Need more info? Please refer to the participant packages.


Considering social, environmental and economic implications, what do you think the potential benefits and impacts of the non-structural measures are?

Think about how this concept could potentially impact:

  • The way the community looks, feels, and moves?
  • Reduction of damages from river flooding to all citizens/communities (impacts to personal property, business operation, public safety, etc.)?
  • The amenities/services in your community?
  • Protecting Calgary's economic core?
  • The City as a whole?


We are looking for preliminary feedback on these measures in order to further improve city flood resiliency over the long term.

9 November, 2016

Kim says:

“Important to minimize the consequence of flooding but unreali stic, main focus needs to be to build the Springbank to prevent flooding”

8 November, 2016

Prospring says:

“Clearing only some but not all structures in floodway will not reduce flood risk. Removing all structures is not feasible. Best is SR1”

8 November, 2016

Andrea says:

“Major infrastructure project such as SR1 is what is needed. ”

8 November, 2016

Tom says:

“Oppose all the non structural proposals. Not necessary if the reservoirs are built, except removing existing bldgs. from flood-way.”

8 November, 2016

Bxn says:

“Tough applying to existing residential areas where such measures materially affect community and resale. Affected areas folks become trappd”

8 November, 2016

lornatsta says:

“Thousands of homes in flood fringe already. Build Springbank Storage reservoir, Maclean Creek won't solve 2005 flood! Won't save downtown”

8 November, 2016

Katya says:

“Agree -restrict vulnerable uses in the floodplain. Otherwise, option is unrealistic for riverside communities. Upstream mgmt better choice.”

8 November, 2016

Dano says:

“These measures would unfairly impact some landowners. Creating winners and losers by changing regulations is not helpful.”

8 November, 2016

kelly moi says:

“we must protect the vibrancy of all Calgary communities, notably downtown and inner city. Other cities have successfully done in floodplain”

8 November, 2016

Sitting Duck says:

“oh great - more regulations! Seriously, stop procrastinating and get SR! and measures for the Bow built. ”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“Restrictions in flood-prone areas penalize property and business owners. Large scale upstream mitigation avoids this unfair treatment.”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“More rules and regulations are not needed, and can be avoided by supporting upstream mitigation.”

8 November, 2016

Lesley says:

“This is a bad idea. Can't move what's already built. Inner cities are important to the city as a whole. Get going with the Springbank dam.”

8 November, 2016

Msthebow says:

“This impacts the residents by the river who have been through enough for one lifetime. Do the hard work of upstream mitigation Once & for al”

8 November, 2016

Yes to SR1 says:

“Bylaws cause inconsistency in community. Already can see where higher first floor elevations are being mandated. Looks awful.”

8 November, 2016

Eric K says:

“Total waste of time. You did this in the past. You allowed new development in a no development area then bought them out.”

8 November, 2016

Concerned Citizen says:

“I am concerned about decisions being made by people with far less knowledge of the history of the flood plane than those living in it!”

8 November, 2016

Michelle Williams says:

“Developers should not be allowed to build on historical flood plains - there should be stricter regulations and controls overall.”

8 November, 2016

John says:

“Overland flood is forceful and unpredictable. It needs a forceful, predictable response - upstream reservoirs. Bylaw change is a mugs game.”

8 November, 2016

Shauna says:

“We need to ensure the communities along the river are restored to their original form and keeping the communities viable. ”

8 November, 2016

Ginny says:

“These measures are important for new development but don't help existing communities such as Bowness and Elbow Park. ”

8 November, 2016

David says:

“This city was born and built on a floodplain. Removing buildings will be impractical and costly. This option should not be on the table.”

8 November, 2016

David says:

“Competing development pressures over time will will influence decisions that negatively impact the effectiveness of berms. Yes to a dry dam”

8 November, 2016

Bob says:

“Completely unrealistic given existing footprint. Buyout program to date inadequate given size and scope. Upstream mitigation required. Now”

8 November, 2016

Patrick says:

“Daylight Nose Hill Creek and restore the natural occuriing wetlands at the Highland Park proposed development.”

