The cuurrent AAP will certainly tell whether voter apathy has been conquered.

No signs on the boulevards yet …. no groups with signs at the major intersections yet … beep your horn if you support us ….

I think the real problem we have is that we have a consultant report which indicates that floods can be mitigated in portions of the City south of the Nechako if certain measures are taken.

That report opened up a liability issue that was previously not there to that extent, in my opinion.

As a result, all levels of government which have any responsibility to protect the population and properties that may be affected by such floods are thus in a position that they need to take reasonable measures to reduce the likelihood of damage. Otherwise they would not be doing their due diligence.

Therein lies the rub, as they say.

As the old adage goes ” You can’t fix stupid “. If you want to build on a flood plain; you make your own safe guards.

The Feds, Province and industry haved dredged millions yards of material out of the Fraser River down south over the years. So why doesn’t the city of PG do that up here for Nechako flood control? The army corp of engineers have been dredging as an effective flood control for over a hundred years down south, so how come our engineers and aldermen won’t do this?

“The army corp of engineers have been dredging as an effective flood control for over a hundred years down south”

And where exactly are you talking about? If you are talking about the Mississippi you fail to understand that the river is dredged for nabvigation channels, not flood control. Flood control is provided by dikes (levees) which are now starting to be removed in some areas to give the river a larger area to “store” its water along the entire length. That is the same tactic being used in Europe with rivers such as the Rhine.

In very minor way, that is being used in PG as well by not putting the dike right at the edge of the river and by allowing Cottonwood Island Park to be on the river side of the dike.

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/concerns_about_economic_blow_e.html

“Three months after receiving a multimillion-dollar infusion for dredging the lower Mississippi River in the wake of record flooding last summer and a ship running aground near the mouth of the river, the Army Corps of Engineers has deployed seven dredging vessels from Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico in an attempt to keep commerce flowing smoothly on one of the nation’s major waterways.”

The flooding increases the silt content of the river which decreases the channel depth which requires the dredging.

I know of no major river in the world where dredging is used as a flood control method.

This link speaks about the attempts at flood control of the Mississippi. It speaks about dams and levees. It does not mention dredging.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0859680.html

from that link comes the following info:

“Since the disastrous flood of 1927 the U.S. Congress has authorized the construction of dams on the upper Mississippi and its tributaries to regulate the flow; the building of c.1,600 mi (2,580 km) of levees below Cape Girardeau to contain the swollen river; and the establishment of floodways to divert water at critical points, such as the Cairo–New Madrid, Atchafalaya, and Morganza floodways and the Bonnet Carre Spillway at New Orleans, which diverts water into Lake Pontchartrain.

“Cutoffs have eliminated the dangerous winding channels, and an improved main channel has increased the river’s flood-carrying capacity.

“A 220-acre (89-hectare) model of the Mississippi River basin is located at Clinton, Miss., which has been used by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to simulate various conditions in the basin.”

Of course that same wonderful army corps of engineers were responsible for the building of the extremely high walls which retained the Mississippi as it flowed through New Orleans and were breached though collapse during Katrina and devastated the city.

The natural dredging of the Colorado river allows LOTS of surge capacity;)

As the city said in their 2011 Prospectus “Make No Little Plans”

You build on a flood plain and then when it gets flooded you whine for help. Sorry but why do us tax payers have to pay the bill for your stupidity? You took a gamble and lost, now YOU should pay the consequences, not everyone else.

Besides all the stupid politics and common sense lacking engineers, this dyke only comes down to one question. Will it work? All the money used in the studies, drawings and designs all could have been saved by answering “NO” to this question 3 years ago. The low lying areas that are below the water table are going to flood, dyke or not like they always have. When the water level rises it saturates the ground and and water pools. So long story short send in your petitions or don’t complain about spending your tax money on nothing.

“You build on a flood plain and then when it gets flooded you whine for help.”

Let’s see. The railway moves in and builds on a flat piece of land right next to a river in a valley within a few feet of the river’s water level. The railway was built right across Canada by the time it reached here. They had many years of experience with building next to rivers and lakes. By the time they reached here, they ought to have known.

