You Would Almost Think There Is An Election Around The Corner

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/agriculture/new-sandbagging-machines-in-manitoba-as-high-water-levels-anticipated-117325303.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/brandon-gets-cash-for-dike-system-117393658.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/province-adds-flood-cages-to-shore-up-existing-dikes-117569708.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Two-vans-take-breast-cancer-fight-to-rural-Manitoba-117617323.html

It seems Mr Selinger is the front man for a lot of announcements on the 6:00 news lately.

aint it nice being bribed with your own money?

too little too late I hope.

These are all needed things for our province! I don't understand what the criticism is all about?
Are some members of this forum showing the stress of 465 consecutive days where the temperature is -25 to -40 with wind chill?
Do we need to bring back the discussion that Winnipeg needs massive amounts of global warming to make this an inhabitable City?
I am so looking forward to being able to visit that beautiful new Museum on a frosty Manitoba morning! lol

I don't get the whole sandbagging thing though.

Manitoba has had (from the history I've learned) 3 MAJOR floods in the 20th century.
I don't mean a little water rising, I mean where the city was basically underwater.

So...after the first flood...it didn't look like they did much...but have an evacuation plan.
After the 2nd...they decided to...nothing really...
Then after the third, they finally build Duff's Ditch...and yet...now...
Let's sandbag again?

Maybe some consideration needs to be taken as to what's REASONABLE.

If flooding is becoming more frequent, and enough to circumvent current prevention protocols...then perhaps a new plan should be developed? Something to actually prevent flooding?

Yes...you can't "fight mother nature"...and there may always be a risk of a surprise natural event (tornadoes are a good example)...however it's flooding...water rising...and it's something that happens "regularly"...so why not put something in place to actually redirect that water...or use it somehow.

1950
April - June - Red River Valley
Flood with damage running into millions of dollars. River level (30.3
feet above City Datum) highest in 89 years.
Other major floods by the Red River:

• 1826 ….. 36.5 feet above City Datum
  
• 1852 ….. 34.7 feet above City Datum
  
• 1861 ….. 32.5 feet above City Datum
  
• 1882 ….. 26.0 feet above City Datum
  
• 1892 ….. 23.5 feet above City Datum
  
• 1904 ….. 24.6 feet above City Datum
  
• 1916 ….. 24.0 feet above City Datum
  
• 1948 ….. 23.4 feet above City Datum
  
• 1966 ….. 26.3 feet above City Datum
  

1952
Completion of construction of
system of permanent dykes along Red River and part of Assiniboine River
within the Greater Winnipeg area to give flood protection to a level of
26.5 feet in most areas and 30.3 feet in the downtown and Riverview
areas.

1968
Opening of Red River Floodway.

1997
April-May - Severe flooding in the Red River Basin, which became known as the "Flood of the Century".
The City of Grand Forks, North Dakota was devastated and many rural
communities sustained severe damage, but the City of Winnipeg was
protected by the Red River Floodway and the Portage Diversion.

AGEsAces wrote:I don't get the whole sandbagging thing though.

If flooding is becoming more frequent, and enough to circumvent current prevention protocols...then perhaps a new plan should be developed? Something to actually prevent flooding?

Yes...you can't "fight mother nature"...and there may always be a risk of a surprise natural event (tornadoes are a good example)...however it's flooding...water rising...and it's something that happens "regularly"...so why not put something in place to actually redirect that water...or use it somehow.

I wonder if it is the same properties which are being sandbagged all the time.
If it is, shouldn't they just build some permanent dikes instead of going through this expense every year or two.
Especially since the taxpayers are now hiring contractors to make the sandbags.

I think some measures have been taken. SOme rural communities have improved their ring dikes, there were changes to zoning that new properties south of the city had to be built xx feet above previous levels.

I think part of it is that most of us were around to remember 1997, so its still "fresh" in our minds, but before that it was 1950 which has since faded.

The other point was that 97 was the "Flood of the Century" but it looks like we could be in for another only 14 years later, or does it count seeing as we're acctually in a new century?

Freeman wrote:I think some measures have been taken. SOme rural communities have improved their ring dikes, there were changes to zoning that new properties south of the city had to be built xx feet above previous levels.

I think part of it is that most of us were around to remember 1997, so its still "fresh" in our minds, but before that it was 1950 which has since faded.

The other point was that 97 was the "Flood of the Century" but it looks like we could be in for another only 14 years later, or does it count seeing as we're acctually in a new century?

I am not talking about the rural communities.
I am talking about the homes right here in River City.

Some of the homes in along the Red River that are flood prone every year have had the river banks upgraded and some have even put in a dike on their property but you have to remember that the river banks themselves are not owned by the property owners, rather either the city or province (not sure which it is) and they are slow in doing a lot of things. Then there is the erosion factor, that every time they put in what may be considered permanent may wash away to some extent at the next flood. This is a situation that is all too common on Kingston Row where some of the properties are. Friends of ours have a home that is in the low part of the Row and after '97 the city shored up the river bank along there only to have it slowly wash away in the next 6 years to the point where the family lost about 20 feet of property to the mighty Red River.

