Whats that Sound!

[lcarduner]

Freewheat - congrats on what you have finished up.

Accidents happen - hang in there!

[checking]

Grrr, are you sure you have a water issue?
Or is it something else like:
you've both visited each other for years, and drank each others coffee, but now that it's turned wet all over and your pond has expanded like all the ponds upstream, it's the neighbour's upstream water and fault. Now's a good time to tell the neighbour that you've hated their guts for the last twenty years. And if you've hated their guts, well why not file a complaint with the watershed authority.
Or is it the neighbour suddenly posted his land, and you've decided there is no way in hell you're going to ask him for permission, even though he'd never turn you down, and has helped you out on lots of things over the years.
Or is it that he bought a quarter of land at a price you wouldn't go, but that you really know should be yours, at your price.
Or is it that the neighbour has decided that when he sells out, he's going to shop it to European buyers, the Hutterites, or an Indian band, or any one else, and that doesn't sit well with you.
Or is it anything else except something that is wet?

[grrrr]

I am totally unaffected by water drainage. As an R.M. councillor though I must represent my ratepayers, some of which farm land that has not been under water in living memory. Land upstream, in some cases 20 miles away has been drained. In some cases ditches are 8 feet deep, some more. 80 acre sloughs in the 1970's are now seeded in the middle of May by one farmer but the guy downstream has lost half his land. Is this right? Is this an O.K. thing to do?

[SASKFARMER3]

Since I am waiting for a truck to get back grrr kiss my any where in the world water athorities work with the farmer to develop every acre here their just another useless beurocratic BS fake job. Yes ditching your water into your neighbors is wrong but a valley or creak with flow to lake that is ok by me. When I landscape that's where it goes a slough that can't be drained or one I irrigate out of. Killing trees now that's stress management. This year lots of that so will kill for a couple weeks.

[checking]

Three questions first, grrr???

As a councillor, would you chastise and support turning in a relative, a friend, and your ratepayer that you must represent, just as quickly as an upstream stranger 20 mile away doing the same thing?

As a council, do they believe that the largest and most numerous culverts are to be placed upstream, and that as you move downstream the numbers and size of culverts are to be diminished?

If it was shown by engineer qualified surveyors that the slough consolidation done on those upstream lands did not change the historic amount of water released at outlet from those lands, regardless of the ditching observed, would you as a councillor still support your closed basin ratepayers' view on the issue?

If the answers are no, yes, and yes, then I know the RM you are from.

Eight foot or more deep diches are a factor presented to create shock and outrage at a situation. They impress me not, in the same manner that the largest scaper made, working on a field, is totally irrelevant. If you know your land, then all of us know of check points where the removal, or addition of a couple of spade fulls of dirt can divert far greater water volumes than any deep ditch. This is also irrelevant.

A closed basin, my definition, is a flood prone low wetland up to the size of a lake bottom. Should they ever have been tilled in the first place? If the truth is that these lands receive tax breaks because of that situation, then I have even less sympathy.

[gregpet]

All of the low spots drain into a wonderful creek system that nature has provided.

Just my observation, but the majority of low spots do not have any or very minimal runoff in the spring after a crop has been grown. Any runoff that would occur would be after a downpour and their would be water issues anyway. I do not think that landscaping our fields affects the amount of spring runoff greatly and the impact is very minimal.

[Cattleman]

grrr, thanks for the post! I don't post much but this is near and dear to me. I own some very good grain land around one of these "lakes". 6 yeaars ago the lake was completely dry. 3 years ago we had the highest water level in 50 years! Just like that, wet fall, big snow, and huge runoff. The "natural" springs and creeks collect for nearly 100 miles to fill this lake... obviously there is lots of ditching going on, and we saw tonnes that spring 3 years ago, and guess where it all ended up!! I had to deal with washed out roads, and couldn't even get to some land in a timely manner that spring. It will be 4 years next spring, and we have 2 good years of dropping water levels, and I still have significant land under water, and another 100 acres, that used to be great crop land, that was a pile of weeds this year even after we got onto it and seeded it this spring. Hopefuly in two more years we can get it back into shape. And I figure there is a bunch more next spring to start rejuvenating. Cost me a pile for a bunch of people up stream.

Anyway, I don't want to attack anyone here, as I guess we are all selfish at times. But it burns me to hear all of these reasons of why it is okay to do it. Because the water doesn't all end up in a major river system. End of Rant....

[oneoff]

Re: Alleged water problems
Not highest water levels in a 51 year time span; an admitted catchment area from runoff from a 100 mile long natural drainage area; don't want to attack anyone, but a bunch of people upstream cost me a bundle; admitted rapid runoff from fall saturated land and a very wet spring.
You're an inch away from getting your tit in a complete knot and exercising a process that ensures nobody wins. Be fair and name other potential contributors such as much closer friends and neighbors (and even entertain the possibility of your own transgressions; and those of former landowners you may now have responsibility for through purchases agreements etc.)
Remember you are ringing a bell that can never be unrung; that is there are a certain fraction of people who will take the position that "none of "your" concerns can be accomodated" or "there is nothing that can be done that would completely satisfy them". You will surely find that there is no satisfactory solution for all the interests in a 100 mile long stretch ( and that farming pursuits may even be the least significant interest in this drainage basin that you are identifying.
I hope tolerance, working together for solutions, looking at the big picture and some give and take will prevail; but with all respect you deserve you may currently not have fully examined your situation; and you certainly won't be the final one to make a decision about the outcome.

[oneoff]

grrr It also isn't OK to single out unidentified individuals 20 miles away. I have respect for those who call a spade a spade; but don't omit the obvious possibility of drainage contributions from much closer individuals such as your own municipal road system and neighbors; friends and even yourself that you would rather not confront. What goes around also comes around; and it plain cowardice to blame everthing on what may or may not be going on 20 miles away. Just say you also agree with my points and we would have a basis to continue this discussion.

[SASKFARMER3]

My point is in Saskatchewan we resent all our neighbors for doing something. Live in Past where 100 year old families still think their in Jolly old England and run the place. Simply our watershed authorities are a joke. Every where I mean every where farmers and water authorities work together to create viable land for agriculture but not in Dear old Saskatchewan. I bought that quarter and your water cant get through it attitude. Sooner or later we need to change our attitude get in to the 2000s and look at what every one else is doing and start doing it. Simply jealous of a neighbor who tries to make his farm better and not hurt his neighbors is pathetic. Worry about your farm.

[oneoff]

Now that I'm wound up on the water problem issue; here's a couple more points to consider. There are a substancial number of landscapers who sleep soundly at night knowing that their additional excess water goes into a handy water run, ravine or creek. The affects on downstream infrastucture (too small bridges, increased flooding of low areas this side of the oeans and even the ocean; nutrient loading etc etc) should be at least acknowledged before deciding that you have no impact on some facet of the world's water problems.
I've one final observation. Why has a province such as Manitoba looked at drainage in a totally light than dried out Saskatchewan. I seems that in any part of the world except Sask; there is an accepted concept of land improvement. Why is land contouring, levelling, drainage, or any other "improvement" so unaccepted and frowned upon in Sask; even though our ancestors would't recognize the same land they homesteaded. Every one of those "improvements" was substancially caused by the past and present residents; and I for one appreciate most of those changes.

[oneoff]

Cmon Saskfarmer3. Its not fair to take words out of my mouth when I'm busy typing with one finger.
Seriously; excellent analysis; too bad we can't all consider the obvious problems; and then do something collectively about what requires changing