The same goes for the City as it was incorporated. This was not the first City in the world, in North America, in Canada, nor in BC to build next to water. In fact, I do not think there are any of the early cities that did not build next to water. The notion of flooding was well know within the history of the Europeans who had moved to Canada over the previous 300+ years.

I think there were some very wise people who settled first adjacent to the Hudson Bay slough which allowed them access to the water and provided for a flat piece of land close by that was well out of the reach of rising spring waters. Subsequent to that came the settlement in South Fort George off Hamilton Street which provided for a relatively quiet docking area along with a short climb up to a level well out of reach of flooding.

For whatever reasons, which are beyond my ability to understand, as the City became incorporated it began to ALLOW subdivision of land along the Nechako River primarily, on both sides and buildings to be built. The City fathers, by incorporating, took on the responsibility to save its citizens harmless to the best of their ability. Individuals typically did not have the access to engineering knowledge that cities had, even in those days and certainly by the time of the post first world era and most certainly the post second world war era. By that time there were no more excuses to be had for the City’s inaction, until the eviction of people inhabiting the Island Cache. However, that was not followed through with the further gradual removal of others who occupied floodplain property.

So, yes, those who chose to live in the floodplain do so at their risk. But the City, as well as the Province, who allow property to be zoned for such uses are equally, if not more so for reasons I have outlined, responsible for the consequences of property allowed to be purchased and improvements built on them.

We do not live in a part of the country that is running out of land just yet.

Dear Alcan;

We have a potential flooding problem this year, please stop releasing water until the flood risk is gone.

Sincerly
PG
P.S. If you don’t comply we will sue you for damages.

The river isn’t wild anymore. Flooding can be controlled!

Flooding is a Provincial problem not a civic problem.

The problem with engineers is just that. They are engineers. They think they are above everyone else.

The ventilation system at the new CNC trades building was engineered. The students can’t weld in there until it’s fixed! Bravo to the engineers!

I think we have spent money on the low lying part of the south shore of the Nechako for far too long. The sooner we get out oif it, the better off we will be.

The railway is contrained where it is. I uunderstand the trains are getting longer and cannot be properly shunted in the yard anymore. Modern yards are far longer. It ought to go north of the city where there is land that can be used by it along with some new heavy industrial lands nearby.

I suspect we might be talking around $100 million to build a new yard, clean up the old one over a decade or so, and move the existing industry into a new “green” industrial park out of the bowl.

That would leave a park area between downtown and the river. In fact, in digging out the railway yard’s soils, one might consider creating some higher level areas and some lower level areas which would allow some residetnial areas adjacent to “water features” in a more appropriate area than the ones suggested by all those so called smart people who came up with those oversized ponds in the middle of downtown in the “stupid growth on the ground” plan that luckily no one is paying any attention to.

At least near the river, one could dig ponds similar to what Kelowna has done with its apartments north of their downtown lakefront development.

The approach is to work with nature rather than against nature whenever you can.

If you want to see what a “pond” like that looks like, go to the park to the west side of Queensway at the Hudson Bay slough.

You see, we have many of the “nicer” features in this community. It is just that some people are not all that aware of them and do not understand how they function.

Kelowna urbanized waterfronthttp://images03.olx.ca/ui/11/91/13/1304531557_195578813_3-PERFECT-LOCATION-1-bedroom-Downtown-Waterfront-Condo-Houses-Apartments-for-Rent.jpg

Kelowna, lake side and retention pond side
http://i.rentalo.com/images/Kelowna-Apartment-Condo-p5_417045_6037980l.jpg

Hudson Bay Slough
http://www.flickr.com/photos/diffuse/3854283949/sizes/l/in/photostream/

I keep saying this City badly needs some good planners and a Council who is willing to listen to them.

Time to sign the AAP and start the “enough is enough” movement.

NoWay generally 70% of the Nachako is wild flow. Alcan plans water storage for its generation dependent on rains, and snowpack. The only way for Alcan to get rid of access water that they cannot store or exceeds generation volumes is down the Nechako. The only spillway is into the Nechako.

