Search For
 

 
Discussion Groups: Brandon Chatter


Topic: Future flood proofing
0 Like(s)   


Page1 23Next>
 
 
  Advertisement
 
kevlar

4/10/2017 9:24:05 AM
Member since:
Feb 2012
Total posts:103
.

  
Fishin Guy said "
  
Orion's-Belt said "I no some one mentioned it before. But what if we built a dam in Brandon. Flooded out the valley permenintly and created a lakefront area within town. Sell lake front property's. Premote water activities in the summer. Boating. Fishing. Swimming. Turn Brandon into a lakefront city with summer vacation destinations for everyone. ? "

You are still going to have the same problem. Sure build a dam but don't fill it. That is the point in water control. Do a google map and trace back the Assiniboine and Souris river. We have the following reservoirs already in place. The problem is people want the lakes filled for recreation. If they were actually used for water control we could have a trickle coming through Brandon.  
 
Reservoirs:  
-Lake of the Prairies  
-Minnedosa  
-Rapid City  
-Rivers  
-Fort Qu’ Appelle, Sk  
-Cowessess, Sk  
-Craven, Sk  
-Estevan, Sk  
-Alameda, Sk  
-Kenmare, ND  
-Minot, ND  
-Westhope, ND "

Other than Lake of the Prairies, I'm not sure how many of those reservoirs were actually built for water control. No doubt L of TP is all about rec now, Minnedosa was built for hydro electricity and don't think it can be raised and lowered real easily but it can be done. Rapid City is just basically a slough. When towns are dependent on a river system for their water source, it becomes very difficult to manage it in a way that doesn't affect there water supply. It also comes down to money, does paying to repair flooding each year cost less than the revenue generated by recreation on these water bodies? You're right, the controls are there, but it's just not as simple as saying drain all the lakes throughout the summer then fill them in the spring.

snowman5

4/10/2017 9:48:43 AM
Member since:
Nov 2009
Total posts:839
Hey, I'm just putting it out there...

  
JackAzz said "
  
snowman5 said "
  
Farmers Feed the World said "Dredge out the river bed 5-10 feet. They used to do it but haven't for years. "

That process would make the fish "sad" and "upset" according to Wildlife and Fisheries Canada. Look at the dragged out process to get approval in building a bridge over a river. I can't imagine what kind of song and dance would need to be done to dredge a river. It would be the most sensible solution, but the conservation regulations in place now will prevent it from happening. Primarily, the focus now should be to upgrade and protect the functions of the city, like the North/South traffic corridors from flooding (or the result of flooding). The 18th street end (or the North end part of the street in general) is a never ending joke of half@$$ piecework projects and quick-fixes. I'm not a fan of any of the work done or getting done in that area. The dike at the Grand Valley Road side is a stupid set-up, especially now with the frequency of "high water events" happening every other year. Unfortunately, Mb Highways will never raise the Valley Road for one or two kilometers to serve as a flood barrier. ...Just make it a quick-fix and dump clay nearly once a year at a hundred thousand dollars for overtime, materials and equipment. Then another hundred thousand for the same thing to remove it all when it seems convenient (for them of course. You know, three weeks after the water is gone. *sarcasm*) First street is not much better. Everyone can see that the road sits a little too low at the bottom of the bridge. With all the work being done with the approach leading up to it... Why wouldn't Highways elevate First street up to Kirkcaldy and place a good number of over-sized concrete culverts under it at Dinsdale Park? I guess Provincial civic planning doesn't want to play nice with city planning and flood control, because that takes money out from their budget. The South side dike improvement is not bad, but I still dream that planners would build a proper road on top of them. Again, I'm thinking traffic flow and practical usage. Because, when I think of flood prevention from the river... I'm thinking the least amount of interruptions in out daily life with any additional benefits in improving functionality for the city with the best bang for our bucks.  
 
So I say higher roadways serving as flood barriers and flood barriers served as roadways.  
 
