“The proposed term would be 20-years and debt servicing costs would start in 2014 at $280-thousand dollars per year.”

I do not see anywhere in the report where this $280,000/year will come from for 20 years. Will other debt servicing be paid off to cover this? If so, how much? How much of a reduction in debt servicing costs is Council committed to? What is their 3 year plan, 6, 9, 12, etc?

“It was originally pegged as a $15.5-million dollar project, but Dyer says the city has already acquired some of the necessary properties along River Road”

Did the properties already acquired cost money? If so, why is that cost not a charge to the project cost? The way this is stated, it appears that the property was free or the money came from another source.

If the dike is so important why wasn’t it built before ? Why wasn’t the dike built before Boundary Rd. Or built before the down town heating system. Or built before buying half of downtown. Or built before the cop-shop. Or built before the Kin1 rebuild. Or built before bidding on the Canada Winter Games. That is just recent history. I know, Iknow…we got a grant.
Let’s borrow.

Instead of fighting Mother Nature with costly dikes, dams and such one can always decide to vacate land which is predictably prone to occasional flooding and return it to Mother Nature – to do with as she was pleased to do since the last ice age carved the main channels of streams and rivers.

Is there such a shortage of land here that we absolutely MUST be building and living right next to and too close to the rivers?

This isn’t the Netherlands where every square kilometer counts.

As I understand it, the flooding north of PG Pulmill road is seepage underground. So the bright minds say, “let’s build a dike higher so the river won’t flood these lands.” Brilliant!
I wonder what dredging out the river for about a mile and a half would cost?

Dredging is not a solution to flood prevention.

Dredging is a solution to deepening a navigation channel for ship traffic.

Didn’t city engineers say a dike is not the answer during the initial big flood? In their opinion it is a groundwater problem and opted to raise the road instead?

Sometimes it is more prudent not to accept a government grant when it means you have to borrow millions to complete a questionable project. Where is the logic?

With respect to the concern about seepage the approach typically taken is to mechanically create a dewatering chamber/channel behind the dike to draw down the subsurface infiltration. The design and subsequent success of that depends on the porosity of the soil.

Here is what the report to Council states about that.

“The project also includes an approximately 1.7 kilometer groundwater cut-off wall to work in conjunction with a subdrain and pump chamber system installed in 2009. The cut-off wall will assist in reducing the impact of groundwater flooding during flood events.”

I do not know whether enough of the system has already been installed to allow some testing of its capacity to determine the effectiveness.

http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2012/2012_02_06/documents/Rpt_River_Road_Dike.pdf

That is the report to Council for tonight.

And, yes, I think that the report said that groundwater is a problem and I think one of the solutions was to keep the natural channel through the park open.

None of the solutions are 100% guaranteed to prevent flooding.

How about CN Rail kicking in some bucks.
They have a large investment close to the
Nechako.

Major flooding occurrences are predicted to happen more frequently and intensely than ever before. This new reality means that advance preparation has become more critical than ever to protect your facilities and assets. If you are responsible for ensuring the protection of your company or municipality’s assets against flooding, we invite you take a closer look at the AquaFence system.

AquaFence is the most advanced and cost-effective mobile flood protection system on the market and the best possible solution for a wide variety of applications. Visit us at http://www.aquafence.com to learn more about our technology, and don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions related to your particular requirements. We would be glad to help you decide if AquaFence is the right solution for your needs.

Have questions? Need more info? Contact Us
For a no-charge evaluation of its applicability to your business or facility, please contact Randall Dokuchie (contact info below).
==========**

Sincerely

Randall Dokuchie

Email: randy@floodbarriers.ca

http://www.aquafence.com

http://www.floodbarriers.ca

1-604-630-2439

Gus. Dredging at the mouth of the Nechako would be to increase the depth and width of the channel, which in turn would allow the water easier entry to the Fraser River and flow South. Some dredging would also have to be done South of the CN Bridge.

It is the accumulation of gravel at the confluence of the Nechako and Fraser rivers over the past 50 years that almost gaurantees that the ice will jam every winter, and then back up the Nechako and flood the areas.

Putting in dikes and pumps is nothing more than a waste of time and money. I have heard that the gravel in the river bed along the Nechako from the John Hart Bridge to the CN Rail bridge is approx 60ft deep. Will the dykes have any effect on water seepage at that level??

The water seepage comes up on the South side of River road, and also comes up at the East end of third and fourth ave.

Diking might in fact make matters worse rather than better. Hopefully they are going to do their homework before they build this dyke, but whats the chance of that happening.??

We are dealing with **Grant money junkies** at City Hall.

I say subvert the grant money and build a new #1 firehall, make it look like a dike, to a federal inspector who justs wants to sign off on the project and get back to Toronto.
metalman.

I am frankly getting tired of people on here spouting off on topics they really do not have the faintest background knowledge about in order to be at least conversant enough to begin to understand the science and take the time to explore where the information is located.