Also something else to think about, if something longterm should happen to their powerplant or tunnel to the powerplant, that water will be coming down the Nechako.

Alcan just cannot shut off the spill, if we are having highwater issues, good chance they could be having issues also. It is more complicated than what I have written, but that is the basics.

Oh, BTW, you know the stupidest thing about the “stupid growth on the ground” planning exercise, in my opinion?

Not allowing them to “think outside the box” of the defined downtown and tackling some big issues that have been facing the city for some time.

1. lack of natural water access
2. heavy industry and transportation industry too close to downtown
3. a derelict industrial and decaying industrial area too close to downtown

Not one of those was tackled. Yet, those are the main three issues in virtual all maturing cities in Canada, North America, and the industrialized world.

Instead, they tackled it assbackwards, with housing. Housing comes last, not first in the modern revitalization era.

Tackle the three key issues, housing will follow to displace the dying industrial developments and business to service the housing shortly behind.

The second tunnel will solve that seamutt.

“Alcan just cannot shut off the spill, if we are having highwater issues, good chance they could be having issues also. It is more complicated than what I have written, but that is the basics.”

High water generally happens in the spring not January. I’m sure waiting a week won’t cause a waterfall at Kenny Dam.

The BCR site is pretty big and looking pretty barren. NCP is gone Rustads too. CN could move out of the flood plain. Who would be left? Winton Global? Nope they are gone. Brinks, Lakeland and GLC and that’s about it.

To answer the headline: “Have Prince George Voters Reached the Boiling Point”, I would think that it’s safe to say that most O250 posters have reached the boiling point…

I’d also say that a high number of eligible voters in this town would be challenged to name who the mayor is, and even more challenged to name more than one concillor or two, let alone following the local issues of the day. Apathy rules.

Second tunnel still goes through the powerhouse. Something happens there no water flow that way. When they build the second powerhouse that will mitigate the problem somewhat. Yes the water flow could be reduced for a time during heavy freeze but that depends on how big of a hole has be made in the spring for spring runoff.

In lakes formed for generation during the spring runoff and fall rains on the coast the lakes act like a buffer. There is usually a lot more water going in than being released mitigating flooding. That is where what is called producing a hole before hand comes in.

It is a balancing act trying to predict the weather so that not to big of a hole is produced, leaving a shortage later on. Also if not enough water is released there might have to be heavy releases later. Comes down to predicting weather. It is not an exact science.

Gus, GTP did not build their rail line on a flat piece of land. They had to build the flat piece out of delta swamp land. They hauled train load of soil into the area. They chose the area because they did not want to have pay to buy land in S Ft George or Ct Ft George, instead they bought the land from the Department of Indian Affairs.

Lakeland, Klein & Sons, Cougar Crain and GLC have all built their business above the 200 year flood level. After the last flood Lakeland hauled in gravel and soil to build up their low areas.

I have recently heard that, including what’s already been spent, that once the current plans are put in place, the amount spent on River Road keeping the land behind it dry will equal the entire PG road budget for the next 6 years. No way of knowing if this is accurate or not, but if it’s even close, it’s a huge waste of money. I will be filling out a voter response form against this proposal.

Here is the report you might want to skim through at least, Krusty
http://www.princegeorge.ca/publicsafety/RRDP/Documents/Reports_and_Studies_Flood_Risk_Evaluation_and_Flood_Control_Solutions_Phase_2_Final_Report_2009.pdf

The report is from 2009

Page 32 shows the components to be done and concludes with a list of the projects showing the engineering costs and estimated cost to implement each component.

The total cost estimated 3 years ago is over half a million for engineering and $40 million for the implementation.

The potential cost sharing with senior governments is not shown. We must keep that in mind.

I am sure we should also keep in mind that if the government gives money for those projects, they will likely tend not to give as much for other projects. PG does not all of the sudden get more money in total. Perhaps I am wrong in that judgment.

The south bank is shown as $15.5 million.

The north bank is shown as $9.3 million, which has not started yet as far as I know.

