Water Drainage/Sask Water Security Board

[TOM4CWB]

JD3007
Have you worked with your MD on this problem?
I would be surprised if a compromise couldn"t be reached if proper channels were followed. What does your local MD Councilor have to say about the problem?
Working with your MLA could also further your legitimate flood control problems.
Towns and Cities work through these problems all the time.

[oneoff]

Tom ...you live in a different world.

Towns hire a consuting engineer for new subdivisions; and the end result is they haul in hundreds of load of fill and add culverts to drain all surface runoff out into the countryside.
Apparently storm drains and catch basins are foreign terms.
As for MD councillors. First tell Sask who they are and what functions they have. Never heard of the term used in this province.

Don't suggest going to the local council. They are loaded with a wildlife agenda and a system that OK's selected projects; whilst making sure that needed road allowance culverts won't be put in and projects engineered by Watershed authority engineers can't ever be started.

The system is so dysfunctional and designed not to be workable.

I'd be suprised if anything can be done.

[mbdog]

If water is to be removed from ag land, local permits should be administered through local government, who have a clear set of provincial guidelines with which to work with. Tom...seeking higher political/beurocratic arbitration is where a lot of the problem is. Provincial oversight should be responsive to out of scope works/permits but way too wishy washy the higher you go.
Municipalities should be best prepared to discuss/develop long term infrastructure renewal and upgrades, and once again, "non-political" provincial oversight should be engaging with these councils. My experience is this is not the case. There are producers/land owners who drain but also would and do offer up retention areas, be it for a long or short term strategy. My experience is political vanity gets in the way, and these options are not considered. Dunno why, but its happening. The three clearly should be in the same room to discuss long term infrastructure ideas if a large capital project is brought forward for review by the commoners. Not happening.
Compensation for private lands being used for retention purposes is a good idea. In my and many cases, we have incorporated/accepted some retention areas because we drain, but seems clear municipalities and the province are content to repair again and again...such a waste it seems to be. Local government needs predictable long term funding to address long term retention strategies/infrastructure upgrades. It has been my experience unless they're protecting a large urban center, provincial funds and attention at the source of the problem are ignored.
Trouble is "having control of water" is something the province is addicted to and they get very political with it.
Funnelling inadequate provincial dollars to committees of elected officials who know little about local drainage issues...making them judge/jury of works....another political waste.
The system doesn't work.

[stubblejumper]

https://www.wsask.ca/Global/Permits%20and%20Approvals/Apply%20for%20a%20Permit%20or%20License/Application%20for%20Approval%20to%20Construct%20an d%20Operate%20Drainage%20Works.pdf

Any drainage project must have a permit from Sask Water Security Board

[mbdog]

had a small grass waterway that I applied for over a span of 10 years. Had given up on it already....increased water was being drained on me, cutting my fields. Would have done work myself....I offered up a retention option but in the end was studied by committee, resource depts....no go and wouldn't give out permit. Beurocratic decision was to allow scrub willows. Gave up till election and new batch of "experts" were in. Application went thru...but now field damage nearly irrepairable. Its this kind of BS I speak of.

[oneoff]

"Any drainage project must have a permit from Sask Water Security Board"

Such a statement is a lot like saying salt water spills by oil companies must be reported.

There are things that can and have been done without permits and reporting. In fact it has been the exception to do otherwise. But things are changing; and when the regulators do grow the teeth; there had better be accompanyed by the will to take things back to "historical" conditions; whatever in hell that really means.
Not until human nature changes will any harmony ever start to be shown. That too bad; because absolutely everyone and the environment could benefit through sensible and mitigated projects.

And I would say there is more chance of local persons at large to be better choices than the government appointed officials and buerocrats who have failed so miserably so far.

[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.