In other words, in the scientific parlance, they are functionally illiterate in those topics.

http://princegeorge.ca/publicsafety/eoc/2008icejam/Pages/LongTermStudy.aspx

The City web site has improved somewhat over the past year. However, it still suffers from two key malfunctioning elements.

1. most of the pdf reports are restricted from easy copying, so that when someone wishes to “converse” with others by referencing an item in a report, they cannot cut and paste. They either have to reference the document and hope that the other person will download it and find the location, or they have to retype the pertinent sentences and paragraphs. These are public documents and are not proprietary information as far as I can tell and I highly urge the City to rethink the policy, if there is such a policy.

2. The link above seems to have several broken links. That is not uncommon in the world of web pages. Anyone administering an important web page, such as a public authority needs to ensure that their web pages are functioning as they should be, otherwise it renders them virtually useless.

I could not download the phase two report.
http://princegeorge.ca/publicsafety/eoc/2008icejam/Documents/FloodRiskEvalAndSolns_FinalPh2_NHCReport_2009-09.pdf Maybe someone else can.

I also could not download the Oct 5, 2009 Council agenda, nor the May 25, 2009 Agenda.

So, after that rant aimed at the City, for those people who want to speak with some understanding of what those who make their livelihood from this topic say about dredging, and anything else for that matter, please go to the above web site, download the document called “May 2009 – Flood Risk Evaluation and Flood Control Solutions Phase 1 (Full Report)”, open it up and read at the least page ix item C9.

Quoting sections, since I do not feel like rewriting the entire paragraph, it states: “water surface profiles do not change as a result of removals ……. Sediment removals … would likely increase the amount of ice accumulations during ice-related flood events….. the confluence ice levels …. Are set by the Fraser River hydraulic conditions below the confluence.”

That is the word according to those who have studied the topic, have engineering degrees which causes them to have a considerable greater amount of background than me or anyone else on this site. If someone wants to refute that, then please give us some background based on experience and education on this matter.

Palopu wrote:

1.“Diking might in fact make matters worse rather than better” explain why and provide your technical expertise and experience in this.

2.“Hopefully they are going to do their homework before they build this dyke.” You do not call that report doing their homework? And getting qualified people to design it before building it?

3.“What’ the chance of that happening”. Give me some solid examples of the City not hiring consultants qualified to do the work of the City when it comes to such matters as this.

Ours is not the only river that gets ice jambs with floods behind the jambs. I am not aware of any dredging any part of the river in order to prevent ice jambs. I do know of some who build obstructions into the river upriver of sensitive bank flooding areas in order to catch icefloes before they hit more sensitive banks.

Read the following link from the Northeastern USA where there are many small communities on fast flowing mountain rivers with ice jambing problems.

http://www.nesec.org/hazards/ice_jams.cfm

From that page, there are two mitigation measures proposed and actually in place in some locations in New Hampshire.

A Tension Weir is a seasonally-installed rubber weir supported by meshes and wire ropes. It forms a pool to capture “frazil ice” that would normally collect downstream and pose a danger of freezing up and causing an ice jam. Tension Weirs up to 4ft deep and 100ft wide are feasible.

The Sloped-Block Ice Control Structure is a series of massive, sloped blocks placed across a river adjacent to a natural floodplain away from developed land. Large gaps between the blocks (10-15 ft) allow easy fish and canoe passage. But ice pieces moving downstream during spring breakup plug the gaps, forming an ice jam at a safe location and reducing the threat of flooding downstream.

This technology can be used on most rivers that do not support commercial navigation.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/52315270/Breakup-Ice-Control-Structures

What ice control structures look like. They can have different purposes based on actual conditions which cause the dams.

http://cripe.civil.ualberta.ca/Downloads/10th_Workshop/Lever_Gooch_1999.pdf

Gus. Firstly lets stick with the facts.

1. The information put out by the Engineers talks about there being no difference in the amount of gravel at the confluence of the Nechako/Fraser and West on the Nechako from 1979 to 1995. The Kenney Dam was completed in 1950’s and I suspect that a hell of a lot of silt and sand has accumulated in the Nechako between 1956 and 1979.

2. The report also talks about the flooding being a result of the Fraser River backing up the Nechako, which is probably true, but then it goes on to say that the ice build up and the flooding on the Nechako usually takes place after the high water on the Fraser has subsided.??

3. In my opinion I dont think these people have a clue what the hell they are talking about. I and many other people in this town have observed these rivers for the past 60 years, and experienced every flood that took place since 1948. It was not unusual to have gravel removed from the confluence on numerous occasions over the years, and in fact there were times when the ice was actually dynamited.

4. My position is that the situation we have to-day is aggravated by the build up of gravel on the Nechako from the CN Rail bridge to at least the old Cameron St Bridge. This is a result of the reduction in water flow by approx 75% since the completion of the Kenney Dam, and as a result there are more areas to catch sediment.

