Discussions

must be at risk by now. Maybe our officials will think twice about the master plan they have! We have had the "flood of the century"2011 and got walloped again in 2014, this year does not look any better.  
This will be a regular occurrence as the dikes continue to be built, If water can not spread out it will just go up within the walls!

AnimalLover said "must be at risk by now. Maybe our officials will think twice about the master plan they have! We have had the "flood of the century"2011 and got walloped again in 2014, this year does not look any better.   This will be a regular occurrence as the dikes continue to be built, If water can not spread out it will just go up within the walls! "

The water will have to drastically rise to where it will make the Discovery Centre flooded out.

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

Not really sure that would help, we need the water to move through faster, we don't need to store it. The water would not move through any faster if we dug out the river. It will only move down stream so fast.

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.

The pure naturalist will say we should let nature run its course. We should be careful not to drain farmland because to do so promotes rapid runoff and flooding of urban areas.  
 
Society has interfered with the natural drainage of the countryside. Construction of simple houses to major shopping Centers on Flood Plains create the issue of flood damage. To protect their investments Projects such as the Shell Mouth Dam hold back water to ensure a consistent supply.  
 
Because our community has a multitude of perspectives regarding drainage we have a difficulty reaching a consensus as to how to deal with flooding.  
 
We pay taxes which gets divided up and dispersed to various organizations. Until we step back and realize public money is public money we will never move beyond having flood control being nothing more than patchwork and conflicting projects.  
 
Don mentioned that the engineers are in a tough spot. They may be able to design a comprehensive road/dike system but until they are given the authority and money they are in a hard place.

What I don't understand is the better use of reservoirs. They dropped the Lake of the Prairies this winter to hold back water. Why don't they drop Rivers, Kenton, all these places that have reservoirs and then use the excess water flow to fill them up and control them better. There are large dams in Sask that should be almost empty in times like this and fill with excess water.

Farmers Feed the World said "With a deeper channel you can move more water through the space. Think of it as the amount of water you can get through a garden hose compared to a fire hose to a culvert. "

Not so. You would have to dredge all the way to the Red River then up to Lake Winnipeg. Your thought is good but would not work. Let me put it this way. If you started with a 2 inch pipe, connected it to a 4 inch pipe, then back to a 2 inch pipe. Once the 4 inch filled up you have no more out flow as is coming in the two inch since the two inch on the back end can only handle a 2 inch flow. ( normal river channel (2 inch pipe) flows into your dredged out section(4 inch pipe) and then back into the normal river channel (2 inch pipe).  
You cannot use the firehouse example as with that example you need pump pressure. Yours would work as your example your water ways keep getting bigger, but here the water must still flow back into the river which has limited volume.  
Clear as mud  
 
Edited by cotr, 2017-04-09 20:10:23

need to look into why in the past 10 years we have started to get these major flooding events. Seems like with even a normal snowfall, we get hit by a flood when prior we didn't. What's changed? Is it water management techniques that are now used?

Simply put, department of oceans and fisheries, or that's what I think snowmans comment is referring to, and if it is I couldn't agree more.

Farmers Feed the World said "Have you ever been to Grand forks. Dredge the river bed in the city limits build up the river banks once it leaves the city limits or a safe area down stream the river will just go back to flooding farmland. Why is this so difficult? "

Yes that would work but that is not what you said in your 1st post. What you are really doing is building up the banks of the river to contain the water in the channel

So your answer is to flood whatever farmland required .. Just not urban land...You do realize farmers and their families rely on that farmland to make a living....

This is something that needs to be tackled by everyone, not just putting it all on the farmers to retain the flood waters or the cities and towns to deal with the high waters. First of all, places like the Corral Center should never have been allowed to build there, if they had been told all costs associated with flood prevention for them would be charged to them, I doubt they would built there. As far as the enforcement on farmers to illegal drainage is a joke. I farm and am not completely against drainage, but there needs to be limits on what can be drained, (size of water body, volume etc.)I'm not against cleaning up low spots that are only wet for a little while after spring melt. At the same time towns and cities do nothing to retain any run off, everything is designed to get away and into the water stream. How many sloughs do you see in Brandon? Everyone blames the guy upstream and downstream for their flood issues, but never see what they do or don't do as a part of the equation. If the province spent the money that they have put into all the flood aversion in the last 10 years and used it to build water retention upstream and paid the landowners to do this, I believe it would be money spent more wisely.

Trevor B said "    AnimalLover said "must be at risk by now. Maybe our officials will think twice about the master plan they have! We have had the "flood of the century"2011 and got walloped again in 2014, this year does not look any better.   This will be a regular occurrence as the dikes continue to be built, If water can not spread out it will just go up within the walls! " The water will have to drastically rise to where it will make the Discovery Centre flooded out. "

No longer allowed by fisheries and oceans and the environment  
 
Heck they spen a million dollars moving endangered muscles from underneath the 18th St bridge could you imagine doing it for miles and miles

razorbock said "    Trevor B said "    AnimalLover said "must be at risk by now. Maybe our officials will think twice about the master plan they have! We have had the "flood of the century"2011 and got walloped again in 2014, this year does not look any better.   This will be a regular occurrence as the dikes continue to be built, If water can not spread out it will just go up within the walls! " The water will have to drastically rise to where it will make the Discovery Centre flooded out. " No longer allowed by fisheries and oceans and the environment     Heck they spen a million dollars moving endangered muscles from underneath the 18th St bridge could you imagine doing it for miles and miles "

Your referring to the dredging?

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.

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?

In addition to future flood proofing, the other thing to add to the discussion is the lack of roads which one can get from the South end of Brandon to the North Hill. We're getting our butts kicked on this when traffic gets backed up on 18th st or when 1st st. closes. Yes, it would be expensive but the status quo isn't working too well.

My proposal would be to build a throttle north of the Trans Canada in the Grand Valley. Determine the maximum allowable flow through the City of Brandon and build what is essentially a reverse dam. When the water is below the maximum flow level it would have no discernable affect on the flow but once the maximum flow has been reached it begins to back up water north of the Trans Canada  
 
Of course it will never happen because of all the people it would affect upstream and the fact that since this isn't Winnipeg the province will never expend the money necesary

razorbock said "My proposal would be to build a throttle north of the Trans Canada in the Grand Valley. Determine the maximum allowable flow through the City of Brandon and build what is essentially a reverse dam. When the water is below the maximum flow level it would have no discernable affect on the flow but once the maximum flow has been reached it begins to back up water north of the Trans Canada     Of course it will never happen because of all the people it would affect upstream and the fact that since this isn't Winnipeg the province will never expend the money necesary "

As Trevor B has said, that's what the Shellmouth Dam is for. I think the Shellmouth Dam could have been used more effectively than it has been over the last few years, but then, the people opening and closing the gates up there know more about it than I do.

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.

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.

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. ?

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

unbreakable1 said "In addition to future flood proofing, the other thing to add to the discussion is the lack of roads which one can get from the South end of Brandon to the North Hill. We're getting our butts kicked on this when traffic gets backed up on 18th st or when 1st st. closes. Yes, it would be expensive but the status quo isn't working too well. "

There is extremely limited access from the north to the south end of town, with 8th street bridge gone. Bottle necking certain arteries of the city seems irresponsible, though I know other options are quite expensive. Plan for future growth right?

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.

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.

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

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

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