Rebuilding After the 2013 Flood; Are There Areas we Should Not Rebuild?

[Sliver]

This thread was going to show up sooner or later, so I guess now is an okay time to dip our toes into this debate.

So yesterday environment minister Diana McQueen wouldn't commit to putting restriction on future development in flood-risk areas. I found that to be a little odd. It seems like the no-brainer lesson to learn from this is to stop building in flood plains.

As for developments already in flood plains, Calgary is way too established as a city to not rebuild and do our best to prevent future floods. We'll see what the situation is in High River when the water recedes, but I think it might be time to clean-up the mess from this disaster and abandon the site. And if government money is going to be used for the rebuild, I think it's fair that it comes with the condition that the rebuilding is done on higher ground.

[rubecube]

Oh good...

[KelVarnsen]

[Tinordi]

http://www.desmog.ca/2013/06/25/30-y...fell-deaf-ears

Evidence of the likelihood of this kind of disastrous flooding has existed for more than 30 years. In 1979, the municipal government of Calgary commissioned Montreal Engineering Company (Monenco) to do a study of the flooding hazards at the confluence of the Bow and Elbow Rivers. The results were prescient.

Although Clague says that this flood is most likely worse than anything in recorded history, there were three major floods between 1875 and 1902, then again in 1932, followed by decades of relative dryness. The study predicted a major flooding event every 70 years or so.

With this in mind, Monenco presented Calgary with a number of strategies for limiting the predicted millions of dollars worth of damage (thanks to development since then, the number is more likely to be in the billions).

“At the heart of the recommendations was a floodplain management scheme in which hazardous areas would be officially delineated. New development would be prevented or discouraged in the hazardous areas, and existing structures would be required to meet certain ‘floodproofing’ standards,” University of Calgary’s G D Osborn wrote in Geologic And Hydrologic Hazards In Calgary.

The standards went into public consultation, inciting ire on the part of residents. Those who stood against the plans saw them as an economic impediment. They argued that there were holes in the science, and that because they’d never personally experienced such a disaster, it seemed unlikely.

“This report was made public and there was a huge amount of resistance to it,” Clague says. “People thought that this was intruding on their freedom. Those flood-prone surfaces were developed and now we see the consequences of that.”

[Boblobla]

My guess is that you want all the dog parks bulldozed and turned into parking lots?

[Tinordi]

The standards went into public consultation, inciting ire on the part of residents. Those who stood against the plans saw them as an economic impediment. They argued that there were holes in the science, and that because they’d never personally experienced such a disaster, it seemed unlikely.

Gee, what else does that remind you of?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This thread was going to show up sooner or later, so I guess now is an okay time to dip our toes into this debate.

.

Good topic OP

Bad timing OP

[Rathji]

Likely we need to improve our flood control technology, of which I know nothing about.

I think High River should be built like this:

[stazzy33]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

My guess is that you want all the dog parks bulldozed and turned into parking lots?

That would accomplish the exact opposite of what is needed. Green space does an excellent job of absorbing rainfall and ground water. Asphalt? Not so much.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by stazzy33

That would accomplish the exact opposite of what is needed. Green space does an excellent job of absorbing rainfall and ground water. Asphalt? Not so much.

I'm guessing you aren't aware of Sliver's completely over the top disdain for anything dog related.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by stazzy33

That would accomplish the exact opposite of what is needed. Green space does an excellent job of absorbing rainfall and ground water. Asphalt? Not so much.

Maverick - This is a joke requesting a flyby



Stazzy33 - Negative ghost rider the pattern is full

[Tron_fdc]

TBQH I don't see what the fascination is with basements, and why they are allowed in flood areas.

My family lives on a flood plain in Okotoks. In 2005 they got hit BAD, and their entire basement of their home (built in the 40's) filled. My uncle lives on the same piece of land, and built a place in 1995 with no basement, and raised the foundation up about 2 or 3 feet. Water went all the way around him, and nothing was damaged.

Wouldn't it solve a lot of problems if they didn't allow basements on new homes in flood areas? I dunno. It just made me wonder when I was down there on the weekend, wondering if it would still be as bad if there were no basements in Roxboro.

Serious question; why are basements allowed in these areas?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

We'll see what the situation is in High River when the water recedes, but I think it might be time to clean-up the mess from this disaster and abandon the site.

And if government money is going to be used for the rebuild, I think it's fair that it comes with the condition that the rebuilding is done on higher ground.

So abandon the site either way.

[username]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Serious question; why are basements allowed in these areas?

Good question - I agree with this.

The only problem is you're not going to rip down all those million dollar homes and fill in the basements.

I would suggest this as a rule going forward though.....

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

TBQH I don't see what the fascination is with basements, and why they are allowed in flood areas.

My family lives on a flood plain in Okotoks. In 2005 they got hit BAD, and their entire basement of their home (built in the 40's) filled. My uncle lives on the same piece of land, and built a place in 1995 with no basement, and raised the foundation up about 2 or 3 feet. Water went all the way around him, and nothing was damaged.

Wouldn't it solve a lot of problems if they didn't allow basements on new homes in flood areas? I dunno. It just made me wonder when I was down there on the weekend, wondering if it would still be as bad if there were no basements in Roxboro.

Serious question; why are basements allowed in these areas?

Where would you put your home theater in? Also it takes away from square footage. But it's build at your own risk if you live in a low lying area close to water.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by username

Good question - I agree with this.

The only problem is you're not going to rip down all those million dollar homes and fill in the basements.

I would suggest this as a rule going forward though.....

Well since some people are going to hint at it, let me jump right in. How many times do taxpayers have to pay for those homes to have flooded basements dried and repaired?

I'm not talking about homes where the flooding is unlikely, but that's not the case for everyone going through this right now. Some of this is both predictable and repetitive.

[GGG]

Modern building and grading techniques can mitigate flooding. In Chaperel Valley and across in the low down area of Cranston when they built in this area they raised the ground level to prevent flooding. From a few people I work with who live in those areas they got away without any flooding in basements.

My thought is that everything built in the hundred year flood plain should need a plan to mitigate the effects of the hundred year flood. Wether its berms, dams, sumps, raising ground level, elimination of basements there should be an engineering design to prevent hundred year flood events.

Also based on whatever this flood costs us we should invest a similar amount into flood prevention methods for the next 100 yr flood event. For 2 to 3 billion how good of anti flood system of spillways and larger dams could we build?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Serious question; why are basements allowed in these areas?

I think part of the reason is they are an easy way to bring water and sewer in well below the frost line. That is why they are so common in Canada and the northern US, but not as common the further south you go.

A better question might be why are basements allowed to be developed when they are in flood plains?

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This thread was going to show up sooner or later, so I guess now is an okay time to dip our toes into this debate.

So yesterday environment minister Diana McQueen wouldn't commit to putting restriction on future development in flood-risk areas. I found that to be a little odd. It seems like the no-brainer lesson to learn from this is to stop building in flood plains.
.... I think it's fair that it comes with the condition that the rebuilding is done on higher ground.

Like Nosehill, for example.

[Erick Estrada]

I think it's a little extreme to start thinking this is going to be a common event for Calgary because it isn't. However I seriously have to question the point of rebuilding High River as it's likely to flood again in the next decade as the cycle repeats. At what point does the government and insurance companies say enough is enough?