You may have to click "try again" after clicking the link to get them to show up. I gather the 100 year is basically what 2013 was.
The Province's map is somewhat less pessimistic than the city's 50 and 100 year maps. The place I just bought is fine according to the province's map, but the surrounding areas are subject to local flooding (light blue) on the 50 year map and inundation (dark blue) on the 100 year map. However, my house itself isn't coloured in - not sure what that means if everything around it is inundated. Maybe it's slightly elevated I guess?
Thanks. Looks like i'd be alright at 5th avenue and 20th street and that vicinity.
Flood outlook slide for 2017 from the city, note the current year snow water equivalent. Keeping pace with the upper quartile and way above the normal trend.
Based on this slide I'm going to move the FLOODTRON level from 5 to 4. FLOODTRON 4 people.
Last edited by Bigtime; 05-04-2017 at 07:28 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
I doubt we will get 130 mm of rain in 24 hours again to cause the flooding.
Even if we do get that much rain it's doubtful to cause another flood anything near like that one, the rain was just the final straw, heavier than normal snowfall over the winter/spring with a shorter/later than normal melt period saturated the soils of the foothills, because of the soils natural up slope to the west southern Alberta got caught in somewhat a toilet bowl effect. gravity happens.
It'll happen again but likely many many years from now.
In terms of local infrastructure projects, we NEED a dam in Springbank much more than we need a new arena.
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
Bow River basin: Generally above average to much above average, ranging from 99% at Highwood Summit Bush to 139% at Chateau Lawn (21 sites surveyed). Low variability – the average and median of the 21 sites is 116%.
Interesting reads from Macleans (which I usually dislike, so that was a bit of a surprise). I'm always torn on issues like this. On the one hand, when disaster strikes, everyone pulling together to help those in need, including financial help, is part of what makes us a civilized society. On the other hand, I feel a bit ripped off when my insurance rates go up because someone else's home along the river floods.
I still think the humanitarian angle always wins, but it is a good thought piece when people are somewhat setting themselves up for disaster (building on flood plains, earthquake fault lines, etc.)
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
It's a bit to early to be concerned about floods, the peak flow usually occurs around June 10-25ish. I just don't think there is enough melting upstream to be an issue with this storm. Plus the dams are all empty, awaiting water. I was up at Minnewanka on Saturday, it's pretty low! Worst case, it snows more adding to the potential melt. There is a lot of snow up high right now.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
In terms of local infrastructure projects, we NEED a dam in Springbank much more than we need a new arena.
Dam's aren't very useful in controlling peak flow. Frank, the guy in the video above, related it to trying to contain the flow from a fire hose with a tea cup. Obviously you have much more flexibility with a dam upstream than you do with the Glenmore Reservoir as you are always worried about holding back enough drinking water but I always thought their best bet was the overflow from the reservoir down 50th towards the bow. At that discharge point in the Bow there is plenty of capacity.
Interesting reads from Macleans (which I usually dislike, so that was a bit of a surprise). I'm always torn on issues like this. On the one hand, when disaster strikes, everyone pulling together to help those in need, including financial help, is part of what makes us a civilized society. On the other hand, I feel a bit ripped off when my insurance rates go up because someone else's home along the river floods.
I still think the humanitarian angle always wins, but it is a good thought piece when people are somewhat setting themselves up for disaster (building on flood plains, earthquake fault lines, etc.)
Perhaps a possible way to deal with the matter of people continually building (and re-building) in damage-prone areas is to continue to offer government-provided insurance to such people (priced as if the insurance were to cover 100% of the rebuild cost), but coupled with deductibles equal to at least 60% of the rebuild cost, the amount of which must be kept in cash by the homeowner in a government account.
When a disaster strikes, the insurance policy covers 40% of the rebuild cost, and the homeowner's cash set-aside covers the remaining 60% of the rebuild cost. The "excess" premium cost of the insurance (as it would be priced on providing 100% coverage but it would, in reality, only provide 40% coverage) would go towards other government funding initiatives, whether to mitigate future disasters, pay for other programs, or reduce overall tax burdens.
I don't really understand why springbank is a better option than buying one or more of the existing bow river dams from Transalta and leaving it empty unless there's a flood.
I don't really understand why springbank is a better option than buying one or more of the existing bow river dams from Transalta and leaving it empty unless there's a flood.
Is there a reason I'm missing?
The Springbank dam would be on the Elbow River, not the Bow.
I think I remember reading that yes, it was ambitious and wouldn't be as effective as the Springbank plan.
The problem with the tunnel is it doesn't solve the problem, it only transfers it. If you bypass the reservoir, the people downstream of the tunnel outlet point will get much higher peak flows.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support the dam either, it's an extremely costly project that only helps a small portion of the population downstream of the Glenmore reservoir. A much more effective use of the $250 million would be to demo all the homes in the Elbow river flood plain, and turn it back into parkland so that the flood waters wouldn't rise nearly as high. It's a radical idea, but those homes never should have been built there in the first place.
