Need more info? Please refer to the participant packages.

View illustrations of example flood barrier types.


 Concept-2

What are the strengths and weaknesses of concept 2 and why?

What do you think this concept's benefits and impacts will be on:

  • The way the community looks, feels and moves?
  • Providing equal protection from river flood to all citizens/communities?
  • The amenities/services in your community?
  • The health of the rivers and floodplain as it flows from the mountains, through the city and to other communities downstream?
  • The long-term supply and quality of water for our community?
  • Protecting Calgary's economic core? Should downtown be protected to a higher level?
  • The city as a whole?

9 November, 2016

Kim says:

“This option does not provide the protection our community requires as well as being visually unappealing”

8 November, 2016

High and dry says:

“Will be very ugly in Bragg Creek. Likely to fail due to a bottle-neck just before the bridge. Water will just go higher, or around. Dam MC”

8 November, 2016

Vanice Simpson says:

“ “Maclean Creek dry dam protects more people, costs less, with lower environmental impact than SR1. Respect those outside Calgary. ””

8 November, 2016

Evan Welbourn says:

“The "barriers" proposed solution is very costly and interferes with the existing enjoyment of the rivers by millions of people, regularly.”

8 November, 2016

Do it says:

“It has been years since we realized we need mitigation. Time to implement these solutions.”

8 November, 2016

Prospring says:

“Not as effectIve as SR1 (concept 1) - concept 2 results in overall worse outcomes. After concept 1 is in place, this may be a good addition ”

8 November, 2016

bwalker says:

“Barriers alone will take too long to implement and are far more costly than an upstream reservoir.”

8 November, 2016

Andrea says:

“Maybe at some point, but right now the best and most efficient solution is Springbank Reservoir. ”

8 November, 2016

Bxn says:

“Mitigation upstream (Springbank) will be more effective at reducing residential damage in future events.”

8 November, 2016

Bxn says:

“Since 2013, Stampede has been reinforced to prevent spilling (barriers). The next flood will have less places to spill which = higher water”

8 November, 2016

Bxn says:

“A barrier was used at Mission and 4th in 2013 and caused build up of the river base level, creating increased flooding in certain areas.”

8 November, 2016

Tom says:

“I oppose barriers on the river. Upstream reservoirs (both the Bow and Elbow), resolves major flooding problems, mitigating most 2013 damage.”

8 November, 2016

Brian says:

“SR1 has too many issues; fish & wildlife, pipelines, power lines, loss of local employment, land sterilization, roads & questionable success”

8 November, 2016

lornatsta says:

“No adequate protection, looks unnatural, might still require evacuation, if not down to bedrock would still flood homes/downtown, disruptive”

8 November, 2016

Katya says:

“Existing berms are a benefit as they provide recreational / pathway space right along the river. More would be a good idea.”

8 November, 2016

Dano says:

“Barriers can be undermined by subsurface water flow. It is unsightly and does not provide reliable protection.”

8 November, 2016

Dorothy says:

“This is best concept. Protection along the Bow is the top priority.”

8 November, 2016

sitting duck says:

“not feasible as a stand alone measure. better to build the tunnel and divert the elbow to the bow below YYC,”

8 November, 2016

Lucy says:

“Concept #2 only works if Concept #1 is implemented first. I know it is a hard decision but it must be made.”

8 November, 2016

karen says:

“The time to act is now. We have lost more than a year with debate.”

8 November, 2016

karen says:

“I have confidence this can be done with natural materials to reduce the visual impact. Use this as an opp to improve access and functionali”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“Barriers would be a huge waste of money, and cannot be fully effective, due to groundwater flow.”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“Barriers would be ineffective due to strong groundwater flow during periods of high water, something already experienced in past floods.”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“Flood barriers come at an enormous cost, and lengthy delays due to legal challenges by landowners, resulting in lack of protection or others”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“Flood barriers would have a massive, devastating environmental impact and (I hope) would never make it through federal environment review.”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“Flood barriers and concrete channelization are not only unsightly but also dangerous, let's avoid the mistake Los Angeles made.”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“Flood barriers would have a negative effect on wildlife and recreational use along rivers, and should not even be considered.”

