Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Genesee Dam

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,183

    Default Genesee Dam

    Massive dam near Edmonton would end major flood risk
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...jor-flood-risk

    The report lists benefits of such a dam including flood resiliency for Edmonton, water storage in case of drought, avoidance of environmental and social impacts that come with building dikes, creation of waterfowl habitat, protection of infrastructure and historic sites downriver, potential for hydro power generation, opportunity for new development on floodplains, increased ability to get home insurance, and recreational uses from the new lake.

    But the report adds that dams are not without challenges, such as acquiring land, relocating utilities and pipelines, changes in water quality, and making the river less navigable. A dam would impact wildlife and fish habitat. “These significant challenges should be weighed against benefits to society of mitigating or removing flood risk in the city.”

    Bottom lines here? The report makes clear we’ve got a massive issue with flooding, even if we don’t realize it. We have no collective memory of such a natural disaster, but the big one is coming.

    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  2. #2

    Default

    Interesting idea but not a very deep reservoir. Maybe 50 feet maximum depth? Would they let it drain completely to maximize flooding capacity? Probably not in view of the whole idea of adding cottages. Silting would be a major issue long term.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  3. #3

    Default

    That dam wouldn't do a thing to help folks in Millwoods who actually do get flooded when it rains hard. This would only help people who choose to develop on a known flood plain.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  4. #4

    Default

    A chance of a 1915 type flood event in a lifetime does not equate to the North Saskatchewan being a major flood risk.

    The NS is a deep bank river very tame as compared to the often flooding Bow River down south in Calgary.

    The only people experiencing flood risk in Edmonton from the NS live in a well established flood plain. For those people living on NS flood plains its a risk they have accepted.


    Why should we build a large expensive dam just to mitigate around once in a lifetime, if that, flood event? One that from the source is not even a hydroelectric generating infrastructure. The sole purpose of the dam would be mitigating the very rare flood?


    lol at Staples; "The big one is coming" Maybe he can find an old bugle and announce this every morn while scouting accidental beach.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  5. #5

    Default

    So at taxpayer expense, we’d flood a huge area of likely pristine river valley environment that might otherwise never naturally flood and then call it creating natural habitat?

    Build dikes around Ft Edmonton and the treatment plants and any other vulnerable City infrastructure. Let everyone else fend for themselves as this is a long known risk. Let homeowner see at risk buy insurance or build their own solutions at their own expense.

    Those who bought houses on the flood plains knew full well the risk they were taking. The City spent years buying up properties to end that risk. Decore then undid that plan by selling all those properties off so I’d say that now, a free market solution should be sought out.

    A risk obvious to all for 100 years!!!


    “The 1915 flood was so severe it persuaded that now distant generation of Edmontonians to see the valley flats as an area suited for parks, not for homes or businesses. Nonetheless major development has occurred, the report notes. “Currently, seven floodplain areas within the city of Edmonton contain a significant amount of infrastructure that is at risk, including historic interpretive sites (like Fort Edmonton), water and wastewater treatment plants, and nearly 2,000 dwellings occupied by approximately 3,800 residents.”


    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...jor-flood-risk


    The job of simply protecting our city assets could likely start far, far sooner and at a far far lower cost than getting approval for a half-billion dollar dam that we could expect to increase to at least a $1 billion by the time it was completed.


    Now, water storage is a possible important need to be addressed but I imagine there are multiple alternatives to deal with that risk. (Maybe waterline supplying outlying communities with offshoots added to lakes so flow could be reversed for emergencies.)
    Last edited by KC; 01-06-2018 at 08:55 AM.

  6. #6
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I just don't have words...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So at taxpayer expense, we’d flood a huge area of likely pristine river valley environment that might otherwise never naturally flood and then call it creating natural habitat?

    Build dikes around Ft Edmonton and the treatment plants and any other vulnerable City infrastructure. Let everyone else fend for themselves as this is a long known risk. Let homeowner see at risk buy insurance or build their own solutions at their own expense.

    Those who bought houses on the flood plains knew full well the risk they were taking. The City spent years buying up properties to end that risk. Decore then undid that plan by selling all those properties off so I’d say that now, a free market solution should be sought out.

    A risk obvious to all for 100 years!!!


    “The 1915 flood was so severe it persuaded that now distant generation of Edmontonians to see the valley flats as an area suited for parks, not for homes or businesses. Nonetheless major development has occurred, the report notes. “Currently, seven floodplain areas within the city of Edmonton contain a significant amount of infrastructure that is at risk, including historic interpretive sites (like Fort Edmonton), water and wastewater treatment plants, and nearly 2,000 dwellings occupied by approximately 3,800 residents.”


    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...jor-flood-risk


    The job of simply protecting our city assets could likely start far, far sooner and at a far far lower cost than getting approval for a half-billion dollar dam that we could expect to increase to at least a $1 billion by the time it was completed.
    Whoever approved all those condos along the river north of 98th ave by the accidental beach, should be fired
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    I just don't have words...
    Oh I figure you have a few words... As soon as I saw this, I immediately thought of certain words coming out of your mouth. most of them would translate on the forum to *** ***** the **** **** **** holy **** **** *********

  9. #9
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    A chance of a 1915 type flood event in a lifetime does not equate to the North Saskatchewan being a major flood risk.

    The NS is a deep bank river very tame as compared to the often flooding Bow River down south in Calgary.