West of John Hart Bridge is another $4million.

What if something ever happened to the dam. Then the phrase “downtown revitalization would actually mean something.

gus: “I am sure we should also keep in mind that if the government gives money for those projects, they will likely tend not to give as much for other projects. PG does not all of the sudden get more money in total. Perhaps I am wrong in that judgment.”

It’s anyone’s guess as to how it works. I seem to remember not too long ago a prominent City employee saying something to the effect that there are staff whose responsibilities include searching for federal and provincial grants and parternerships for various projects. Maybe I misheard it.

“that there are staff whose responsibilities are searching for other levels of tax dollars…”. I thought that would be and is IPG. Gee, they have a swell website! No need for rose coloured glasses while reading it.

Found this interesting information if the Kenny Dam failed. It would result in a release of water 6 times normal release

http://www.gis.unbc.ca/courses/geog413/projects/2007/maurer/index.htm

You are correct. Recall that was the argument made by the union rep in front of Council. She argued that they were laying off people responsible for so many millions of dollars that the City got for projects.

One does not speak about how it works. ;-)

I do not think IPG’s role is to find matching grants for relatively small parks projects.

They are more likely to be involved with sch projects as opening up light industrial parks and getting infrastructure money for connector roads that would serve to such light indstrial uses.

The Kenny Dam has been in place since 1955, with little or no problems for people down river. In fact once the Kemano one tunnel went into effect the water into the Nechako was reduced by at least 50% and maybe more. This water now goes into the Pacific Ocean. If we allow them to go ahead with Kemano two the Nechako for all intents and purposes will be a *dead* river.

At present Rio Tinto Alcan can control to a large degree the amount of water released into the Nechakko. Especially during periods of ice jams. Whether they actually do it or not is moot. The fact of the matter is they are not **legally** responsible for regulating the release to someone else’s schedule.

Considering that we have had two floods since 1955 one minor, and one major is not a big deal. Had effective measures been take immediately when the ice was forming, we may have been able to avoid the major flood. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Nothing was done until it was too late.

Dreding of rivers for shipping purposes is different than dredging for flooding purposes. What people dont seem to realize is that we are talking of dredging an area of less than one kilometre, and this would have the desired effect of keeping the water and ice moving. Would it flood, or jam further down the River?? Possibly, however that then becomes someone elses problem. However I doubt that it would be a big issue.

In simplistic terms, if the City had not made an application for a **grant** under the **Building Canada Fund** we would not be having this discussion. Its the application for the grant that has caused all the hallaballoo, not the possibility of flooding. The flooding is a **red herring** that allows the City to spend more money on useless projects.

Time to cut the purse strings, and stop the City from wasting our money. Sign the petition, and force the issue to a referendum, and then vote it down. At that point it would be interesting to see how the City reacts to being told **NO**

Besides flooding over the banks, the water comes up through the porous gravel.
Ask some of the people who lived there years ago and they will tell you that the low parts in that area filled with water before water ever overflowed; a dyke is a waste of money.

Looks like you don’t read the posts on here karrman or any of the informed articles on the matter on the internet or library or wherever you might go on occasion to continue your learning curve.

As the river rises the rate of water penetration into adjacent soils will depend on the the soil porosity and the resulting pore water pressure. The less porous the soil, the longer it will take for the water table to level off when pressure is increased due to a rise in the river water level.

The rate is measured through test pits which very much resembel the tests done for water wells which can suffer from a high drawdown if there is a large volume demand over a short period of time. That is bad for a well. However, it is good for the effectiveness of a cuttoff wall.

A cutoff wall, coupled with a chamber behind it to collect water as it enters and a pumping system to remove that water back into the river will be quite effective, to keep the water table below the uncontrolled flood scenario.

This site gives you some idea of how it works. Look at figre 7.1
http://www.kdheks.gov/waste/techguide/EPA_QA-QCforWasteContainmentFacilitiesCH7.pdf

Here is another dealing with dewatering construction sites.

http://courses.washington.edu/cm420/Lesson7.pdf