8 November, 2016

Sandman says:

“Flood barriers are a bad idea, they would be unsightly and disrupt communities.”

8 November, 2016

Simon G says:

“Concept 2 sparingly where it offers specific advantages or can be combined with improvements to recreation facilities along the rivers. ”

8 November, 2016

Lesley says:

“Get going with these barriers. Calgary is important! Residential communities are important!”

8 November, 2016

RS says:

“140 character limit is not good enough for valuable, inclusive feedback. Rethink this bad idea.”

8 November, 2016

Paul says:

“Bad idea ... Upstream reservoirs are the ONLY solution which makes sense.”

8 November, 2016

Yes to SR1 says:

“This solution does not stop water table rising which is a big issue and will cause flooding. Ground water is what flooded my home in 2005.”

8 November, 2016

Eric K says:

“Numerous Upstream measures make way more sense. Look at the Hunter Valley in Australia.”

8 November, 2016

Confused says:

“How many who claim that the MC1 site is "too sensitive", tear it up every chance they get off-roading & snowmobiling? Just curious...”

8 November, 2016

Smith says:

“We need other, better and more creative options. These are all too expensive and protect too few. ”

8 November, 2016

Smith says:

“There are better options than barriers, such as habitat restoration and bank reinforcement along the rivers. Need more 'wholistic' options.”

8 November, 2016

Confused says:

“To all who claim that barriers/berms are ineffective, why do you demand SR1 be built & Bragg Creek be ineffectively bermed? Very confusing.”

8 November, 2016

Concerned Citizen says:

“The Elbow is too small a river to have barriers, It would become a canal and destroy the beauty of the river valley and the homes built alon”

8 November, 2016

John Simpson says:

“Every year more and more gravel and debris is deposited from high flow waters causing even higher waters the next year. DREDGE. ”

8 November, 2016

John Simpson says:

“Every high water event carries more debris into the river creating more displacement = higher waters. DREDGE the river as well as berm. ”

8 November, 2016

Brian Farewell says:

“I live in Douglasdale where the river bank was eroded back by 20 feet in some areas. I would like to see the current banks protected by rock”

8 November, 2016

ckayser says:

“While there are some benefits to this concept, they do not compare to the Springbank solution. Do Springbank first, then consider this”

8 November, 2016

Derek says:

“Upstream solution is the better option. ”

8 November, 2016

Ginny says:

“This option will help communities most at risk for low volume floods. Needs to be done in conjunction with other measures, such as resevoirs”

8 November, 2016

Michelle Williams says:

“The dry dam in Springbank is a bad idea on so many levels too many to explain here. You don't allow for enough words to explain. Frustrating”

8 November, 2016

John says:

“Not acceptable: isolates communities/effects future development/impacts a host of environmentally sensitive areas.”

8 November, 2016

Bill says:

“Yes to Concept 2. Does not destroy farms or homes. Mitigates more. Everyone needs protection not just Elbow.”

8 November, 2016

Kay says:

“This is the way to go. Springbank dam helps a very small area. This helps the majority.”

8 November, 2016

Bert says:

“Concept 2 is right. It will protect many. Crown land. More economical option. Use tax dollars wisely and protect a huge part of Calgary.”

8 November, 2016

Bob says:

“Barriers along the river are futile - hydrostatic pressue will cause flooding from the ground up. Too expensive. Not efficient capital use.”

8 November, 2016

Ken R. says:

““We flooded in 2005 albeit not majority overland but by ground water.These barrier/walls would not of helped in 2005 and obviously not 2013””

8 November, 2016

Ken R. says:

““Both upstream mitigation projects are the only sensible action plan & will protect everyone incl. downtown that cost us 2 billion to fix!!””

8 November, 2016

Rick says:

“Upstream reservoirs is best solution as provides greater benifits for more Calgarian. ”

8 November, 2016

TerryMyles says:

“In my opinion the drawbacks outweigh the potential benefits. Much less attractive alternative to dry dams.”