Just my opinion, I could wrong. "

So $200,000 each time they plug and re open Grand Valley road. What do you think it would cost to raise 2-3 km of the road? Although I don't have numbers, my guess is that you could do that plug about 20 times or more and still spend less. "

After two decades of moving the same type of material that makes up the base of the road... Someone in the future is going to say... "Wow, that was pointless. They could of built up the road from 18th to the already raised East entrance of the Research Station with all that effort and material they've used since 2014. Why do we keep doing this when we have nothing to show for it?" It's like the ongoing 8th street bridge dilemma. Over a decade and millions later, what do we got? ...A future million dollar tear down project this year and no bridge/access to East end of the flats. I've heard it takes about two million dollars for Mb Highways to rebuild a kilometer of roadway. That's taking it right down and rebuilding a higher base before putting on the asphalt. The Valley Road is starting to be affected by the nearly annual saturation of water. It's coming apart and starting to sink in spots from being saturated then pushed up by the frost year after year. In a few years people will be saying... "What the heck is going on with the road between the Coral Center and Turtle Crossing?" That would be because of today's mentality of putting things off for another time. That's the new normal. Look at First street right now! A new bridge with a new, more gradual approach connected to a road that's being threatened by flooding. Really? That's our civic planning at it's best? They're right there, right now elevating part of it for the bridge ...with all the dirt and the trucks and the hardhats and the coffee in their hands. For Christ Sake! We couldn't ask for better timing! Just raise the bloody road a meter 'til Kirkcaldy and it would be finally done. It's not that far. But, NO! They'll leave it to be another project in some distant future. And when the next flood arrives... We'll be scrambling again at First with sandbags and portable dikes and saying to ourselves, "Geezz, maybe Highways should've brought up the road back when they were doing the bridge back in 2017?"  
 
****Time for the face palm ****  
 
Stupid, stupid, stupid.  
 
But, I know exactly what some of you are going to say... "It's too much money to do it all at once." Right, so we are going to be like that person we know who constantly gets someone to fix that broke-down car/washing machine/roof leak when they know from what they all just spent over time, they could've just replaced it? And just save ourselves from all the grief that would be given from putting it off. I just find it so weird that this city is so eager to spend on rebuilding down at the rivers edge and commissioning bronze statues to be placed in floodplains, but we're too cheap to upgrade and make what we still have better and trouble free. Building the roads up now will save us money in the long term with fewer disruptions.  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

razorbock

4/10/2017 11:07:00 AM
Member since:
Apr 2012
Total posts:262
Hmm

  
bigmoe said "
  
Trevor B said "
  
bigmoe said "What they should do is build a dam upstream somewhere and create a huge lake that can hold the spring runoff and let it out slowly through the summer/fall. "

what the Shellmouth Dam is for isn't it? "

Was being sarcastic. I believe they don't mange the dam like they should. Originally built to mitigate flooding with a side benefit of some recreation. The focus on recreation has increased. "

The Shellmouth dam has many uses flood protection is only one of them. For one thing the Quappelle river joins the Assiniboine below the Shellmouth. There is a large drainage basin below the Shellmouth. The complete answer is not the shell mouth

razorbock

4/10/2017 11:08:37 AM
Member since:
Apr 2012
Total posts:262
Nope

  
JackAzz said "
  
snowman5 said "
  
Farmers Feed the World said "Dredge out the river bed 5-10 feet. They used to do it but haven't for years. "