At the end of the day, you got to remember that you can't screw with Mother Nature. Prepare for the Flood of the Century and get the Flood of the Millenium.

The City has a pretty extensive system of primary dikes already, and how far do you go, before it just makes sense to not locate anythign within 2 miles of the River? I must admit that if I lived in one of those flood prone areas, I'd be pretty frustrated by now, but then again, I would probably never buy a place like that to begin with.

How long before Kingston Crescent becomes an island?

Agreed. If you live in a flood plain either live with it or move. No one living in a flood plain should expect the city/province to continually bail them out.

Let's identify these areas, expropriate all the homes, and forbid development there again until it is no longer a flood plain. And even then make the owner/developer sign a waiver releaseing the city/province from all liability.

Freeman wrote:How long before Kingston Crescent becomes an island?

More likely it'll erode away to nothing before it becomes an island.

I owned a house on the other side of Kingston from Holly's friend. It did not have a dike built up nor was it eroding. But it would be tres scary watching the water rise every year.

but there are other options available...at somewhat reasonable costs (especially compared to bailing out the people every year.

there is equipment which can be installed and "narrow" the river so that a more permanent base can be put in along the shorelines...be it a concrete wall, or some other erosion "proof" barrier.

It would have to be engineered and designed, and would probably costs millions of dollars to install...but it would probably prove cheaper to the homeowners in the end if they are required to pay a portion (perhaps through a tax), and since the Red is an international waterway...perhaps federal monies can be implemented as well.

Then remove the barricades and let the river back to a standard width...and the following year...start the other side of the river to do the same.

There would still be the risk of that "millennium" flood coming in...but there's also a risk of an asteroid pummeling the earth and wiping out all life as we know it.

What we CAN count on is that the area WILL FLOOD...and precautions should be taken to address that.

Erosion barriers were discussed a couple years ago. It was determined the cost would be prohibitive. This is a federal government responsibility.

Perhaps we should have use stimulus money for this instead of those stupid traffic circles...

I'd be curious to see what they found cost-prohibitive...and what options were reviewed?

Did they just look at pouring giant concrete barriers? or did they look at other more modern and less expensive methods?

Did they do research into all options? or just believe that diverting the river is the only way to work inside the banks of it?

And cost-prohibitive compared to what? bailing out homeowners year after year and piling sandbags up continuously forever?

cost prohibitive in that we 240 kilometres of rivers banks in the city.

In the one case I recall they had to stabilize the bank near St. Mary's Road (St. Annes?). They apparantly had to drill deep into the bank and drive something down. This was a very expensive process.

I'm hopeful they looked at other methodologies rather than going forward with a too expensive solution.

Perhaps someone remembers this and can refer us to a link. Or google it AA. There was ton's of coverage on it a couple or three years ago.

2 million for 350 metres

http://winnipeg.ca/cao/media/news/nr_2008/nr_20080107.stm#1

That's the story I remembered. There was also an area around a golf course nearby.

I'm surprised the city paid for that work. I understood rivers (waterways) were the responsibility of the federal government.

Deank wrote:2 million for 350 metres

http://winnipeg.ca/cao/media/news/nr_2008/nr_20080107.stm#1

Ok...so we know to do the rock stabilization thing would cost less than $2M per 350m

Quite possibly 1/2 that cost, as the volume to be completed would be
much higher, the methodology would not costs as much...and the
landscaping aspects would not be required in all areas.

So what was that number...240km of riverbank in the city...of which...it may be determined that some of it won't need to be "protected" due to current design or erosion rate.

so let's say it's 200km of riverbank that has to be done.
and that it's $2M/500m of bank...so that's $4M/km
which means...$800M total to do all the banks in the city.

Well, to use Trini's favourite line...that's less than 4 museums
Or only about 3 new stadiums

And the money SAVED every year from lack of repair, sandbagging, "recovery", and rescue money would pay back that expense exponentially over time.

I'd say then that almost a billion dollars under your bootstrap scenario is prohibitive. Prohibitive does not mean it should not be done. It just makes it more challenging to get it done.

Oh, and let's not forget that the floodway was just expanded at what $700 million?

rock stabilization is just not an option for all of our riverbanks

Most of the river banks to be stabilized properly.. ( only the one time ) it takes significant amounts of work. just dumping rock wont work.

I agree...rock stabilization may not be an option in all cases.

And again, neither will stabilization need to be done in all areas.

and $1B for stabilization...is that prohibitive?

Perhaps budget for $250M/year for 4 years and do it in phases.
or $100M/year for 10 years and do it in 10 phases.

Planned correctly...a 10-year-plan would be reasonable.
Just look at the floodway...how much has that cost over the years? and how long has it taken?

And while it has reduced much of the problem...it hasn't solved the problem at the local river level.