7 November, 2016

Sunnyside says:

“Make the Bow River berms up to 2 meters higher, but also make them 50' or 60' wide at the top so they look like flat land, not berms.”

7 November, 2016

drkyla says:

“This is the most direct way to affect the rivers. This does not affect any homeowners. This is definitely the best option”

7 November, 2016

Mike Bradfield says:

“Raise the berms along the Bow River by Sunnyside at least 1.5 meters to protect us from larger floods than the 2013 1:70 year flood ”

7 November, 2016

Peter Brimacombe says:

“Not realistic to think this is possible Will destroy the feel of many communities along both rivers Weak cost benefit ratio”

7 November, 2016

Matt says:

“Barriers have proven to be good flood mitigation. Need to protect the core of the city as much as possible. We cannot afford another 2013! ”

7 November, 2016

Calgarian says:

“The idea as proposed makes no sense. Don't do it.”

7 November, 2016

$$ says:

“This appears to be very expensive, time consuming and not particularly effective.”

7 November, 2016

concord says:

“Costly, destructive to communities, impractical where the river banks are vastly different heights (10ft) - see East of bridge at Elbow Dr”

7 November, 2016

Pat says:

“Concerned about the environmental aspect of barriers. Build Springbank Reservoir first.”

7 November, 2016

Neil says:

“too costly and hard on communites to accept as people on river very effected compared to others. springbank dry much better solution”

7 November, 2016

participant says:

“Strengths - good for engineering company, berms needed Weakness - Calgary wouldn't like berms Mclean Creek better dam than SR1 mudflats”

7 November, 2016

Mitigation Counts says:

“We can't control or predict the weather, but we can take reasonable precautions to protect our city. ”

7 November, 2016

Mitigation Counts says:

“Increasing the capacity of the Glenmore reservoir is very cost effective and makes a lot of sense. ”

7 November, 2016

JohnnyT says:

“The Berms would be better than the environmental impact a dry dam would have. Haven't we screwed around enough with the environment?”

7 November, 2016

get going says:

“The negatives of this proposal far outweigh the pros. Build Springbank.”

7 November, 2016

Robert Edgar says:

“Not a real fix and less benefit”

7 November, 2016

Mandy says:

“The Springbank reservoir with the opportunity to provide drought management and energy generation in addition, should prioritize barriers”

7 November, 2016

Flooded twice says:

“Great engineeering solution but impractical from a socioeconomic POV. Just build the upstream reservoirs. ”

7 November, 2016

DJ says:

“If berms are 1/4" too short the water will overflow unabated and berms may as well not be there. Waste of money. ”

7 November, 2016

Jeff says:

“Water rose +30' to crest the 4th street bridge, these barriers would narrow the flow channel requiring an even higher wall. Rubbish idea.”

7 November, 2016

Tom Kent says:

“forget this. build Springbank”

7 November, 2016

Mary Saucier says:

“Unsightly, expensive and inefficient...”

7 November, 2016

Jean Becq says:

“For God sake get on with it, I can't go though that again. I live in Rideau Rocksborgh ”

7 November, 2016

fklein68 says:

“Might cause disruption to homes during constr. Would be unsightly. Better than doing nothing. Faster solution than reservoir upstream??”

7 November, 2016

Richard says:

“We need both barriers and upstream reservoirs to provide the necessary protection from a flood like 2013.”

7 November, 2016

Allan says:

“No TO SR1M THERE ARE OTHER AND BETTER OPTIONS.”

7 November, 2016

MB says:

“An absurd, costly, ineffectual and unsightly idea. You cannot berm both banks of the Elbow River from the dam to Fort Calgary!”

7 November, 2016

dbe says:

“this option does not do enough to protect the downstream communities so the Springbank option is the only viable option”

7 November, 2016

Agata korth says:

“Build the dam. Do whatever else is necessary to protect our city and move on. ”

7 November, 2016

NDM says:

“Upstream mitigation eliminates the need downstream, but I see the city is reinforcing the banks of the bow ??”

