Government waffling and posturing, ad nauseum, might I say.
If the government had any collective common sense, they would have done something by now (and there are a lot of non governmental people who agree) They perpetuate the ass covering that is today's management style. Everyone is afraid to make the first move lest they be wrong. The only route available to these pantywaists is consultation with experts (big bucks, I wish I were an 'expert') If they cover all their dainty tracks, the experts can be blamed if their solution turns out to be wrong or bad. Hire an old general contractor/logger guy, and give him the authority to make decisions.
He will extract the gravel from the confluence of the Nechako and the Fraser, and the city can sell it to one of the many earthworks projects happening around the PG area right now. If the removal of gravel offends a fish or two, they will get over it.
metalman.

"If the removal of gravel offends a fish or two, they will get over it."

This attitude is EXACTLY why so many of our fish and wildlife are dwindling! NO they DONT get over it!

CaringSoul, the fish are dwindling because of over fishing, mostly because there are no restrictions put on some people. The wildlife is not dwindling, contrary to what you might think.

I do not understand why the taxpayer would have to pay for other peoples stupidity. When I bought my home in PG I looked for what natural disasters would affect the place that I choose to buy. The nice river view did not enter the picture at all because I knew that any properties along any river would be libel to flooding. Why should any taxpayer be on the hook because someone wanted to live along a river that anyone in there right mind would know would flood. And if we help them out now do we have to help them out next time their property floods.

A flood plain is natures way of mitigating floods!
By allowing room for the water to spread out, it is far less damaging to the area surrounding the regular water way and mitigating damage.

Any fool that builds on a flood plain is asking for a fight with mother nature. We all know who will win that one. This is a no win situation for the owners of these now distressed properties.

The city does not owe the land owners any thing and should not appropriate these lands. The river has been here longer than any resident of the area and any one that chose the river frontage made their own bed. Let them lie in it.

Dredging: how many more dollars are to be spent on nothing. In less than one year, the river bed will be pretty close to what it is now. Mark a spot on the wall, hit spot with forehead, repeat until this idea makes sense. Or has city council already performed this exercise?

"To make our relationship with the river work.” Get out of the way.

To do nothing is always an option and in this case the most rational and effective not to mention cheapest. If you live in an earthquake zone, you cannot buy earthquake insurance, same for known flood areas.

This just like people who move out to the wilderness and wonder why they have a bear problem.

Sorry, Caring Soul, but that 'attitude' is predicated on something that is very thin on the ground these days; common sense.
Just how is it that you believe the fish will be harmed by removing gravel from the confluence of two rivers at low water?
Siltation? nope, the Fraser River is silt laden already.
Oil or fuel leaking from equipment? maybe, but that is something that can and should be easily controlled by inspection. Greasing would also have to be controlled.
Opening a channel will allow the Nechako River to run deeper, faster, and colder at the confluence, none of which will harm a fish. In fact, tha only endangered species in local waterways that I am aware of is the Sturgeon, and deeper, colder water can only benefit them.
metalman.

The problem with opening up the confluence of the river is that it will disturbe the salmon habitat. The solution is to do the extraction during the dead of winter. the Salmon has already done its thing and the fingerlings are still upriver.

Most machines which works in the rivers are using proper grease and etc.

Sure stock pile the gravel. Makes good sense to sell it to the city projects.

So, the fear is that we would loose our salmon stock..... hmmm we have salmon stock in the Nechako, and ironically through the fifties, sixties and early seventies they use to extract the gravel from this same location.... Hmmm stopped making an effort to keep it open, and it starts to flood. I wonder if these two items are related.

Loki, sounds simple, but what if your property was declared to be resting on unsuitable ground, and making your home worthless. Its easy to make comments like you have, if it does not effect you. But these are people trying to get ahead in their lot in life.

Doing nothing is not a solution, its what bureacrats do, because they can not make a decision. Its a Dan Rogers move.

Sure the Regional District and the city should be notifying these people of the dangers of building in a flood plain, and they should be signing them off on it.

I was never dumb enough to purchase property on on river frontage flood plain or in an avalanche area. This is not rocket science, man. Sure now we have the situation where there is property at risk and families will lose. What I am saying is that this should never have been allowed in the first place. But now we are here. Now these families with frontage properties are expecting the government (taxpayer money) to fix what never should have been by their own choice. I chose not to support pissing away more tax payer funds. Current cost is over $32 million or in more direct terms, $458 from every one in prince George. For what? So somebody can have that grand view of the river?

Give your head a shake. We cannot continually pick up the pieces for bad decisions. I personally have had my home removed from under me and I just went and made a new one happen. So will these folks once they wrap their head around the idea that it is stupid to build on a flood plain. THINK!

Bureaucrats seem like they do nothing, but really they do lots of stuff. Like make it look like they are doing something, or dreaming up new employment security schemes for themselves and their friends.

I remember when the city forced the people living in the Island Cache to move out. The ones with deeded land got a pittance for their investment, the rest were s.o.l.
If I lived on one of the scenic riverside homesites that are possibly being bought out by the authorities, I would want to have the option to stay put, and build a berm and modify the house so that occasional flooding did not affect the structure. If you really like living by the river, you should have a choice, as long as you could not demand aid for flooding at a later date of course. If you plan to stay put, the potential loss in re-sale value means nothing.
metalman.

Why do people continue to go on about dredging? The experts examined that option and said it would have minimal impact. Secondly, getting the DFO and Ministry of Environment approvals to dredge is nearly impossible. Why keep beating this dead horse?

We need to move on to options which will:

1) Actually work.

2) Be feasible in a short-to-medium timeframe; and

3) Be cost effective.

Buy out the homeowners in the area and turn that land into a park. Then build up River Road to protect the industrial sites which are too expensive to buy out. It's pretty simple, really.

"The experts examined that option and said it would have minimal impact."

The experts also said:

1. About one third of the air pollution in the Bowl of Prince George comes from residential wood appliance burning.

2. The University Road side cut would not slough.

3. There would be no leaking condos in Vancouver.

4. Subprime loans are no problem.

5. Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, here is an article about fingerprint experts who made mistakes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/986340.stm

The main part of that article I want to quote is the following:
"Fingerprint analysis is not an exact science. It's based on human judgement and human beings are fallible."

I believe the "expert" in the case under discussion here is a human being not unlike the rest of us and therefore is fallible just like the rest of us.

Hydrology, btw, is also not an exact science.

"build up River Road to protect the industrial sites which are too expensive to buy out. It's pretty simple, really."

Actually it is not quite that simple. Building a dike on porous soil does little to prevent water from percolating underneath and eventually surfacing behind the dike.

So true, gus. Obvious too, once you have seen that water perckin' up through the ground a couple hundred feet from the river. It is called ground water level I believe, and you would have to raise the entire industrial lands along the river to avoid the perc.
metalman.