Calgary and Area Flood Thread

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Serious question for the guys that live in a flood plain: Why don't you move? I honestly don't understand how you can comfortably live there. I know that's rude to ask when those communities are in trouble, but right now your property values are good and you can move anywhere else in the city and never have to worry about flooding. Like you know it will happen again...how is it responsible or reasonable to stay?

And before you answer that consider why the people in the proposed dry dam area in Springbank should be the ones moving when their families have lived there in some cases for close to a century...

[Bigtime]

For me it's the community. Sunnyside is awesome, our street is awesome and we did know what we were getting into when we chose to move there. I'm not banking on any solid mediation in the short term, so post flood we opted to keep the basement undeveloped (walls framed up but only poly on them). I'd like to think with enough notice of the possibility of another flood (~24 hours or so) I could even get the furnace and water tank brought up to the main floor to keep them dry (main floor sits about 4 feet above ground level).


Post flood we did also look at some ideas for renovation of the house, including removing the basement and actually lifting the house and building a flood resistant main floor in its place. Ultimately not worth the cost at the time, however if we rebuilt we'd definitely eliminate any below grade basement and build for future flooding in mind.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by tkflames

And before you answer that consider why the people in the proposed dry dam area in Springbank should be the ones moving when their families have lived there in some cases for close to a century...

Because last time downtown had to close for several days, loads of properties were effected, the c-train was taken out, lives put at risk, threatening of the sewage plant etc etc. I feel some sympathy for those in Springbank, but it's for the greater good. If it was just an argument of trading flooding one persons house in the country for 10 in the city, I could maybe get behind their position. But it is about a lot more than that.

[Bownesian]

It's a combination of liking the neighborhood, inertia, and not wanting to take a loss to move as property values have indeed fallen for those in the flood fringe. My hope is that the remediation efforts (bow river dam, flood burms, reservoir management) will reduce the risk enough to prevent a next time, and that prices will rebound to reflect how cool our street is.

Similar to Bigtime, we hardened our basement against the next flood (small or large), and mostly use it for kid stuff and a pantry. In the event of another flood, I'll be ignoring the evacuation orders and will move what stuff there is to my upper floors, and the rebuild will be much simpler.

On the ethical question of "responsible or reasonable", I would ask if it is either of those things to pawn the problem off on the next guy by selling and moving? If you accept the premise and it's not ethical, then we are are left with hoping for better from remediation, or needing for a buyout from government.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

It's a combination of liking the neighborhood, inertia, and not wanting to take a loss to move as property values have indeed fallen for those in the flood fringe. My hope is that the remediation efforts (bow river dam, flood burms, reservoir management) will reduce the risk enough to prevent a next time, and that prices will rebound to reflect how cool our street is.

Funny enough we are almost right back to pre-flood values. I'd guess if the economic situation was better we'd be at parity if not above it.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because last time downtown had to close for several days, loads of properties were effected, the c-train was taken out, lives put at risk, threatening of the sewage plant etc etc. I feel some sympathy for those in Springbank, but it's for the greater good. If it was just an argument of trading flooding one persons house in the country for 10 in the city, I could maybe get behind their position. But it is about a lot more than that.

What sort of buy out is fair in your opinion? Becuase they are losing their homes, their land and any future income from their property. A market value buyout would fall far short of what would be fair, especially since this is pushing the city’s problem upstream and to a different jurisdiction

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

On the ethical question of "responsible or reasonable", I would ask if it is either of those things to pawn the problem off on the next guy by selling and moving?

Well that's really on the "next guy" then, isn't it? Anyone who is looking at property that's near a river or was affected by the 2013 floods needs to accept there is a change it can happen again. That's hardly pawning it off.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

What sort of buy out is fair in your opinion? Becuase they are losing their homes, their land and any future income from their property. A market value buyout would fall far short of what would be fair, especially since this is pushing the city’s problem upstream and to a different jurisdiction

I admit I don't know the details but I don't understand why the land could not continue to be used as it is now (minus what is disturbed for the dam construction, and moving houses that are in the affected area). If there is a flood once every few decades then I guess that year is a write off for the land users but in the meantime they could continue to farm, ranch etc.