7 November, 2016

SR1 NOW says:

“Barriers might help downtown. Won't do much for the Elbow River. ”

7 November, 2016

Gail McMillan says:

“Berms along the Elbow river would destroy the original characteristics of Calgary.No to berms,far to expensive.”

7 November, 2016

Ron says:

“No to berms on the Elbow river.”

7 November, 2016

Michael Mulloy says:

“Protect downtown communities and the city core. I am in favour of enhanced berms along the Bow River.”

7 November, 2016

Percy Lazdins says:

“Ridiculous!!! Riding ground water defeats berms. MIssissippi levees(berms) not stable and always undermined by currents.”

7 November, 2016

Bbiddell says:

“Well done I think this concept could enhance it all!”

7 November, 2016

Andrew says:

“Why there is no barriers near Discovery Ridge Community? And on Elbow river in general?”

7 November, 2016

Rachel says:

“Bad economics and will destroy the look and feel around the rivers. Seems environmentally damaging to the river system.”

7 November, 2016

MR says:

“This is the weakest option for any sort of protection. A possible back up after Springbank is completed.”

7 November, 2016

Bryan W says:

“Berms make sense. The Elbow breached 2 blocks upstream from us on low bank, a berm would have saved a 20-30 homes.”

7 November, 2016

Living on a hill says:

“Ok if coupled with buying out careless folk who built or bought on a floodplain. ”

7 November, 2016

Linda G. says:

“We need to get moving with mitigation measures. Time is of the essence. The further we get from 2013, the urgency just is not there.”

7 November, 2016

Kyle says:

“The barriers are great, but only if the water is not running over the top of them! Building SR1 upstream mitigation is most important.”

7 November, 2016

EB says:

“This page is about BERMS. I do not think BERMS ONLY is a practical solution. Some berms in some locations will make sense. Technical Answer?”

7 November, 2016

JKS says:

“This protects the communities in Calgary but what about farther upstream (not springbank). This is best of 3 but needs expansion of thought”

7 November, 2016

Shannon says:

“Sacrificing a ranching community is not the Alberta way. Barriers are a good alternative and in this economy a good, financial choice. ”

7 November, 2016

Anthony says:

“Something is not right about the Springbank proposal. The costs would be WAY higher than the government is telling us. Go with Mclean.”

7 November, 2016

Margaret says:

“McLean Creek protects many. Springbank protects very few and is not viable.”

7 November, 2016

Sandra says:

“Concept 2 is the only sensible option. ”

7 November, 2016

JamesYYC says:

“MacLean Creek is simply OUT for safety reasons.”

7 November, 2016

JamesYYC says:

“Re wall foundations, we had a 4 ft chain-link fence flattened (2013) even though the posts were set in concrete. Have pics.”

7 November, 2016

JamesYYC says:

“The foundations for 6m to 10m walls must be HEAVY DUTY to resist pressure while the soil footing is "lubricated" by the flood.”

7 November, 2016

Nick Agnew says:

“McLean Creek option will proctect more home , lives and businesses than the Springbank option. Elbow Park Residents please be reasonable.”

7 November, 2016

Evonne says:

“I urge you to move quickly with the Springbank Dam project. Upstream mitigation is a must.”

7 November, 2016

Louise Lang says:

“Upstream protection at McLean Creek would provide a better solution for all communities, including Bragg Creek, Redwood Meadows and Tsuu T'i”

7 November, 2016

Concerned says:

“Why are we willing to sacrifice such a rich network of an ecosystem to ineffectually "protect" those who have poorly planned their builds? ”

7 November, 2016

ShawnB says:

“Springbank residents only use groundwater for water supply. You want to contaminate that? We want protection for YYC but want McLean Creek ”

7 November, 2016

Clay Robinson says:

“What is the hidden agenda when people want 1 ineffective solution over 1 that protects everyone. McLean Creek is best option for everyone,”

7 November, 2016

LaurieEH says:

“Yes, Calgary needs some berms & barriers. Dam McLean Creek as well to protect ALL!”

7 November, 2016

Canuckistan2010 says:

“They use this very system in Prague. They have floods every few years and they have steel barriers they erect in the spring.”

