A recent post got hijacked and this new topic is somewhat hidden and buried. By bringing this topic to the top of the threads; maybe there will be additional comments and perspectives raised. Thanks
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 have no satisfactory outlet but recognize the validity and intent of the above arguments. 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.
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 have no satisfactory outlet but recognize the validity and intent of the above arguments. 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.
Comment