# Manitoba Floods 2014



## McG (6 Jul 2014)

The CAF has begun flood support to Manitoba.  Deployed so far are 1 CMBG soldiers from Shilo and 38 CBG soldiers from various parts of Manitoba.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-flood-soldiers-arrive-to-help-1.2697464


----------



## Old EO Tech (6 Jul 2014)

17 Wing is also providing what support they can.


----------



## McG (6 Jul 2014)

The PM will tour the floods today:  http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/harper-to-tour-parts-of-manitoba-threatened-by-torrent-of-floodwater-1.1901010


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Jul 2014)

I wonder if the armys vision of 90% reserve, 10% reg force will play out this time  :


----------



## V_I_Lenin (6 Jul 2014)

Hard work and long hours the last time around...hopefully the troops from 1 Bde won't again find themselves road-moving from a field exercise in Alberta to slinging sandbags in southern Manitoba!


----------



## Old EO Tech (6 Jul 2014)

mark-space said:
			
		

> Hard work and long hours the last time around...hopefully the troops from 1 Bde won't again find themselves road-moving from a field exercise in Alberta to slinging sandbags in southern Manitoba!



Edmonton IRU units spent Saturday planning for a deployment, but doesn't look like we will be needed....it would take us two days to get their as it is.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Jul 2014)

That would depend on what assets they need....maybe 2 CER will send kit if needed.....


----------



## NavyShooter (6 Jul 2014)

http://www.brandonsun.com/multimedia/pov/265947731.html

Some interesting photos here.

Here's a dyke that's already up.







This looks to me like a power plant?


----------



## rampage800 (6 Jul 2014)

NS, those pics are Brandon, all the troops are about 130km east of there I'm lead to believe.

Sapper, I'm curious as to what assets 2 CER would have that 1 CER doesn't ?


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jul 2014)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> NS, those pics are Brandon, all the troops are about 130km east of there



Correct. Troops are at Portage.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Jul 2014)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> NS, those pics are Brandon, all the troops are about 130km east of there I'm lead to believe.
> 
> Sapper, I'm curious as to what assets 2 CER would have that 1 CER doesn't ?



Mistype, meant to say 1


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jul 2014)

That's a coke plant I believe. 



			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> http://www.brandonsun.com/multimedia/pov/265947731.html
> 
> Some interesting photos here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jul 2014)

From coal


----------



## McG (6 Jul 2014)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> Sapper, I'm curious as to what assets 2 CER would have that 1 CER doesn't ?


Floating bridge.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Jul 2014)

And BBE's I would guess too....


----------



## Sigs Pig (7 Jul 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> That's a coke plant I believe.



Actually, Brandon GS
It has been flood protected for years due to the recurring floods of the river and is not threatened.

ME


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2014)

Ah so that's what the coals for


----------



## FJAG (7 Jul 2014)

The plant at centre left is a power generating plant and yes it's a dual fuel one using coal and natural gas with a diesel backup. Its the only one like that in Manitoba--all others are water powered.

Incidentally the plant at the top left corner is a Nitrogen/Ammonia (both liquid and dry) fertilizer plant once owned by Simplot and now by Koch.

To the best of my recollection neither one has ever been under risk of flooding. They sit high enough that any water increase would spill over into other areas first.

:cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2014)

Two images:






     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                                  Good on  the CF                                                                           ...                                                                   Good luck, Manitoba


----------



## FSTO (8 Jul 2014)

The whole danger to Brandon is totally the fault of city council and local developers. The area where the big box stores are and the housing built up against the river has always flooded every spring. I was shocked when I heard that the city was going to develop that area.

Now the province (and eventually all Canadians) have to pay for flood mitigation efforts and insurance claims in that section of Brandon because of stupid development decisions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2014)

There are reports, on the radio (CBC) and in some newspapers that wetlands drainage is, partially, to blame ... I _think_ I heard that MB has banned further wetlands drainage but SK has not. Can any locals/experts comment, please?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2014)

With Manitoba being at the receiving end of all the rain from Alberta and Saskatchwan combined, as well as all the Northern States that feed the Red River, it only seems that it would naturally be the repository of all that water before it dumps into Hudson Bay.  I don't think Wetlands drainage is really the sole culprit.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jul 2014)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The whole danger to Brandon is totally the fault of city council and local developers. The area where the big box stores are and the housing built up against the river has always flooded every spring. I was shocked when I heard that the city was going to develop that area.



"Shocked" - No. Not in the least. 

I lived in Brandon from 84-06 and the decision was quite typical of both. 

18th Street had more and more developed into the city's primary retail artery and Kircaldy drive strip at the base of the North Hill was prime level land for development if one ignored the fact that it was part of a flood plain. The point was that its flooding was not then been a severe annual event.  The dyke which existed prior to the development had held things well in check (and with recent improvements, still does). 

I expect that the risk v. benefit analysis was favourable so the thing went ahead. With the flooding events of the last few years the "I told you so's" - who included me and virtually everyone I knew - got to have a field day.

Brandon's issue is a relatively minor one. I was in Winnipeg for the 1997 flood and have seen pictures of how far it extended in 1950. The fact is that the entire Assiniboine/Red River systems are on low flat lands prone to flooding when winter snowfall and spring rain events combine. The historical population spread of the mid to late 1800s followed the rivers. People built on flood plains because they were good farmland and had access to transportation. Even rail lines were built in cose proximity to the rivers. It's not easy to undo a century plus of risk taking.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (8 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are reports, on the radio (CBC) and in some newspapers that wetlands drainage is, partially, to blame ... I _think_ I heard that MB has banned further wetlands drainage but SK has not. Can any locals/experts comment, please?



Can't comment on Saskatchewan but in Manitoba the "Water Rights Act" states that any diversion or control of surface or ground water is vested in the crown and that no works, maintenance etc etc can be undertaken without a licence. Farmers are allowed to do surface drainage improvements on their own land without a licence so long as there is no change in the off land outflow from that prior to the improvements.

Prairie lands are flat and generally with heavy snow and rainfall there are widespread sloughs, wetlands or just poorly drained fields which farmers all want to improve in order to increase productive acreage. Licensing has curbed some of the worst excesses but sometimes the issue relates to government works. There is a court case which has now limped along for several decades by farmers of the Whitemud watershed (a very large region west of and draining into Lake Manitoba) where government drainage improvements allegedly caused and continue to cause flooding damage to hundreds of farmers.

 :cheers:


----------



## nycndp (1 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are reports, on the radio (CBC) and in some newspapers that wetlands drainage is, partially, to blame ... I _think_ I heard that MB has banned further wetlands drainage but SK has not. Can any locals/experts comment, please?





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> With Manitoba being at the receiving end of all the rain from Alberta and Saskatchwan combined, as well as all the Northern States that feed the Red River, it only seems that it would naturally be the repository of all that water before it dumps into Hudson Bay.  I don't think Wetlands drainage is really the sole culprit.


The jet stream has done a number on us this whole year.  The polar vortex is still stuck over that area, giving the upper (U.S.) Midwest and the eastern two Prairie Provinces lots of rain and cool weather, and the U.S. Northeast some, but not as much cool weather. Been over 32 only twice this summer in NYC, and normal by now is about 10 times.

This past winter was a "polar vortex" winter with the same areas being unbelievably cold and snowy.

Thus the floods.


----------