That process would make the fish "sad" and "upset" according to Wildlife and Fisheries Canada. Look at the dragged out process to get approval in building a bridge over a river. I can't imagine what kind of song and dance would need to be done to dredge a river. It would be the most sensible solution, but the conservation regulations in place now will prevent it from happening. Primarily, the focus now should be to upgrade and protect the functions of the city, like the North/South traffic corridors from flooding (or the result of flooding). The 18th street end (or the North end part of the street in general) is a never ending joke of half@$$ piecework projects and quick-fixes. I'm not a fan of any of the work done or getting done in that area. The dike at the Grand Valley Road side is a stupid set-up, especially now with the frequency of "high water events" happening every other year. Unfortunately, Mb Highways will never raise the Valley Road for one or two kilometers to serve as a flood barrier. ...Just make it a quick-fix and dump clay nearly once a year at a hundred thousand dollars for overtime, materials and equipment. Then another hundred thousand for the same thing to remove it all when it seems convenient (for them of course. You know, three weeks after the water is gone. *sarcasm*) First street is not much better. Everyone can see that the road sits a little too low at the bottom of the bridge. With all the work being done with the approach leading up to it... Why wouldn't Highways elevate First street up to Kirkcaldy and place a good number of over-sized concrete culverts under it at Dinsdale Park? I guess Provincial civic planning doesn't want to play nice with city planning and flood control, because that takes money out from their budget. The South side dike improvement is not bad, but I still dream that planners would build a proper road on top of them. Again, I'm thinking traffic flow and practical usage. Because, when I think of flood prevention from the river... I'm thinking the least amount of interruptions in out daily life with any additional benefits in improving functionality for the city with the best bang for our bucks.  
 
So I say higher roadways serving as flood barriers and flood barriers served as roadways.  
 
Just my opinion, I could wrong. "

So $200,000 each time they plug and re open Grand Valley road. What do you think it would cost to raise 2-3 km of the road? Although I don't have numbers, my guess is that you could do that plug about 20 times or more and still spend less. "

Having done this Job it doesn:t cost $200,000.00

razorbock

4/10/2017 11:12:11 AM
Member since:
Apr 2012
Total posts:262
Yup

  
kevlar said "
  
Fishin Guy said "
  
Orion's-Belt said "I no some one mentioned it before. But what if we built a dam in Brandon. Flooded out the valley permenintly and created a lakefront area within town. Sell lake front property's. Premote water activities in the summer. Boating. Fishing. Swimming. Turn Brandon into a lakefront city with summer vacation destinations for everyone. ? "

You are still going to have the same problem. Sure build a dam but don't fill it. That is the point in water control. Do a google map and trace back the Assiniboine and Souris river. We have the following reservoirs already in place. The problem is people want the lakes filled for recreation. If they were actually used for water control we could have a trickle coming through Brandon.  
 
Reservoirs:  
-Lake of the Prairies  
-Minnedosa  
-Rapid City  
-Rivers  
-Fort Qu’ Appelle, Sk  
-Cowessess, Sk  
-Craven, Sk  
-Estevan, Sk  
-Alameda, Sk  
-Kenmare, ND  
-Minot, ND  
-Westhope, ND "

Other than Lake of the Prairies, I'm not sure how many of those reservoirs were actually built for water control. No doubt L of TP is all about rec now, Minnedosa was built for hydro electricity and don't think it can be raised and lowered real easily but it can be done. Rapid City is just basically a slough. When towns are dependent on a river system for their water source, it becomes very difficult to manage it in a way that doesn't affect there water supply. It also comes down to money, does paying to repair flooding each year cost less than the revenue generated by recreation on these water bodies? You're right, the controls are there, but it's just not as simple as saying drain all the lakes throughout the summer then fill them in the spring. "

ding ding ding we have a winner

bigmoe

4/10/2017 4:25:00 PM
Member since:
Jul 2006
Total posts:1659
Minnedosa

Minnedosa has been lowered significantly for lake bottom maintenance. And it was done at the end of the summer so it didn't take too long if I recall.

razorbock

4/10/2017 4:30:41 PM
Member since:
Apr 2012
Total posts:262
Minnedosa

  
bigmoe said "Minnedosa has been lowered significantly for lake bottom maintenance. And it was done at the end of the summer so it didn't take too long if I recall. "

Lake Minnedosa was lowered and dredged for the Canada Winter Games in the dead of winter namely January And December. It is so shallow to begin with that I believe at the time the maximum depth was 8'. I patricipated in a tender to repair the dam many years ago and at that time the engineer said it was the dam most likely to fail in all of Manitoba. It is why they never try and hold water back in it and regularily emergency dump it for high water events

twinkles

4/11/2017 6:45:49 AM
Member since:
Dec 2008
Total posts:146
Lake Of the Prairie

What is the level of Lake of the Prairie? Last I heard it was very low and they had let a lot of water out of it? Last year the lake was lower than I had ever seen it.  
I'm Not sure where they think the water is coming from now that will raise the level. They should have held more water back but like every year they drastically drop the lake levels up there? I understand it was made to help farmers further down stream for irrigation.....but many people in this area also paid premium $ for their property. I think they keep letting too much out of it. There has also been talk that they are going to increase the height of that dam for years....but still nothing?

ctct

4/11/2017 7:39:04 AM
Member since:
May 2011
Total posts:47
I agree with Snowman5

Thank you Snowman5 for the below comment "I just find it so weird that this city is so eager to spend on rebuilding down at the rivers edge and commissioning bronze statues to be placed in floodplains, but we're too cheap to upgrade and make what we still have better and trouble free. Building the roads up now will save us money in the long term with fewer disruptions".    
 
Hopefully you see this Thank you before my post gets pulled off this discussion group again.

snowman5

4/11/2017 9:00:42 AM
Member since:
Nov 2009
Total posts:839
Perfect!!!!...

  
razorbock said "
  
JackAzz said "
  
snowman5 said "
  
Farmers Feed the World said "Dredge out the river bed 5-10 feet. They used to do it but haven't for years. "

That process would make the fish "sad" and "upset" according to Wildlife and Fisheries Canada. Look at the dragged out process to get approval in building a bridge over a river. I can't imagine what kind of song and dance would need to be done to dredge a river. It would be the most sensible solution, but the conservation regulations in place now will prevent it from happening. Primarily, the focus now should be to upgrade and protect the functions of the city, like the North/South traffic corridors from flooding (or the result of flooding). The 18th street end (or the North end part of the street in general) is a never ending joke of half@$$ piecework projects and quick-fixes. I'm not a fan of any of the work done or getting done in that area. The dike at the Grand Valley Road side is a stupid set-up, especially now with the frequency of "high water events" happening every other year. Unfortunately, Mb Highways will never raise the Valley Road for one or two kilometers to serve as a flood barrier. ...Just make it a quick-fix and dump clay nearly once a year at a hundred thousand dollars for overtime, materials and equipment. Then another hundred thousand for the same thing to remove it all when it seems convenient (for them of course. You know, three weeks after the water is gone. *sarcasm*) First street is not much better. Everyone can see that the road sits a little too low at the bottom of the bridge. With all the work being done with the approach leading up to it... Why wouldn't Highways elevate First street up to Kirkcaldy and place a good number of over-sized concrete culverts under it at Dinsdale Park? I guess Provincial civic planning doesn't want to play nice with city planning and flood control, because that takes money out from their budget. The South side dike improvement is not bad, but I still dream that planners would build a proper road on top of them. Again, I'm thinking traffic flow and practical usage. Because, when I think of flood prevention from the river... I'm thinking the least amount of interruptions in out daily life with any additional benefits in improving functionality for the city with the best bang for our bucks.  
 
So I say higher roadways serving as flood barriers and flood barriers served as roadways.  
 
Just my opinion, I could wrong. "

So $200,000 each time they plug and re open Grand Valley road. What do you think it would cost to raise 2-3 km of the road? Although I don't have numbers, my guess is that you could do that plug about 20 times or more and still spend less. "

Having done this Job it doesn:t cost $200,000.00 "

I had hoped someone would respond about the costs. Razerbock, since you've done it once... Can you do a perspective breakdown on labour, material, equipment or at least a general cost of just the Valley Road plug installation and removal? Because I was pulling numbers straight out of my @$$ to get an reaction. Someone like you can shed some light with costs related to this topic. But just remember... If you make it too low. The people here on eBrandon will take it seriously as a job quote and may expect you to put a bid in for it during the next flood. *joke*  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.  
 
P.S. -Your welcome, ctct. I just thought it should be pointed out how some folks in our city are so fixated on doing the superficial rather then the practical.

GhOsTID

4/11/2017 9:36:33 AM
Member since:
Jul 2012
Total posts:124
.

  
ctct said "Thank you Snowman5 for the below comment "I just find it so weird that this city is so eager to spend on rebuilding down at the rivers edge and commissioning bronze statues to be placed in floodplains, but we're too cheap to upgrade and make what we still have better and trouble free. Building the roads up now will save us money in the long term with fewer disruptions".    
 
Hopefully you see this Thank you before my post gets pulled off this discussion group again. "

While I personally have nothing against the idea of raising the roads since I don't have to worry about city taxes and my provincial taxes already go wherever the province chooses, it can be argued that there isn't sufficient reason to warrant the expenditure when the temporary plug is proven to work just fine. 3 out of the last 10 years had water levels above 1174ft, 2 of them being above 1 in 300 year levels. Is it worth the large and upfront expense of raising the roads right now to protect against water levels that may not be reached again for years, potentially centuries? Maybe a compromise of raise/protect 1st street more but keep plugging 18th would be best? Also, I'm not sure what part of the budget the bronze statues and rebuilding come out of but it's not likely taking away from the infrastructure budget, this is Brandon though so perhaps but I'm going to pretend it's a normal city.  
 
For the sake of this thread's topic regarding future flood proofing there's only so much we have any real control over, education/communication with farmers to allow them to drain their fields without putting such a huge strain on the river system(channeling routes to move the water off their fields quickly but not immediately dump into the rivers and creeks perhaps?) and better waterways management in general(Even if it means walking further to get to the water) are things that be done to try and prevent flooding rather than just managing it after it's happening but even then rain trumps it all.

Mr.BDS

4/11/2017 11:59:01 AM
Member since:
Apr 2009
Total posts:478
I have the perfect answer.

I have put a lot of thought into it too.  
We are going to build a dike system. The biggest anyone has ever seen. It's going to be great. The greatest one ever. It's going to be yuge! And we are going to make Shellmouth pay for it.

JackAzz

4/11/2017 12:27:04 PM
Member since:
Jul 2008
Total posts:1361
For the Record

  
snowman5 said "
  
razorbock said "
  
JackAzz said "
  
snowman5 said "
  
Farmers Feed the World said "Dredge out the river bed 5-10 feet. They used to do it but haven't for years. "

That process would make the fish "sad" and "upset" according to Wildlife and Fisheries Canada. Look at the dragged out process to get approval in building a bridge over a river. I can't imagine what kind of song and dance would need to be done to dredge a river. It would be the most sensible solution, but the conservation regulations in place now will prevent it from happening. Primarily, the focus now should be to upgrade and protect the functions of the city, like the North/South traffic corridors from flooding (or the result of flooding). The 18th street end (or the North end part of the street in general) is a never ending joke of half@$$ piecework projects and quick-fixes. I'm not a fan of any of the work done or getting done in that area. The dike at the Grand Valley Road side is a stupid set-up, especially now with the frequency of "high water events" happening every other year. Unfortunately, Mb Highways will never raise the Valley Road for one or two kilometers to serve as a flood barrier. ...Just make it a quick-fix and dump clay nearly once a year at a hundred thousand dollars for overtime, materials and equipment. Then another hundred thousand for the same thing to remove it all when it seems convenient (for them of course. You know, three weeks after the water is gone. *sarcasm*) First street is not much better. Everyone can see that the road sits a little too low at the bottom of the bridge. With all the work being done with the approach leading up to it... Why wouldn't Highways elevate First street up to Kirkcaldy and place a good number of over-sized concrete culverts under it at Dinsdale Park? I guess Provincial civic planning doesn't want to play nice with city planning and flood control, because that takes money out from their budget. The South side dike improvement is not bad, but I still dream that planners would build a proper road on top of them. Again, I'm thinking traffic flow and practical usage. Because, when I think of flood prevention from the river... I'm thinking the least amount of interruptions in out daily life with any additional benefits in improving functionality for the city with the best bang for our bucks.  
 
