Water Drainage/Sask Water Security Board

[oneoff]

And so maybe the drainage paranoia is somewhat overblown and certainly overstated.

Trees could be appropriately be put in the weed class; just as flax in canola is not appreciated by buyers. Just who has the right to dictate that rogue trees must be protected. There'snothing natural about trees in most of southern Sask.

And I have never seen such weedy crops (across the board and amongst all production methods)

Water is more an asset as a liability?? I think so; and so do most who have seen severe droughts.

[oneoff]

Perhaps what is needed is an actual, honest real life example of how nothing can apparently be done with water management/drainage....even when you'd think it was no brainer and "all" the bases had been covered and you'd think "everbody" would be onside.


Take a village with flooding problems going back to day one. No obvious drainage contributors except provincial highway ditches, municipal and oilfield road ditches, excess rainfall, some extra runoff from disturbed and compacted soils; maybe dam or two that restrict or block natural run ways, sump pumps and sloughs etc. You know; the gereal run of the mill uncoordinated collection of zero thought for a long term plan.

Maybe even including a quarter section or more of land that hasn't been sown for three years, SaskPower pad transformers half submerged and surrounded by water; and sour gas processing plants; numerous farmers, residences etc etc who would benefit.

All this a few hundred yards from a well known river drainage outlet a few hundred yards away.

Add in Sask Watershed survey plans developed at the request of the village years ago. THAT IS THE PLANS TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WERE THOSE THAT HAD BEEN DEVEOPED BY THAT SAME DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY APPROVE CONSTRUCTION.

There was full consent of village council to move the required maximum of 18 inches of dirt (in one of two possible project designs). That council was honest in sayinng they weren't in a financial position to help in that area. Its also a fact that the village plan is to throw it hands up when reserves are totally depleted; and the RM has an ongoing knowledge that they intend to assume this village liability some day soon. That's an untold story in itself.

Even throw in an offer of covering the construction costs by a very large company and taxpayer in the group who writes a check for approx. 90% of RM revenues.


I'm not going to go further at this time until there is some indication that at least a few persons are interested in the rest of the story.

But for now I'll provide some time to give an opportunity for those who made sure this project would not see the the light of day to do some explaining of their rationale.................

This is why the present system of approved drainage is not a viable option.

In practice; less than nothing can be usually done; until some crisis happens and then everyone is so busy in "crisis mode" own dumb dumb mistakes.

[chuckChuck]

Native trees are not weeds. They may be unwanted but if you can't seed an area because it is too wet and a tree grows it is not considered arable land anymore. If it is wet almost every spring and holds snow melt it is a kettle lake or slough whatever you want to call it. Clearing those areas release thousands of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere. Deforestation is a major source of climate change. Get rid of all the trees and your climate will change locally. Clearing trees often results in increased runoff. Only a small portion of our average annual precipitation comes in the form of snow. It seems like more because the ground is frozen. Grassed and treed areas capture alot of runoff. Just compare a grassed pasture to a cultivated field after a large thunderstorm. Less runoff leaves the grassed area untill it hits the saturation point. The cattle guys know this well.

[oneoff]

Any vegetatation growing where it is not desired is a weed. You don't get to decide that because it is wet enough to grow willows that they have become a permanent fixture. If you are talking about poplars; you will find that they die off when submerged in water; something that can be easily noticed in the Carlyle/Stoughton area.


I stll stand by the fact that trees have no God given, nor chuck given right in former grassland areas that were always historically barren of those deciduous trees (probably in your own area).

[oneoff]

Some farmers may well have a special relationship with crop insurance and government payments. As they become secure; they tend to forget that their hands have always been in someone's pockets and that basically is the reason that they still remain in the farming business.

What bothers me is the disdain shown by those who spew BS about already wet conditions benefitting by trapping snow drifts that melt slowly and miraclusly it all disappears into a water table at the ground surface.

When rainfall exceeds evaporation; as it probably did this season; soils become soaked sponges and overgrown with foxtail barley, sowthistles and in some cases yellow mustard, thistles etc. Those that don't know what a weed is; will some day wake up to find that not only they have lost the battle; but will have made it more difficult for even effective control when weather conditions allow better control methods practiced by most farmers. And that completely ignores nasty noxious weeds that defy anyone's control.

An all around crop and financial and maybe ecological disaster from what I've seen; and I doubt any particular cereal or lentil farmers's methods fared any better than another in years such as this past one.

I got a chance to see fields in the past couple days that are a complete and utter disaster. Never saw such a mess in 40 some years farming.

Better wait to plant those poplar shoots; because the outside round just isn't where it was in those past 40 years. And it wasn't mainly caused by drainage; or lack of trees.

I'd refer you to Google Eath photos to view those same fields from 6 or so years ago. There is no resemblance of whole areas of once grain fields that are now small lakes and tall cattail marshes.

Growing a few pounds of alalfa seeds or feeding ruminants grass that then belch methane gas isn't considered friendly to the environment either. Especially if one doesn't even have those animals; and no hay is produced. If farmers cut their dependence on diesel fuel; there certainly would be a lot less done by absolutely ever farmer. But I don't hear a similar call for that from all back to the 1910's farmers.

And that all we are worried about; isn't it.
That and how someone else tries to make a living, grow and market using their chosen production system.

[oneoff]

Anyone else is welcome to have the last words.

[chuckChuck]

I would say by the looks of it, this year round up ready canola is fast becoming a weed especially in round up ready soybeans! It will be only a matter of time before glyphosate becomes useless thanks to farmers who don't understand biology and can't imagine farming without dependence on chemistry.

Nature is not static, it is always changing and evolving. Trees replace grassland when the conditions allow it. Our geologically recent landscape and soil is only about 10,000 years old. Humans interrupted the natural process of fire, but nature provided the wet spell that allows cat tails and trees to flourish. Trees have recorded significant growth the last few years.

What is the point in clearing land that will only be farmed less than 1/2 the time? This wet spell will pass and we will again farm more acres.

Bad weather has been part of farming for 10,000 years. Farmers have some control over their ability to survive. The 1980s were farm more destructive. High interest rates and dry weather killed many farms.

Severe flooding is terrible. Farmers need to build more resilience into their farming systems. We have adopted a very expensive energy intensive farming system. Input suppliers and grain merchants would like nothing more than total control of the seed to market. Many crops are already there. Farmers take all the risk on borrowed money.