7 November, 2016

logical says:

“Calgary will be a dust bowl if SR1` is built. Don't sacrifice one community for another. MC1 is a positive flood mitigation solution. ”

7 November, 2016

No SR1 says:

“The dam is a terrible idea! Destroying ranch land and homes is dispicable. McCreek protects more communities and is cheaper.”

7 November, 2016

Rambo says:

“ Springbank Dam is an expensive, experimental solution to an extremely rare occurrence. Use Maclean Creek, making it recreational for all!”

7 November, 2016

LW says:

“Mclean creek is cheapest when combining all costs for Bragg Creek, Redwood meadows, First nations and Calgary protection vs Springbank plus”

7 November, 2016

BP says:

“While some barriers would be useful, Upstream measures are required. It would be very difficult to effectively burm & barrier the rivers. ”

7 November, 2016

LW says:

“Think about Dredging the river! dredging or barriers is costly but would be effective Mclean creek is cost effective for all!”

7 November, 2016

StatingTheObvious says:

“The gov't says we are moving to greener energy options so, kill 2 birds with hydro elec dam at McLean, protect all, create new rec area too.”

7 November, 2016

KH says:

“Yes to barriers, why a dry dam for a hundred year flood? Why ruin viable ranching land and displace families / wildlife? Upstream is best!”

7 November, 2016

KC says:

“If berms can keep Bragg Creek safe, then they can keep Calgary safe. No to SR1.”

7 November, 2016

Anne says:

“Barriers should be built, not dams that will ruin land belonging to First Nations and ranchers and ruin their homes and lives.”

7 November, 2016

Lesley says:

“Yes. This is the only viable choice.”

7 November, 2016

Lesley says:

“Yes, barriers, barriers, barriers. No dam dam.”

6 November, 2016

No to SR1 says:

“How can people complain about barriers being an eye sore and hurting their property value yet support SR1? Hypocrisy. ”

6 November, 2016

Dylan says:

“Why sacrifice one community for another when it's unnecessary to do so. Do not punish the people of Springbank further.”

6 November, 2016

PG says:

“Upstream (Springbank Reservoir) mitigation is the best option.”

6 November, 2016

HEM says:

“Manage the Bow at Ghost Dam, Seebe, etc. and build MR1 then none of these flood barriers through the city would be necessary. Build McLean.”

6 November, 2016

H says:

“The problem is best solved upstream with Springbank Reservoir. Barriers failed at New Orleans and Carlisle UK in the face of extreme flood”

6 November, 2016

Stop wasting time says:

“Springbank Reservoir asap!!”

6 November, 2016

Mightbeuseful says:

“Berms through key areas, if done right with softscaping, look fantastic. Use them as part of the whole holistic picture. ”

6 November, 2016

David Chalack says:

“As an owner of a lot on the Bow River bank I absolutely reject the idea of barriers/burms interfering with the view and value of property! ”

6 November, 2016

Jumping Pound Guy says:

“Homeowners below the Glenmore Dam have already been offered buyouts by Province. Use those properties to berm river to protect the others.”

6 November, 2016

Dave says:

“Berms for the Bow! Use what you have. Please don't squander our money on unnecessary dams.”

6 November, 2016

Helen says:

“Use this one. Don't take prime ranch land.”

6 November, 2016

Colin says:

“This is the best option. Springbank would be hugely expensive and protect very few. Its the Bow that needs the mitigation.”

6 November, 2016

Murray says:

“Sounds too invasive for a rare flood. A dry dam which could be used for agricultural purposes during the hopefully many years is better.”

6 November, 2016

Marlene says:

“If berms are enough to protect Bragg Creek etc they are enough to protect Calgary river communities. ”

6 November, 2016

Dr R B Church says:

“If u live in the flood plain this is a better way to control damage”

5 November, 2016

C. Michael Fellows says:

“Only McLean Creek could provide protection for the new southwest leg of the ring road.”