So I say higher roadways serving as flood barriers and flood barriers served as roadways.  
 
Just my opinion, I could wrong. "

So $200,000 each time they plug and re open Grand Valley road. What do you think it would cost to raise 2-3 km of the road? Although I don't have numbers, my guess is that you could do that plug about 20 times or more and still spend less. "

Having done this Job it doesn:t cost $200,000.00 "

I had hoped someone would respond about the costs. Razerbock, since you've done it once... Can you do a perspective breakdown on labour, material, equipment or at least a general cost of just the Valley Road plug installation and removal? Because I was pulling numbers straight out of my @$$ to get an reaction. Someone like you can shed some light with costs related to this topic. But just remember... If you make it too low. The people here on eBrandon will take it seriously as a job quote and may expect you to put a bid in for it during the next flood. *joke*  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.  
 
P.S. -Your welcome, ctct. I just thought it should be pointed out how some folks in our city are so fixated on doing the superficial rather then the practical. "

I'm not necessarily against raising GV road, but one would have to look at the ACTUAL costs involved, not just numbers that someone admittedly pulled out of their azz.

ctct

4/11/2017 12:29:57 PM
Member since:
May 2011
Total posts:47
Legal Land surveyors??

Who are the land surveyors that work for the city or contracted? Does any one know!

don brown

4/11/2017 12:42:40 PM
Member since:
Aug 2010
Total posts:4320
Costs

Since last October we have hired in a large track hoe, as well as D6 cat on two occasions. The cost of the track how with operator was $125 per hour, and the cost of the cat was right around $195 per hour with operator include. The clay price delivered, I am unsure of, but we can get gravel delivers in the $10 per yard range.  
Hopefully the costs the city pays are somewhere around these levels, seems at times there are different prices charged to different customers (private vs public).

Fishin Guy

4/11/2017 1:28:39 PM
Member since:
Dec 2005
Total posts:5974
....

Reading into the local area reservoirs, LOTP was built as a means to hold back flood waters to prevent flooding farmland downstream. I know the level was dropped this winter which it should have. Now in the spring with the thaw those gates should have been pretty much shut and hold back the water to allow the lake to fill and we can open and close as needed to keep the Assiniboine at a reasonable level thus not needing to worry about Brandon. You would think that where the Qu' Appelle meets the Assiniboine at St. Lazare it would be monitored closely to allow flow control at LOTP. With Rivers the reservoir was built to aid in irrigation for farming, the resource is in place it could too regulate the flow of the Little Sask. very easily. Irrigation doesn't need to be in place when the snow is melting.

GhOsTID

4/11/2017 4:20:49 PM
Member since:
Jul 2012
Total posts:124
.

  
Mr.BDS said "I have put a lot of thought into it too.  
We are going to build a dike system. The biggest anyone has ever seen. It's going to be great. The greatest one ever. It's going to be yuge! And we are going to make Shellmouth pay for it. "

I appreciate the type of person you are!

Fishin Guy

4/25/2017 11:35:13 PM
Member since:
Dec 2005
Total posts:5974
....

