go after Mother Nature, afterall, she's the one responsible for all this flooding. Hope she has a good lawyer!!