5 November, 2016

Brenda L. says:

“An alternative to berms: McLean Creek with the bonus of developing its recreational value or Tri-River Joint Reservoir of Alberta (TRJR)”

5 November, 2016

Brenda L. says:

“GoA are endorsing and funding berms for Bragg Creek. If it's good enough for their homes, businesses and tourism, then berm Calgary too.”

5 November, 2016

Linda says:

“Springbank Dam is the best option.”

5 November, 2016

Grant Gunderson says:

“A half measure. Get on with the Springbank Dry Dam Project ”

5 November, 2016

Diane says:

“Springbank dry dam is the best option. ”

5 November, 2016

Dave says:

“McLean Creek is clearly the winner here. Public land that protects the most people. How is this not a simple decision! ”

5 November, 2016

Judy says:

“A crazy idea, too expensive as the Elbow is far from a straight river, what good will barriers do to anyone downstream. Solve this problem!”

5 November, 2016

Alice says:

“Mother Nature has already widened ALL the river and creek beds in the area compared to prior to 2013. You can not beat Mother Nature”

5 November, 2016

Les says:

“This is the best option. How can you even consider stealing private land at Springbank and ruining people's lives? That would be wicked.”

5 November, 2016

Mac says:

“MacLean Creek is the answer. Springbank Dam terrible waste of money to protect very few. Spend money on health and education instead.”

5 November, 2016

Heth says:

“This is the best option. Most advantage to most people.”

5 November, 2016

Mrs. Harper says:

“New Reservoirs only address Elbow. Bow River has 3 dams and they were not able to control it & that flooding backed up the Elbow. Berms”

5 November, 2016

Chris Cody says:

“McLean Creek Reservoir -Recreational site-Potential power generation-Protects Bragg Creek-Redwood Meadows & Calgary- Crown Land- No brainer”

5 November, 2016

PaulineH says:

“Calgary needs to take steps within its own jurisdiction. I support this option. Do not transfer the risk to your upstream neighbours. ”

5 November, 2016

ruffian says:

“Springbank provides little protection, stop expending resources to protect those who choose to live in a floodplain. McLean Creek is better”

5 November, 2016

SR says:

“Downtown should be protected to a higher level”

5 November, 2016

Shelly says:

“This is not the first time cities have needed to look at solutions for potential flooding. Look to the Netherlands/Europe for other options.”

5 November, 2016

Shelly says:

“I think this is the best option. Why have you not slso included making the river deeper to accommodate more volumes of water too?”

5 November, 2016

WendyD says:

“To put up barriers and berms will stop the rivers from flowing naturally. The natural force of the water will continuously erode barriers.”

5 November, 2016

Jim says:

“Upstream management is the better option. ”

5 November, 2016

JB says:

“McLean Option is the only solution. Flood control on public property that protects Bragg Creek is the correct option not taking private land”

5 November, 2016

Chris says:

“The rivers need to be managed in the mountains before they reach the towns/ cities. Stop logging in Kananaskis. Dam Mclean Creek. ”

4 November, 2016

DM says:

“Why are people worried about esthetics of a berm in Calgary but it's okay to berm a town that relies heavily on tourism like Bragg Creek. ”

4 November, 2016

NR says:

“ The rivers need to be managed in the mountains before they become raging & uncontrollable. Tri-River Reservoir solution shows intelligence.”

4 November, 2016

NR says:

“Water is a precious resource & civilizations have always used best minds to protect & conserve. See www.preventingalbertafloods.ca,”

4 November, 2016

DR says:

“Albertans deserve better than mickey-mouse Band-Aid solutions to solve our flood and drought threats. See www,preventingalbertafloods.ca ”

4 November, 2016

DR says:

“Manage rivers in the last Eastern Slopes valley in a reservoir then control flows to natural course. See www.preventingalbertafloods.ca.”

4 November, 2016

David says:

“ See the videos of the Bassano Dam when it was almost breached in 2013? Diversions channels & barriers are useless when rivers in full flood”

4 November, 2016

Dave A says:

“Barriers could not protect against the volume of water experienced in 2013... not a realistic 100 yr flood solution...build SR1!!!”

