Water Drainage/Sask Water Security Board

[sumdumguy]

The Lewvan, Riceton, Lajord lowlands commonly called the Wascana lowlands were drained through water projects where local ratepayers pay a per acre each year to drain into the ditches. A series of large ditches allow farmers to drain thousands of acres of low land. It took visionaries and cooperation to make the projects fly. This may be a idea that other farming areas may want to consider.

[Oliver88]

Where does the water end up that is being drained out of the Wascana lowlands and into ditches?
Does it make it to a major river?
Does it eventually get to an ocean?

That is a success if an area can be dried out and especially if all farmers downstream aren't adversely affected.
On the other hand if the water is relocated to southeastern SK/SW Manitoba that is not a success story.

[fjlip]

stubble, "Current law states if any water leaves your land a permit is required no matter the outlet/river/stream." You can drain into a captive water body on your land all you want. I am on local CAA, and permits are needed even if your ditch goes into CAA works. As I said nearly Zero permits, other than mine, in our works, the law needs teeth. And oneoff, us local guys would rather NOT start a war with draining land owners, remember... "whiskey is for drinking, WATER is for fighting over." We have to live here, with neighbors of all kinds.
WSA agents with the power to approve a drainage project on site, recommend corrective measures in disputes is the only way. As I understand Manitoba is far ahead of us in Sk.

[oneoff]

I fully realize there are success stories. I could also point you to one or two.

And for every one of above; I don't know what the ratio of failure is/would be; but it isn't impressive.

And yes those success stories do transfer water that someone all the way to an ocean could complain about. The "yellowgrass" and area ditches dump directly into the Souris and are a part of flood problems especially in times of very high runofff.

Don't ever forget that if you are keeping track of flooding impacts.

And with rising sea levels that statement might as well include another third of the worlds population that will be impacted by someone else's water.

[oneoff]

It's all about what tolerance there is for someone else's drainage works past/present and future.

Only those in the past and those with the rare set of circumstances where there aren't a few opposed get the free pass.

There is the conservation area possibility; but that takes dedication, work and support that just isn't common amongst most of those self interested farmers.

[chuckChuck]

Drainage should be regulated by the provinces with inter-provincial agreements. The regulations should be enforced. Farmers have been bulldozing trees and destroying wetlands in many of the most flood prone areas. The wetlands and trees hold back a lot of water and reduce and slow runoff. Some farmers have the arrogance to think they can do what ever they want no matter the impact downstream. Just because you may have title to the land for a few decades does not mean you can ruin the land for the next generations.

Many areas are in a severe wet spell. It is not going to be solved by individuals draining their land. Just look at how inadequate our infrastructure is when there is a 200 mm rainfall event. Individuals are rebuilding their houses along river banks that recently flooded. How smart is that? Why are we using public funds to bail these people out for the second, third and fourth time? If you are going to get public funds your next building site should be off the flood plain.

[oneoff]

Drainage should be regulated by the provinces with inter-provincial agreements. The regulations should be enforced. Farmers have been bulldozing trees and destroying wetlands in many of the most flood prone areas. The wetlands and trees hold back a lot of water and reduce and slow runoff. Some farmers have the arrogance to think they can do what ever they want no matter the impact downstream. Just because you may have title to the land for a few decades does not mean you can ruin the land for the next generations.

Many areas are in a severe wet spell. It is not going to be solved by individuals draining their land. Just look at how inadequate our infrastructure is when there is a 200 mm rainfall event. Individuals are rebuilding their houses along river banks that recently flooded. How smart is that? Why are we using public funds to bail these people out for the second, third and fourth time? If you are going to get public funds your next building site should be off the flood plain.

[oneoff]

Some of chucks insinuations and conclusions are grossly in eror because some basic facts are ignored or not recognized.

If you are looking for historical natural condition largely unaffected by man; there is a fact that prairie fire routinely occurreed on the Canadian plains. Those lightning spurred events; were not conducive to growing trees. In fact I well remember that my grandfather long ago told me that there was not one tree, nor one willow on his homestead quarter at one time (outside those that he had planted). Winter fuel had to be gotten as coal near Bienfeit; or firewood from the Moose Mountains or the Souris River.

Thus any farmer bulldozing trees in that area at least; is simply returning nature back to what I imagine chuck feels is its natural state.

Further there have been recent examples of consequences of what rain downpours of 6 inches or more will result in. If chuck et al had a better view from the air; they would realize that with or without drainage; every watercourse and low area is flooded. Once the spill point has been reached and any more moisture falls; every drop moves to lower elevations. It is a situation out of anyone's hands. So don't think for one moment that all natural disasters can be blamed on drainage.
Its more likely our severe weather extremes are attributable to burning petroleum resources; also a fact that some heavy users are prone to conveniently forgetting.

The statement that drainage should be interprovincially regulated and enforced is easy to say. Its already regulated; certainly not enforced and I fully believe that if that power was put in hands of one issue people; we would have a totally different and maybe worse situation than society has allowed to develop today. I can just see the easy way of getting tough on future transgresions; but cowardly doing nothing about what supposedly has brought us to today's claimed unsatisfactory state.

Trees trap snow....ten or 20 feet deep. They delay seeding in some years as melt water continues into May or longer.

Historically the Canadian grain growing region ordinarily suffers from too little moisture. This province saw an exodus of farmers in the 1930's decade and despite way too much rain in recent years; in many areas; there was usually the potential for even above average yields. What is happening is that leopard frogs are plentiful; ducks and geeses are in excess and there never hhave been so many cattails ever before. And all this with supposed uncontrolled drainage. Somebodies facts don't add up. And its the rare quarter that; drained or not; doesn't have widespread drowned out areas.

And yet there are those who want more wetlands. Presumably uncontrolled prairie fires should be a part of our existance too. Would the beneficial efects on the previous ecosystem be ignored just beause it destroyed property and killed a few settlers.


We have government programs that even chuck admits is being wasted through not utilizig it to rebuild so that such a loss never occurs again. Would you want that mindset of buerocrats to oversee a workable drainage system process.

[chuckChuck]

Fire was part of the ecology of the grasslands and still is where grasslands are in their natural state. Humans have changed the ecology. Trees and wetlands provide beneficial services in providing clean air,water, and recharging aquifers. They are part of the natural process and change naturally over time.

Many farmers don't want to farm around trees and lows spots without realizing their benefits in providing habitat for beneficial insects, birds,and other organisms. For some people if they can't make a buck off it for them selves they see no benefit.

But how do you propose to get rid the low areas? Drainage during wet spells just passes on the problem unless you are proposing millions upon millions of dollars of coordinated investments involving 3 levels of government. Crop losses from flooding are generally not that significant enough to warrant that kind of investment on the prairies.

I would be more worried about extended drought. The results are hundreds of times more devastating. Science has shown that prior to European settlement the prairies have gone through extended droughts far more severe and much longer than the 1930s.

[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.