8 November, 2016

Rick says:

“Not a logical solution.”

7 November, 2016

Naomi says:

“Will we remove the entire downtown? How about inner cities communities? This option is unrealistic.”

7 November, 2016

Peter Brimacombe says:

“Will destroy communities and land values Doesn't fix the problem Build the dam!!!”

7 November, 2016

Pat says:

“Unrealistic and destructive for existing communities. Where would downtown go? If you've been flooded, you'll protect house as best you can”

7 November, 2016

?? says:

“Nice idea for new builds - what about existing homes??”

7 November, 2016

Calgary resident says:

“Most of the inner city of Calgary and much of downtown is in the flood plain so ineffectual - upstream mitigation needed”

7 November, 2016

C.W. says:

“C8mmon sense should prevail”

7 November, 2016

get going says:

“would not protect the existing City infrastructure, buildings and communities.”

7 November, 2016

Robert Edgar says:

“No guarantee like other concepts”

7 November, 2016

Kelly says:

“Highland Park Development:"They Paved Paradise and set up a Parking Lot". what folly, let nature take its course(Confederation Creek)!”

7 November, 2016

Johannes devries says:

“Non structural restrictions in flood and fringe zones are a neccesity”

7 November, 2016

DJ says:

“FACT - almost no homes along the river were offered buyouts. Moving entire communities is not the answer. Build SR1!”

7 November, 2016

Andrew says:

“Requiring expensive retrofits now places an undue burden on the owners already suffering from loss of property value”

7 November, 2016

Andrew says:

“I support non-structural options. However the time for doing this would have been immediately after the flood while we were doing our renos”

7 November, 2016

ruralriverdweller says:

“If its good enough for the rural areas its good enough for Calgary, Edmonton did it and moved everything out of their river valley.”

7 November, 2016

Sam says:

“YYC has to do its part to mitigate flood damage. Upstream options are provincial. YYC can't just hope the province will fix. Do what WE can”

7 November, 2016

Sam says:

“Homeowners. Turn the land into parks and rec areas that can be closed in event of flood. No new buildings in flood plain. (2/2)”

7 November, 2016

Sam says:

“Buildings should not be on a flood plain. Every other city in the world knows this. It'll cost more now, but will protect those future (1/2)”

7 November, 2016

Terry Raymond says:

“Go build further west so up stream residents can be protected as well. Build it on Crown land and create public parks. Protect Bragg Creek.”

7 November, 2016

M Palmer says:

“New construction in flood plains should be elevated 1m above 100 year flood level. ”

7 November, 2016

Tom Kent says:

“Dream on! Build Springbank. Who's paying to expropriate everyone in floodway?!!”

7 November, 2016

Mary Saucier says:

“As for removing structures from the flood-way, like all of downtown Calgary? The other ideas seem sound.”

7 November, 2016

fklein68 says:

“Homes are already in the flood plain -with City approval! Wouldn't protect downtown. Impacts thousands negatively. Still huge dollar damage ”

7 November, 2016

Darlene rogers says:

“Stop letting certain people do what they want. Stop approving non sustainable development. Concentrate on mitigation. ”

7 November, 2016

Richard says:

“Yes, useful measures, but the essential, long term solutions are upstream reservoirs and barriers on both the Elbow and Bow Rivers.”

7 November, 2016

DnT says:

“Perfect timing for shovel ready infrastructure projects. Build Springbank now and protect the city”

7 November, 2016

MB says:

“This is silly. The new land use bylaws listed above would mean gutting the entire inner city of Calgary. Upstream mitigation asap.”

7 November, 2016

Agata Korth says:

“Do whatever is necessary to protect our city. ”

7 November, 2016

SR1 NOW says:

“It is a little late to move the city core and neighborhoods that have been here 100 years. Build Springbank. ”

7 November, 2016

Michael Mulloy says:

“I support the Hillhurst Sunnyside Community Association response on land use and other measures to mitigate the impact of future flood event”

7 November, 2016

EB says:

“The city should encourage and help homeowners to take flood mitigation measures, not stand in their way with over regulation. It's a problem”

7 November, 2016

tdwr says:

“Unrealistic for existing communities. Primary focus needs to be on upstream flood mitigation. Build SR1.”