Buy them out if you want but continue to let them use the land either rent free or for a charge. The risk (if rent free) for them is that some years they might not get anything off the land if it floods, otherwise it's business as usual. Seems like not much downside for them in that case.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

What sort of buy out is fair in your opinion? Becuase they are losing their homes, their land and any future income from their property. A market value buyout would fall far short of what would be fair, especially since this is pushing the city’s problem upstream and to a different jurisdiction

Well I don't know any exact numbers, but people are forced to sell for the greater good all the time, like when we get new LRT lines.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There's an Alberta Expropriation Act specifically for that purpose.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Serious question for the guys that live in a flood plain: Why don't you move? I honestly don't understand how you can comfortably live there. I know that's rude to ask when those communities are in trouble, but right now your property values are good and you can move anywhere else in the city and never have to worry about flooding. Like you know it will happen again...how is it responsible or reasonable to stay?

My parents were on a flood plain, and it was near impossible to sell their ranch. People would not even look at it - beautiful house on 80 acres. They reduced the price significantly to eventually get a buyer. Probably sold for half of what it would be worth without the flood risks (which were minor 20 years ago, but common in the last 10 years).

[getbak]

Here's a map showing the affected area for the dry dam: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...onMap-2016.pdf

Comparing it to the satellite view of the area, it appears that only one existing house would be impacted by the construction. If you go to the corner of Springbank Rd and Rg Rd 40, there's cluster of orange-roofed buildings. If you go about 1 km south of those buildings, there's a small house. That's the only permanent structure that would be under water in a flood scenario.

There are other houses around the perimeter that would be close to the water, and their access would certainly be impacted, but they wouldn't be flooded out.

The construction would be disruptive for them, but that would be temporary.

[Joborule]

Is it just me, or do Calgary and Rocky View have trouble agreeing to things, and typically don't get along? Everything that Rockyview does, or involves them, seems to end up in appeal.

[4X4]

Rocky View is a PITA to deal with.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because last time downtown had to close for several days, loads of properties were effected, the c-train was taken out, lives put at risk, threatening of the sewage plant etc etc. I feel some sympathy for those in Springbank, but it's for the greater good. If it was just an argument of trading flooding one persons house in the country for 10 in the city, I could maybe get behind their position. But it is about a lot more than that.

No one in Springbank is saying don’t have flood protection...they are saying the other option is superior and I tend to agree. Just pivot to MacLean Creek (or the third option) and get it done.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

No one in Springbank is saying don’t have flood protection...they are saying the other option is superior and I tend to agree. Just pivot to MacLean Creek (or the third option) and get it done.

Isn't the MacLean Creek option considered less desirable because it would be on a longer timeline to build, have a larger environmental impact, be significantly more expensive, and be more prone to catastrophic failure in a major flood event?

[Fuzz]

Ya, I thought they had good reason to choose Springbank, beyond spite. Though spite is also a good reason.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Is it just me, or do Calgary and Rocky View have trouble agreeing to things, and typically don't get along? Everything that Rockyview does, or involves them, seems to end up in appeal.

It’s not just you

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Isn't the MacLean Creek option considered less desirable because it would be on a longer timeline to build, have a larger environmental impact, be significantly more expensive, and be more prone to catastrophic failure in a major flood event?

Here's the government's site explaining the project, including why Springbank is preferred to McLean Creek: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/sr1.htm

Basically, everything you said are the reasons why Springbank was preferred.

Also, the response time to close the dam will be shorter for Springbank because it's closer to where the response crews are based and it will have better access roads.


Another factor that could significantly drive up the cost of the McLean Creek option is if there were another major flood while the project was partially constructed. It could significantly damage or destroy the work that had already been done, pushing the entire project back to square one. This isn't as big a concern for the Springbank option because it will be a diversion channel and the majority of the construction will be away from the natural flow of the river and less susceptible to damage by a flood during construction.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by tkflames

And before you answer that consider why the people in the proposed dry dam area in Springbank should be the ones moving when their families have lived there in some cases for close to a century...

All three of them?

Aren't the higher levels of government supposed to be enabled to make decisions for the greater good?