Building a flood way for Calgary?

[Brannigans Law]

After being devastated by floods in the mid 20th century Winnipeg built the Red River Floodway to diverge water away from the city and back into the Red below the city. I guess my question is simple..does it make sense? If the economics are nearly the same or even a little bit more for a floodway, woulnd't prevention of all the human misery and the economic benefit of these jobs building it be worth while?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Floodway




I haven't heard anyone talk about it so I really doubt there's any major push for a floodway but there's a tonne of money in this province and city, and if floors are going to occur more with climate change (not saying it's linked but if its a possibility)... maybe it's worth it?

[BlackArcher101]

I don't think it would be feasible, due to elevation of the land, permission to use native land, and cost.

[normtwofinger]

No

[redforever]

To the north of Calgary is the airport...water would have to be channelled far north of such a major transportation facility.

To the south of Calgary is Fish Creek. Do you put water into Fish Creek and expand it, because it can't handle any more water right now? Or do you go further south in which case the canal would have to traverse Fish Creek.

To the west is the Tsui Tina and part of the Elbow flows right throuh that reserve. You would have to enter into negotiations with them. How well do you think those negotiations would go?...in light of the fact that ring road negotiations have been on going for 40 years with no end in sight.

A better solution would be to dredge existing reservoirs and make them deeper with the ability to hold more water...or build more reservoirs and dams upstream.

[Slava]

It can be done though. San Antonio had a problem with floods and they were told more severe flooding was not a question if, but when. Their river walk is both practical and useful. http://www.asce.org/People-and-Proje...ontrol-System/

[You Need a Thneed]

A floodway in Calgary would be the single most expensive construction project ever undertaken in, possibly, the entire world.

So, no.

(ok, that might be a slight overstatement, but you'd be looking at something in the order of tens of billions of dollars)

[calgaryrocks]

it would be insanely expensive. opportunity cost would be the sw ring road, all of the 30 year transit plan, high speed rail to edmonton and probably much much more

[Regulator75]

Can't we divert all the excess water to Edmonton?

That whole city could use a bath.

[Caged Great]

For how much it would cost, perhaps it's not necessary. This is a freak event that's at least a 1 per century kind of thing (probably more). It'll cost around 1-2 billion to clean it all up. The diversion thing will cost a ton more than that. Spend some money making it more difficult for the banks to overflow. That's about the extent I think would be necessary. Something that would help to prevent most of what happened in 2005 basically.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

I've been looking for studies or reports on flood mitigation for Calgary, but my googling has been ineffective thus far.

These floods have happened before, and they WILL happen again.

[CaptainYooh]

There are many ways to mitigate the catastrophic flood event impact in Calgary, which would have to be used in combination. Deepen the Bow and Elbow river beds, construct diversion and overflow channels, raise river bunks where possible, build accumulating reservoirs (lakes, swamps) etc. So, not impossible. Expensive, yes. Practical? Perhaps, but it's hard to say yet. Last flood of this magnitude occurred here in 1929, I believe. Based on that re-occurrence rate – probably not practical. But as climate is changing, we can see these events more frequently; thus, making a $10-20B investment in flood mitigation measures less ridiculous and more forward-looking.

[Northendzone]

I'd like to see more dykes in calgary

[Timbo]

Next time The Flood threatens just call in the Master Chief... sheesh

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

I've been looking for studies or reports on flood mitigation for Calgary, but my googling has been ineffective thus far.

These floods have happened before, and they WILL happen again.

There's this.

His 2006 report called on the province to, among other things, stop selling flood-plain land for development. But the report sat idle and was released only last year with nothing more than “minimal” flood-mitigation efforts from the province, he said.


Mr. Groeneveld doesn’t believe any reasonable preparation could have prepared Alberta for this month’s flood, but thinks his report’s recommendations remain relevant nonetheless.


“Dust that thing off, update it,” Mr. Groeneveld, a former Progressive Conservative MLA who left politics last year, said in an interview. “It’s going to take a lot of work to update it. The world’s changed since then, but I think the basics are still very much the same of what we found at that time.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle12771618/

Link to Groeneveld report.

http://www.aema.alberta.ca/images/Ne...ion_Report.pdf

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

maybe it's worth it?

The Red River is far more susceptible to flooding than the Bow, so it would take many more years for the project to pay for itself in terms of damages saved.

Land acquisition aside, I think there are some gross overestimations of how much it would cost, if the inflation adjusted cost of the Red floodway is any indication.

Bottom line, not even close to being worth it... though if you'd be willing to wipe out Fish Creek Park and wanted to build a channel through Tsuu T'ina, you could spend only a couple billion, and only have to worry about saving Cranston and Chaparral, both of which seem to have done well in this flood, no?

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Can't we divert all the excess water to Edmonton?

That whole city could use a bath.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...o-calgary.html

I'm from Ontario originally, so I don't get all the envy between the 2 cities. Seems like they sure have Calgarys back though, nice to see.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Acey

The Red River is far more susceptible to flooding than the Bow, so it would take many more years for the project to pay for itself in terms of damages saved.

Land acquisition aside, I think there are some gross overestimations of how much it would cost, if the inflation adjusted cost of the Red floodway is any indication.

Bottom line, not even close to being worth it... though if you'd be willing to wipe out Fish Creek Park and wanted to build a channel through Tsuu T'ina, you could spend only a couple billion, and only have to worry about saving Cranston and Chaparral, both of which seem to have done well in this flood, no?

It would be expensive, because you would have to bore a 50-60 km minimum long gigantic tunnel. This isn't like Manitoba where everything is flat.

[Northendzone]

The flood way saves Wpg, at the expense of communities north and south of Wpg. Try selling that to cities that would be negatively impacted.

I also wonder if the topography of the land around the bow lends itself to this type of situation. Think of lake Mackenzie which is likely more than a 100 feet above the bow, but across from it is a lot of low lying land which is part of fish creek.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It would be expensive, because you would have to bore a 50-60 km minimum long gigantic tunnel. This isn't like Manitoba where everything is flat.

Wouldn't being flat make things worse? If you divert water where everything's flat, it goes everywhere. In terrain, it would stay more confined. Like isn't it much easier to build a reservoir in a valley? Am I wrong?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It would be expensive, because you would have to bore a 50-60 km minimum long gigantic tunnel. This isn't like Manitoba where everything is flat.

I'm still curious if it would be possible to hook the Elbow the Fish Creek and just flood the snot out of Fish Creek Park.