7 November, 2016

EB says:

“New construction, commercial and private, should have new regulations for flood protection. Large and serious rain events are now inevitable”

7 November, 2016

Living on a hill says:

“This is reasoned and logical. No matter how money we spend on flood mitigation, no one on this planet is going to win against Mother Nature.”

7 November, 2016

Flood victim says:

“Non structural measures for NEW developments. Springbank is essential to protect inner city communities and Calgary's business core.”

7 November, 2016

LW says:

“Why can politicians and our planning departments not use a global approach ”

7 November, 2016

LW says:

“ think of a plan that protects as many as possible with as little cost as possible. Better Dam control and upstream dams .Mclean Creek !”

7 November, 2016

BP says:

“Upstream measures are essential to existing communities, buildings and Calgary's core. A few bylaw changes will not help most of the City.”

6 November, 2016

SG says:

“Build the Springbank Reservoir!”

6 November, 2016

PG says:

“We need a balance of common sense changes (new construction basement flood rules, etc), plus practical upstream mitigation (SR-1).”

6 November, 2016

HEM says:

“SR1 destroys ranching in an already tough economy. MR1 adds recreation, a water reservoir, and protects more in every way. Support McLean.”

6 November, 2016

K says:

“Existing Calgary inner city communities need to be nourished and not rendered uneconomic by excessive, complex or impractical regulation”

6 November, 2016

Get on with it says:

“Can't move the downtown location. Upstream mitigation is needed and should have been done yesterday! ”

6 November, 2016

Jumping Pound Guy says:

“The Province already offered buyouts for homeowners below Glenmore Dam. Expropriate the remaining 20 or so holdouts and build berms. Cheaper”

6 November, 2016

Bob says:

“ This whole project is a waste of time ,a local MLA and Calgary residents vs ranchers who have 130 years of good range of management ! ”

6 November, 2016

Murray says:

“No matter what flood abatement measures are taken, we cannot continue to build as in the past in flood prone areas. Start these measures now”

5 November, 2016

Linda says:

“This is a horrible idea. Something concrete must be done like the Springbank reservoir project to avoid another disaster.”

5 November, 2016

Grant Gunderson says:

“Some of these suggestions are positive, some are bureaucrats' make work projects. Lets focus on getting the Springbank project done!”

5 November, 2016

Diane says:

“The best option is the Springbank dry dam. Too costly to remove buildings that were impacted by 2013 flood.”

5 November, 2016

NJ says:

“New bylaws in old communities has been done with care but will not stop flood damage. Upstream mitigation essential!”

5 November, 2016

NJ says:

“Land use regulations and bylaws to protect new building in flood prone areas is only logical. ”

5 November, 2016

Jim says:

“This city core is where it is--can't change that. Manage upstream. Don't reverse the density trend for core.”

4 November, 2016

EBA says:

“Build Springbank offstream AND action non-structural measures. Governments need to do both, now.”

4 November, 2016

EBA says:

“Map the flood zones, change bylaws to adjust to reality of flooding for new builds. Ban all further land in flood plains from development.”

4 November, 2016

Tom Yeoman says:

“I agree with some of these policy `shifts.' But they're not getting the SPRINGBANK Dry Dam BUILT!”

4 November, 2016

Seanm says:

“Build upstream mitigation first - Springbank is the clear choice. ”

4 November, 2016

JenJen says:

“The Springbank dam only protects communities on the Elbow. All communities need to be considered, and these measures help prevent damage. ”

4 November, 2016

Janev says:

“Downtown and residences along the river have been built up for decades. Can't move a city away from a river but can build upstream reservoir”

4 November, 2016

CC says:

“These flood proofing measures are wise use of public $ for long term safety and river ecology. Benefits include great parks in floodplains”

4 November, 2016

Garry Edwards says:

“Bad idea.Any serious rain event like 2013 would completely override any man-made attempt to use nature alone to control a catastrophic flood”

4 November, 2016

George says:

“Good idea. Get these homes and buildings out of the floodplain ”

4 November, 2016

LLH says:

“The city of Calgary needs to make it clear that The Springbank dam doesn't protect downtown!”