    The only people experiencing flood risk in Edmonton from the NS live in a well established flood plain. For those people living on NS flood plains its a risk they have accepted.


    Why should we build a large expensive dam just to mitigate around once in a lifetime, if that, flood event? One that from the source is not even a hydroelectric generating infrastructure. The sole purpose of the dam would be mitigating the very rare flood?

    (...).

    To be fair...

    this happened to pretty much the same lines in 1986, and a few times to about the 50% mark in my lifetime...

    normally because Brazeau needs to do an emergency release...


    edit...

    but to support one of your points..this area is kicked in the shins, face, and groin with other electric, mining, and aggregate extraction infrastructure that the City of Edmonton, and recently, an abhorrent, poorly run, environmentally obtuse, safety ignorant project by ATCO to which most Edmontonians (including many here) said, " So what, they are just dumb rural hicks...you know...garbage humans."...that by not making this a hydroelectric dam to take advantage of all this taxpayer funded boondoggle just seems...um...dam short-sighted...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    A chance of a 1915 type flood event in a lifetime does not equate to the North Saskatchewan being a major flood risk.

    The NS is a deep bank river very tame as compared to the often flooding Bow River down south in Calgary.

    The only people experiencing flood risk in Edmonton from the NS live in a well established flood plain. For those people living on NS flood plains its a risk they have accepted.


    Why should we build a large expensive dam just to mitigate around once in a lifetime, if that, flood event? One that from the source is not even a hydroelectric generating infrastructure. The sole purpose of the dam would be mitigating the very rare flood?

    (...).

    To be fair...

    this happened to pretty much the same lines in 1986, and a few times to about the 50% mark in my lifetime...

    normally because Brazeau needs to do an emergency release...
    I think we need to look as well at declining melt runoff expected at source from the Columbia icefield. Theoretical models have some of this neltwater being replaced by increased rainfall but a well established NS river bank is probably long past seeing its peak levels. Brazeau in anycase I suspect will have less times in the future where they need to do an emergency release.

    I share the concern KC mentioned though is that this dam would create flooded areas and new areas of flood risk in mitigating the risks for the few residents that are located on a known NS flood plain.

    Seems like a lot of money to just shift problems and create new ones not to mention the considerable loss of habitat overall created by the dam.

    Another factor that should be mentioned is that some of todays floods are more likely to be due to stationary weather systems that just park and dump in one localized area. Wherever that be. As mentioned this dam does little to mitigate those kinds of increasing storm events.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #11

    Default

    Totally agree with Replacement's comments.

    Not only are stationary weather systems a problem but also the development of the Edmonton has massively changed the watershed's retaining capacity and runoff rate.

    For instant, back in the 1970's, the Millcreek watershed would crest about 24 hours after a storm and much water was retained in the fields, slews and wetlands. Now with all the roads, roof's and parking lots in Millwoods and the loss of wetlands, the storm crest is as little as 2 hours and 8 foot creek rise is not uncommon, creating much higher ravine erosion rates than ever before.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  12. #12
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    While this can contribute, there is a massive watershed west...so the Edmonton example probably contributes more further downstream.

    Brazeau, from the last time I was with TransAlta, was talking about more emergency releases as the stationary systems seem to stall SW of here.

    that notwithstanding...

    I agree that this weir system (they wont be dams IMO at 3m in height) is silly if all it is for is to prevent people...living in known flood plains...from experiencing flooding. Building on a flood plain...means exactly that...

    Which is why I didn't have words initially...

    Given the gravel extraction, and the mess they are leaving behind...if this becomes a better water management program, even hydro...with benefits coming back to the area...co-ordinated with the area...and even some better linking into the infrastructure out here...this actually could be a good thing. Currently, it is just being raped of aggregate to support Edmonton's growth.

    However, the GFY attitude of Edmontonians and others towards this area leads me to believe that having a serious, honest, and collaborative discussion is not even proposed. We already have considerable loss of land habitat due to strip mining, and considerable loss of water habitat due to gravel extraction...and the accidental campgrounds here created by the old pits...where Edmontonians come out in droves to burn couches, shoot guns across the river...litter the valley with beer cans and other interesting items...hold drag races through my driveway at 3am...and decide to create a huge campground in one of my hay fields...lighting huge campfires surrounded by tall alfalfa ...withered and dry from a drought...and wondering why I am angry...

    I am not holding my breath...

    ...after all, I get to learn about this in a Staples column...and not with the proponents even coming out to talk...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  13. #13

    Default

    Good info source here:

    Home | North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance
    http://www.nswa.ab.ca/content/home

  14. #14

    Default

    People are waking up to the negative impacts of large manmade dams

    Opinion: It’s the Site C dam, not Trans Mountain, that should worry B.C. | Edmonton Journal


    http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/c...ould-worry-b-c


    “According to more than 200 of Canada’s leading scholars, Site C will have more significant adverse environmental effects than any project ever examined in the history of Canada’s environmental assessment act.

    Large dams have irreversible ecological consequences. Among those, Site C will destroy habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction, including bird and butterfly species.

    To proceed with such an environmentally destructive project, B.C. Hydro is required to adopt “mitigation measures,” some of which are scientifically unproven and have jaw-dropping costs. For instance, B.C. Hydro customers will foot a $127-million bill to send bull trout past the Site C dam in trucks for 100 years so they can reach their spawning grounds.

    ...”


  15. #15
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...lood-1.4212343

    1986...for those who don't have "recent memory"
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •