Whats that Sound!

[oneoff]

I posted "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. "
If your answer was
"Well, it seems that the only thing we will all agree upon is that the water authority in Saskatchewan is a joke. We will agree to disagree on the water drainage issue. As Mark Twain said, "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over." "
THEN I say it is time for an overhaul of the municipal level of government. The "water authority" is not a joke; and this attitude shows how elected officials don't understand the democratic process and how it is supposed to work. Its because of this attitude that problems and challenges can't be solved in this province.
I'm not attacking your personal opinion; but rather the context in which you tied it to your public job as councillor.

[checking]

Smallguy, this site is far more informative and entertaining than listening to the same old whining neighbours at the JD coffee table while the mechanics patch the 30/30 holes in my radiator. (lol)

[per]

Not taking any sides here and I am from an area in Alberta that cooperates on water issues so don't have a horse in this race. I just wanted to point out that there are some important environmental benefits to sloughs and wet lands that could come back to bite in the future.

[oneoff]

Sure there are at least two sides to every story (besides the truth). There are also mitigation possibilities, issues of tolerance and the willingness to consider that there are possible circumstances that have been overlooked . What bothers me the most are sanctimonious persons who readily and firmly believe the conclusions they come to. I have observed that these persons don't contribute much more than unjustly labelling some people who are not radicals or not up to the sanctimonios persons moral standard.

[oneoff]

Ever notice the network of roads almost anywhere you go. Those ditches are never designed to store water. I dare anyone to explain how the ditches on either side are not one of the largest contributors to unnatural flows of water. Thus the comments of municipal officials are suspect. "Elected" officials who appear ready to stomp out every instance (as long as they carefully make sure its outside their own municipality which is ordinaarily a maximum of 18 miles away); and who can not see the double standard; are often times playing to strong hypocites. Reasoning with hypocrites or trying to appease hypocites is not fruitful.

[mbratrud]

I like to ditch on by farm, but just to be the devils advocate.. If its about land improovment why couldnt I bring in an earth mover to move my hill tops into the low areas... My low area might be in the corner of the field my neighbor ditched to... how would that go over?

[gregpet]

I didn't realize one little comment could start this kind of debate :-).

As I mentioned earlier, I have asked concerned (ie complaining) neighbors out in the spring to have a look at the effect of my drainage and the spring runoff. If draining a shallow low spot, less than a 4 foot cut, I find and the neighbors have seen that there is virtually no runoff after a couple of crops have been grown. What's the problem, I get to put my most productive land to use and make the most efficient use of the moisture available to grow the crop.

Win win.

[gregpet]

I do not impede the flow of water on my fields, I improve the flow of water through my fields.

[oneoff]

Good point. Theoretically you can land just as many complaints by diverting or damming water. "Significant damages" can be alleged; just as easily as claiming only certain individuals are wholly responsible for flooding. I've even run across some who have the audacity to think they have never "drained"; but was very surprised to find that they were disguising "access roads" as natural water run blocks. It takes all kinds.
Irritants can be rooted in the human faults of jealousy, greed, mean spiritedness and lack of tolerance. If only the same standards were demanded of ourselves, friends and those we dare not confront; then I suspect this world would be a much more friendly and hospitable place for everyone.

[oneoff]

grrr I'm calling you out again

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. "

[oneoff]

Thewre's always the possibility someone is more wrong than right.

[grrrr]

I've heard it from both sides now but mostly and very strongly from the ditching and draining is O.K. and does more good than harm side. I can understand that. I've seen land that is almost uneconomical to farm unless something is done to all the little potholes. Over time it is bigger and bigger water bodies that are getting drained. At what point do we value them more as a wetland than as farmland?

[checking]

Grrr, I think you are still being swayed by the closed basin (closed mind) set. You need to ask your question of your closed basin ratepayers who are so sure they are being drained on. If they were truthful, what they really feel is that runoff water should be stored upstream while they farm their natural wetland, or lake bottom.

Having reread the posts, no one has stated that ditching and draining is okay on the harm side, contrary to your hearing.

I'd just like you to acknowledge that it is no one's business but my own as to where I place the total water holding capacity of my sloughs on my land. The surplus has to go to oulet, as damming back water is just as big a no-no as draining.

Most farmers believe that just because they see low areas being filled, and a ditch between sloughs that they are obviously receiving excess water to their lands. As a councillor, don't be so easily fooled by downstream agendas.

[oneoff]

Its been mentioned before; but I have also yet to see anyone say that causing significant long term flooding damage to another is OK. Its also not OK for a complainant to not accept that having historical overall water storage on upstream lands does not contribute to being liable for downstream damage in years where everyone has exceptional deluges and quick runoffs that overflow and connect every depression in sight. Its that concept that many complainants and municipal councils can't see past.
In the same manner; many individuals councillors take the attitude that "they are totally unaffected by drainage" when in fact they are conveniently overlookig at least two points.
FIRST present and past councils have created a road ditch system that contributes to enhanced water flows. There aren't any significant efforts to bring them back these ditches to historical standards; and if any council took those steps it would find itself in the opposite complaint situation.
SECONDLY just because some of your land is already naturally drained; or was drained before you obtained title to it does not mean that in years of exceptional runoffs; that the runoff is not going to move downstream. Thats why there have been identifiable ponds, swamps and lakes long before human involement, and why in many cases there have been efforts to solve those flooding problems; especially when it was financially and structurally feasible. Now thats a complicated issue; especially today; but from a flooding standpoint; it should not cause additional concern to potential complainants once the overflow point is reached. Whether a dugout or depression could have filled two or more times; the fact is that it still has the same water holding capacity. What I have often observed is that all sanctimonius complaining downstream lake dwellers can't be appeased or reasoned with. Their agenda is often to try to move water storage upstream; drag out the length of flooding for everyone and attempt to control the flow of water.
Thats not OK; and is the root cause why farmers and the Water Corp have such a poor win-win record.
Most signicantly; runoff impacts every farmer and every council. Its only a few people who will openly discuss the many facets of the many stakeholders. Its a sad fact that most people are fence sitters' content to gossip about the supposed fights between their neighbors. This allows the option of being two faced, but the consequence is that we have a desperate shortage of leaders at the municipal level especially. The proof of the last comment is the relatively few persons who have posted to this thread; depite the interest and importance of this topic.
We're all downstream of someone else and none of the above applies to those who recognize the intent of my comments. It is a sad situation when someone is unable to at least try to see the different sides of complicated issues; and even more frustrating to get bogged down discussing points that really there should be no disagreement around.