4 November, 2016

LLH says:

“Springbank only protects two communities, it's not enough to protect downtown. Tax dollars a better spent on projects that protect more land”

4 November, 2016

LLH says:

“You can't protect all of downtown with a dam at Springbank! Make room for the river through natural projects. ”

4 November, 2016

Derrick Jewlal says:

“These measures are ALL we need. People who live/build on a floodplain need to be self insured. There is no way to protect against flooding.”

4 November, 2016

Robert Lehodey says:

“The worst concept - increases construction costs in flood plain forever, compresses property values & tax base, drives people & cash away. ”

4 November, 2016

Anne-Marie says:

“Good in coordination with other options but not a primary focus of change. Need Springbank to be implemented”

4 November, 2016

poorer without this says:

“While it was promised to put something on title for houses in the floodplain, this isn't being done. ”

4 November, 2016

Forbes Newman says:

“ Please start moving as quickly as possible on the Spring bank Reservoir project. The important issues described in Concept #4 can be de”

4 November, 2016

CB says:

“Non-structural measures can be considered in the future after the Springbank Dam is built and the imminent threat has been dealt with.”

4 November, 2016

Carl says:

“I understand the desire to consult the public, but please just get on with protecting the City! Upstream mitigation should be the focus.”

4 November, 2016

Garry says:

“May work for minor flood conditions , but ineffective for a flood like 2005 & 2013. Get the Springbank infrastructures in place ASAP.”

4 November, 2016

TS says:

“It will be near-impossible to implement floodplain regulations that account for climate change, because they will be seen as too restrictive”

4 November, 2016

TS says:

“Too much pressure to develop in the river valley for this to be effective; "out" clauses will allow building in floodplains regardless.”

4 November, 2016

TS says:

“Would be a great idea if starting a city from scratch; a bit too late for Calgary. Are we supposed to move our downtown?”

4 November, 2016

DVH says:

“Non-Structural measures are required in concert with the Springbank Dam and Bow River flow control. Upstream mitigation is the priority.”

4 November, 2016

George says:

“Wasn't most of the 2013 damage done to downtown businesses? Removing homeowners doesn't fix anything. Build Springbank NOW!”

4 November, 2016

Cindy says:

“A twitter debate to help you make the tough decisions you were elected to study and act on for the greater good?! Get going on this already!”

4 November, 2016

Michelle says:

“Our local economy and livelihood is at risk if we don't protect the Elbow River from flooding in all ways possible.”

4 November, 2016

JBRideau says:

“Upstream mitigation designed for worst case attacks the reality of a major city built along a river system, this is done worldwide.”

3 November, 2016

Tom Yeoman says:

“I'm in favour of more stringent regulations; I believe Calgary has given in to `developers' too much. But build Springbank too!”

3 November, 2016

MS says:

“Drumheller lies largely in a floodway. They used berms and other measures. If approved originally, homeowners shouldn't bear the brunt now”

3 November, 2016

MS says:

“Who decides? In Fort McMurray, many homes are in the floodway but the owners want to rebuild. Is it fair to not rebuild now? Who pays? ”

3 November, 2016

MS says:

“Cities have always been built around rivers. We can't pretend our inner city communities do not exist. Not fair to existing homeowners. ”

3 November, 2016

Suzanne says:

“Emptying out the inner city neighborhoods will destroy the heart of the city. Keep the core vital by encouraging people to live there.”

3 November, 2016

Christie says:

“Would love new builds not be allowed to put in basements making incentive not to tear down old buildings and less mess to clean up next time”

3 November, 2016

Adriana says:

“It is unfair to penalize the oldest neighborhoods in Calgary from re-development - this will drive down property values.”

3 November, 2016

Ryan M says:

“Bad idea. Stripping people of their rights to use their own property is not the solution.”