Better water regulation needs to be done. We spent over 10 million to create the Shellmouth Dam. If my math is right it would take over 300 days to fill the lake using the flow through the city during flooding. How many millions spent in and around Brandon. If Lake Diefenbaker could be better regulated this would take the pressure off the Qu'Appelle River. We would have a trickle flowing through Brandon during the flood times.

whoaskedyou

4/26/2017 12:37:06 AM
Member since:
Jun 2012
Total posts:55
brush removal

Tell the damn farmers quit clearing swampland and brush off of their land. This is what absorbs a large amount of rainfall. If both of these are removed the water just goes to the rivers which is causing all of these flooding situations we've been having over the past few years. Farmers getting greedy over a few extra acres. It will be their downfall as well as the rest of ours in the future. The trees were put there for a reason not to be removed for a few bushels of wheat.

don brown

4/26/2017 6:55:14 AM
Member since:
Aug 2010
Total posts:4320
Who to blame

I think that when we are looking for the scape goat for flooding and it's associated costs and problems, there's room to include more than just farmers.  
When my greatgrandfather settled in our area there wasn't a tree in sight, but there where a few in the river valleys and down at the turtle mountains.  
Then came the development of a transportation system, first with the rail system, building a grade to lay track altered landscape as well as water flow.  
Then there was the development of a road system at both a municipal level as well as provincial level, once again both chanced the water flow, and with the use of culverts the water ended up in new areas. To address the problem of water flooding new areas both municipalities and the province drained water to streams, creeks and rivers by the use of culverts.  
 
One of the biggest cost of flooding in our province has less to do with greedy farmers and more to do with cities insisting to build on flood plains. People were moved out of the corral centre area years ago, but maybe greed created development back in this area, I think that greed applies to more than just farmers.

dark man

4/26/2017 7:29:49 AM
Member since:
May 2009
Total posts:275
This dosn't help

https://southwestpost.ca/2017/04/17/reeve-wants-end-to-wreck-and-repair-flood-management/  
 
This story from Southwest Post makes you wonder if the same is not happening on the Assiniboine Watershed.  
 
As for the plugging of Grand Valley Road, when the plug is removed, use the clay to extend the dike west on one side or the other, do the same next time a plug is needed, and on third time join the extended new dikes with a gentle grade. Look ! you end up with the road raised with not bothering the intersection of 18th

LarryRobins

4/26/2017 10:49:27 AM
Member since:
Jul 2011
Total posts:79
Dark Man

Best suggestion I've heard yet. Minimal extra land required.

Blade

4/26/2017 1:36:16 PM
Member since:
Apr 2008
Total posts:538
Darkman you stole my idea ha ha!

  
dark man said "https://southwestpost.ca/2017/04/17/reeve-wants-end-to-wreck-and-repair-flood-management/  
 
This story from Southwest Post makes you wonder if the same is not happening on the Assiniboine Watershed.  
 
As for the plugging of Grand Valley Road, when the plug is removed, use the clay to extend the dike west on one side or the other, do the same next time a plug is needed, and on third time join the extended new dikes with a gentle grade. Look ! you end up with the road raised with not bothering the intersection of 18th "

yes it would work  
 
razorbock said "  
 
cotr said "When they built the dyke along 18 th street, they should have built it back about a hundred meters or so and completed it right across Grand Valley Road and made the road go up and over the permanent dyke. "  
 
Wouldn't work, the neither the province nor the city own the land where you propose the dike.  
 
Plus there is a major north hill drainage that runs on the west side of 18 and had to be rerouted so it now runs on the west side of the dike and would have been nearly impossible to permanently reroute west of your proposed dike  
 
Plus again all the costs would have been born by MIT instead of by emergency measures "  
 
It doesn''t matter who owns the land when land is needed for dikes or roads land is either purchased or expropriated.  
 
Extending the dike westerly along both the north and south sides of the road for 150 metres and then by raising the grade at that point which would also serve as a dike it would work.  
 
I don''t understand the idea of whether highways pays for the road improvements or emergency measures pays for it has any bearing on this problem. The taxpayers are the ones who pay for it no matter who does the work.  
 
Also the drainage coming down the hill will goes where it goes now. The road will always be under water during a flood but the ridiculous scenario of constructing a temporary clay plug annually is senseless.  
 
Raising 18th street would not work as the land on the east side is to low in elevation and the approaches or exit onto Kirkaldy would be to steep.  
 
Edited by Blade, 2017-04-08 23:28:43  
 
This was my idea from the other thread of "Any Flooding reports", it is really one of a few solutions to stop this ridiculous plugging and un-plugging. My recent suggestion of moving the intersection north a 1000 feet has merit also but until someone in government agrees we will keep peeing money down the drain unplugging it

MichaelP

4/26/2017 2:27:08 PM
Member since:
Feb 2017
Total posts:16
Grandvalley

Until some drastic changes happen, we will continue to flood each and every year. Dam Grandvalley turning it into a reservoir. Be a great fishing spot!

themaninblack

4/29/2017 4:44:46 PM
Member since:
Aug 2009
Total posts:42
I posted this a couple years ago....

Thinking outside of the box...  
Restoration of Lake Percy, west of 18th street.  
Permanent dike closure at Grand Valley road and 18th.  
Use this for recreation - boating, swimming, fishing.  
Development of waterfront industries - restaurants, watercraft rentals.  
Attraction to sporting events - water skiing, wakeboarding, rowing, skating/hockey in winter.  
May sound crazy and perhaps it is, but I'm not hearing anything better.

Farmers Feed the World

4/29/2017 5:21:10 PM
Member since:
Apr 2011
Total posts:233
...

Once you turn a flood fighting tool into a recreation Lake it's no longer a flood fighting tool. Lake front property owners want consistent water levels. Imagine their suprise when their docks are high and dry. This is the issue a lake of the prairies. You can have one or the other not both.

Trevor B

4/29/2017 6:24:39 PM
Member since:
Apr 2005
Total posts:7682
Don't

think is just as simple as building a dam west of 18th to create a big lake.

Trevor B

4/29/2017 6:31:38 PM
Member since:
Apr 2005
Total posts:7682
Yep

  
Farmers Feed the World said "Once you turn a flood fighting tool into a recreation Lake it's no longer a flood fighting tool. Lake front property owners want consistent water levels. Imagine their suprise when their docks are high and dry. This is the issue a lake of the prairies. You can have one or the other not both. "

exactly. The Shellmouth Dam was built for flood protection downstream, but now they only drain it down a little only when they really need to.

Dugr71

4/29/2017 6:44:28 PM
Member since:
Apr 2015
Total posts:134
back

In the early years of Brandon it was suggested that low lands in the valley should be dredged to create a large lake/recreation area. There are drawings that show the proposal. Ultimately it was turned down by city council due to very high costs. If I had gone through the flood prone area of today would be a lake. I do not recall the book I read that referenced this but it is out there.

Flutterby

4/29/2017 6:57:49 PM
Member since:
Sep 2007
Total posts:1021

  
Trevor B said "think is just as simple as building a dam west of 18th to create a big lake. "

And wouldn't it be rather shallow anyway?

 
Page1 23Next>


  Get E-mail/text alerts for this discussion    
Bookmark and Share
This thread has gone more than 90 days without a reply and has been closed as a result. Please feel free to start a new topic should you feel it is warranted.

   

 

Current Discussions

 
 
 

Classified Ads

 
 

Blogs

 
 

Local Business Directory

 
 
Kroeger Backhoe Service
Excavation, Demolition, RipRap, Septic Fields, Basements, Sewer, Water, Acreage Development, Trucking, In Floor Heating Call today 761-8765 More..
The BloomBox
Come see us for all your floral needs! Nothing less then stunning! More..
Gift card on Service call
Hello Friends, We are offering free gift card while you call for any electrical or appliance repair services. Please contact 2049010310 (nirmal@shreemsolutions.ca) More..