Water Drainage/Sask Water Security Board

[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.

[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.