3 November, 2016

Adriana says:

“Forcing home owners to comply with expensive new building codes is unfair.If someone wants to renovate it is their right to do so as they wa”

3 November, 2016

Adriana says:

“Removing homes, businesses or communities would be very costly - I totally disagree with this. ”

3 November, 2016

Adriana says:

“I don't agree with the city interfering with individual home owners rights.”

3 November, 2016

Lw says:

“This option is a joke. Springbank reservoir ASAP. Shame on the Govt for their inaction and wasting taxpayers money on repeat studies.”

3 November, 2016

Junbao Wu says:

“Option #1 is to complete the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir.”

3 November, 2016

John C says:

“Let's proceed with more concrete and effective measures first. Build the Springbank Reservoir!”

3 November, 2016

Marilyn L says:

“Let's complete the Springbank Reservoir and many of these other measures may not be needed. ”

3 November, 2016

Steve says:

“All non-structural measures should only be considered after mitigation is built. Non-structural measure should not impact current structures”

3 November, 2016

Jorgen says:

“Clear cutting upstream has to stop. We continually do things where the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing and homeowners suffer”

3 November, 2016

Terry says:

“Any new bylaws should not negatively impact home owners in the floodplain or flood fringe. Government flood insurance should be offered.”

3 November, 2016

Jorgen says:

“This is not practical unless the province wants to buy all of us out! Every major city in the world is built beside waterways, build a dam!”

3 November, 2016

Carol says:

“Useless until after concrete measures in place.”

3 November, 2016

JH says:

“Flood mitigation building codes need to be robust & enforced. Removing homes, businesses or communities would be $$$$ and loss of tax base. ”

3 November, 2016

RM says:

“A good idea for new developments. Existing homes and structures need to be exempt - we can't roll back the clock on previous decisions. ”

3 November, 2016

George says:

“Should be applied only to new development”

3 November, 2016

BLB says:

“Policy and land-use regulations can be effective for greenfield developments, but are completely impractical for existing development.”

2 November, 2016

Garry says:

“No question this is part of the answer. But it must be done fairly - proper compensation so people can buy replacement property.”

2 November, 2016

Garry says:

“Sadly, this is what should have been done. While I understand why people don't like it and it is costly, ultimately this should be done ”

1 November, 2016

Theatre Mom says:

“Do a feasibility study on McLean Creek. The land in question with this option should NEVER have been developed, but we cannot move backward”

1 November, 2016

Adriana says:

“Destroying existing communities on purpose is impractical and counter-intuitive.”

1 November, 2016

Adriana says:

“This is as ill advised as the original floodway buyout policy - look where that got us! Millions wasted!”

1 November, 2016

Adriana says:

“I don't like this idea. The development has always been there and will continue to be there, just like every city around the world.”

31 October, 2016

altadiva says:

“The idea of forcing people out of their river-backing homes should not be on the table. ”

31 October, 2016

altadiva says:

“Hate the idea of my neighbours in Bowness - many of whom are elderly - having to shoulder the burden of flood-proofing”

31 October, 2016

Cameron says:

“Complete the Springbank Off-Stream reservoir and then address new policies. Policy changes probably won't be required.”

31 October, 2016

Tom says:

“Removal of buildings is impractical and prohibitively expensive, to say nothing of the destruction of the oldest neighbourhoods in Calgary ”

30 October, 2016

piano man says:

“Should stormwater measures fail in Highland how much will the taxpayers of Calgary pay to fix or buyout? Alta govt bailed out Elbow wealthy.”

30 October, 2016

piano man says:

“LID practices...green roofs, permeable pvmt, wind, solar, internal drainage areas based on topological constraints the least costly option”

30 October, 2016

piano man says:

“Science and "best practices" worldwide should be our blueprint going forward with any watershed development. If something works...free now?”