5. I agree that keeping the Channels open on the South side would alleviate the problem, perhaps you could explain why a natural channel on the South side would alleviate the problem, but a dredged channel also on the South side would not.

6. What we need to know is what happens with the water if in fact the dyke idea works. Will the dyke allow more water to get to the confluence (the water that would normally seep and flood) thus causing the river to back up faster creating higher water, and then more flooding on the North Side, or further up on the South side?? Who the hell knows.

6. Dont assume that just because people do not have a degree in Engineering they do not know what they are talking about. Degrees are much like the old chicken and egg question. ie; What came first common sense or a University Degree. I think we can all agree common sense has been around much longer. In fact without it we would not have survived as a race.

7. I could not begin to list all the projects around the world that were designed by Engineers that failed. Suffice to say that they are many. Even Engineers are fallible.

8. One Engineering project you might want to look at is *The First Tay Bridge* completed in the United Kingdom in 1879 and built by the **Knighted** Engineer Thomas Bouch. This was a railway bridge that collapsed killing 75 people, and the collapse was attributed to mistakes made by the Engineer. There are many more but you get my drift.

When you can walk to Goat Island in the late fall, it should be obvious to even a 12 year old that the slow moving water will freeze right to the bottom when winter hits. As more ice floats down the Nechako it begins to build where the river is frozen to the bottom. There is not enough water for the ice to float, so it stops. Once it has stoppred and piled up sufficiently it freezes harder. The water coming down can not move it and it backs up the Nechako and floods. I guess those “experts” didn’t realise that deep water doesn’t freeze to the bottom and the water coninues under the ice. If we dredge the nechako, the mouth will not freeze because it would then be a deep, fast moving current.
Dredging would cost nada,zero, nothing because the gravel indusrty in PG would gladly gather it up for free.
City council paid dearly for a study that cost us millions rather than giving away free gravel; gravel that is the main cause of the ice flood. Because it would be dredged for nothing, it should have been done all last summer. The fish will move out of the way until we finish the job.

“Once it has stoppred and piled up sufficiently it freezes harder”

It freezes harder, eh? … LOL ….

And here I thought frozen water is frozen water as far as being an obstruction to unfrozen water. I doubt that the Brinell and scratch hardness of ice crystals has any different action on acting as a dam to flowing water.

You do realize, of course, that the channel that the greatest volume of water flows through is near the northern bank of the river, not the southern bank and that the reason the southern bank accumulates deposits is because of the shape of the delta causes the southern half to be the slower moving side of the river which then causes more deposits to accumulate there while the northern channel erodes the northern bank more and more. The natural action of a meandering river as it flows through a bend.

“I could not begin to list all the projects around the world that were designed by Engineers that failed”

Ah yes, ye olde “experts fail too argument”. LOL

“Dont assume that just because people do not have a degree in Engineering they do not know what they are talking about”

I never assume that. I go by what comes out of those people’s mouths.

If they present me with well researched arguments, I will listen to them with the same attention I give those who make it their job to provide advice upon which others rely to make decisions.

BUT, if they say, as you do, it is the way I say it is and give no reason that is substantiated, there is no credibility.

You have the burden of proof. The report is in. You refute the specifics with valid arguments, nothing less.

“I suspect” is not a valid argument when compared to a survey of a river delta over time that identifies the degradation and aggredation of the river and shows it in plan, cross section and longitudinal section. Measured and pictorial representation of data beats out “suspect” every time in my world.

Simple.

Gus. Those people who issue these reports are always paid well for what they do. It was no surprise that the dredging idea was the first one out the window. Who do you think will benefit from the expenditure of the $11.5 million dollars. My guess is that in addition to our usual covey of contractors, there will a large amount of largesse for the various Engineering Companies.

If I or someone else in this burg were give hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a study on this issue, it is within the realm of possibility that we would come up with an entirely different solution. The problem is, there is never any money given to those opposed to these projects.

**You do realize of course that the channel with the greatest volume of water is the North Channel.,** Yes we realize that. We also realize that at one time the South Channel handled most of the water. It is silting action that overtime has forced the water to the North Side. Thats why dredging the South side of the Nechako and to some extent the Fraser would increase the water flow into the Fraser. As it now stands the water runs into the Fraser on the North side and then is pushed back to the Nechako. Coming in from the South side it would immediately go down the river.

The Cameron St. bridge is a prime example of what you get when you do studies, etc; You go from a simple $750,000.00 repair job, to the expenditure of $11 Million plus, and you end up moving the same amount of traffic. (or less) Did we need the bridge? Probably not., Do we need the dike? Probably not. Will we spend the money on the dike?? You bet. Will it solve the problem?? Probably not. Will anyone give a s..t?? Probably not.