30 October, 2016

piano man says:

“Cost to the City to manage stormwater through Highland will be 20 mill plus...trees, topography, wet ponds cost nothing to do the job now ”

30 October, 2016

piano man says:

“A man drowned on 4th St. trying to move his vehicle during a rainstorm. 40th avenue cannot handle any additional storm water. Taxpayer money”

30 October, 2016

piano man says:

“Confederation Creek flooded 4 times this summer because of densification on the hills surrounding it. Infills increase water runoff to creek”

30 October, 2016

piano man says:

“Developing in a natural watershed that is purifying water and air (for free)for the City of Calgary and Nose Creek seems counter-intuitive ”

29 October, 2016

Sammy says:

“Planting more trees in the river area most especially in the riverside. Scarcity of trees made us more prone to flooding.”

29 October, 2016

Carl Boychuk says:

“Preserve theHighland Park watershed . Development in the area should be restricted to four stories otherwise traffic is excessive.”

29 October, 2016

Bruce says:

“A serious look needs to be taken at the old Highland Park Golf course site in the NW. Ideal location for flood mitigation before development”

29 October, 2016

Patricia says:

“It seems most major cities 'grow up' around water and rivers. Need to look to innovation, good development practices....”

28 October, 2016

Patrick Saunders says:

“Please include the Highland Park wetlands and watershed from being developed as this is a critical infrastructure for flood mitigation.”

28 October, 2016

Patrick says:

“West Nose Creek, Nose Creek and Confederation Creek (Highland Park Golf Course need to be included in the long term plan.”

28 October, 2016

friendofhighlandprk says:

“Daylight Confederation Creek through Highland Park, move condos and station east of Centre by church and bottle depot”

25 October, 2016

livesonahill says:

“not reasonable for taxpayers to eliminate risk of living on a floodplain-but maybe to bring insurance within reason say 5k/yr on a 1M home”

25 October, 2016

livesonahill says:

“as communities densify over time multi story with flood resistant main floors/bsmts make great sense”

25 October, 2016

livesonahill says:

“this will change the look and feel of communities over time but i don't think thats all bad if the alternative is a community under water”

25 October, 2016

livesonahill says:

“moving people is the only way to reduce risk to 0, all other options leave residual risk. ”

25 October, 2016

Jackie says:

“LUBs ensure sustainable development. Perhaps it could be more restrictive for developers/new builds and less for renovations to existing. ”

25 October, 2016

Jackie says:

“Although I think people buying or renovating houses in mapped flood areas should be doing so at their own risk I approve of LUB...”

25 October, 2016

Jackie says:

“What if we encouraged/mandated green roofs for all downtown towers? How much stormwater would this divert?”

25 October, 2016

Jackie says:

“What if all of the streets and parking lots downtown were transitioned to permeable paving? Using the stormwater capacity of the soil?”

25 October, 2016

Jackie says:

“Calgary has one of the largest footprints of any City. LUBs should address the removal of vegetation and riparian areas in new communities.”

25 October, 2016

Eric says:

“Development bans are wrong. Reasonable building codes should be implemented consistent with the infrastructure protections effected.”

23 October, 2016

Justin says:

“I feel that people should be allowed to live in floodways, but only at their own risk, including purchasing flood insurance.”

23 October, 2016

Charlie Lund says:

“Must respect the character of existing communities and be effective for all existing structures. ”

23 October, 2016

Charlie Lund says:

“Ineffective because they will take up to a century before they apply to all. ”

23 October, 2016

Charlie Lund says:

“Reliable and resilient infrastructure make bylaw changes useless. ”

22 October, 2016

says:

“Design guidelines on new developments in high-risk areas. ”

22 October, 2016

Brian Castle says:

“The heavy hand of govt to place financial hardship on its citizens....... NOT THE SOLUTION”

22 October, 2016

Debbie Young says:

“Does not provide protection only inequity between neighbors be it flood damage or prop value”

22 October, 2016

says:

“Does NOT provide flood protection. It only cretes ”

22 October, 2016

says:

“Better to build smart than try to stop mother nature. Change building codes to allow for homes on stilts, or built over car ports.”

22 October, 2016

says:

“In the early-mid 1900s, people used to come down to the bow river to watch properties flood in the spring. You can't stop mother nature.”

22 October, 2016

says:

“Really? 140 characters to comment on this important matter? That's a joke.”