4 November, 2016

NoSpringbank says:

“I'm not in favour of expropriation. McLean is the best alternative.”

4 November, 2016

EBA says:

“Difficult to do on a small scale. Least effective. Springbank offstream necessary”

4 November, 2016

Jeannette says:

“This looks like a good idea. Damning spring bank is not. ”

4 November, 2016

Tom Yeoman says:

“First "Springbank." Then, assuming endless gov't funding! some or all of concept 2. But First: "Springbank."”

4 November, 2016

HH says:

“There's a cost to building beside a river. Those who decided to build there need to be accountable for that decision. Berms are the solution”

4 November, 2016

sean m says:

“Upstream protection is a must. Springbank is the correct location ”

4 November, 2016

Jenny80 says:

“More than just Calgary was affected in the floods, and all those communities need to be considered in the mitigation. Think bigger!”

4 November, 2016

Janev says:

“Berms are not as effective as upstream storage and have more of an impact to river ecology. Berms redirect water and simply flood other area”

4 November, 2016

Jon says:

“This is a complete waste of capital and will negatively impact the surrounding natural areas! ”

4 November, 2016

bragg creek user says:

“Far too expensive given the purchase of private land and trouncing of land rights. Public land near McClean creek would make far more sense.”

4 November, 2016

bragg creek user says:

“Concept 2 does nothing to protect upstream properties in Bragg Creek or provinically owned infrastructure in the upper watershed.”

4 November, 2016

George says:

“Direct protection of the threatened communities seems like a better plan than the environmental cost of off stream storage ”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“Berms wouldn't be logistically feasible. Many properties do not have access to their backyards for large machinery.”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“MacLean Creek will never happen. Province owns it but public loves the area and would protest any changes in wilderness area for years.”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“Berms could trap water in a community as happened in High River. Berms can fail. Upstream makes more sense.”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“Berms require miles of changes, many homeowners, much uncertainty. Springbank is a surer option, makes more sense to look upstream.”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“It is a case of the greater good. Most Springbank residents will not be directly affected and a flood will never reach them. ”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“Springbank makes the most sense. Unfortunately, 12 properties will be directly affected and they need to be fairly compensated. ”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“Unless each homeowner agreed to berms, they cannot be built. Expropriation? Long and costly. How many homeowners would be affected?”

4 November, 2016

LLH says:

“If Maclean Creek is too sensitive to build a dam on why are off readers allowed to tear it up? It could be under construction and done. ”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“Berms with public access on top would require compensating homeowners who previously had private backyards. What are the costs? ”

4 November, 2016

LLH says:

“A dam at Maclean Creek could have been under construction already. Scrap Springbank and get to work. Springbank will take years.”

4 November, 2016

LLH says:

“The Springbank dam only protects two communities, that's too much money, and not enough protection. Buy insurance, put in dykes and berms. ”

4 November, 2016

MS says:

“ Berms require each homeowner to agree to have part of his yard taken up by wide and high berms. Will never get mass agreement. ”

4 November, 2016

ScienceRules says:

“Calgary's downtown core should be protected. Barriers at different water levels are difficult to model accurately and may cause more harm. ”

4 November, 2016

Todd Greiner says:

“I believe this would be very negative for all of the above questions/issues. This would not be an optimal solution vs alternatives.”

4 November, 2016

Derick says:

“McClean creek is the only solution. Don't waste tax payers money on buying Farmers land that don't want to sell.”

4 November, 2016

Derrick Jewlal says:

“Waste of money, while destroying fish habitat and environment. It makes me sad that some feel these ideas have merit. Build on dry land pls!”

4 November, 2016

Me says:

“Barriers along the Elbow would destruct neighbourhoods and give false sense of security. Our City needs the Springbank option and ASAP!”

4 November, 2016

jpb says:

“Barriers along the rivers would negatively affect the riparian zone and be an environmental disaster. Springbank is a better solution.”

4 November, 2016

Gary says:

“Waste of money and time, the solution is McLean Creek, where the watershed funnels from!”

4 November, 2016

Robin says:

“Upstream dam in McLean Creek protects Calgary ! AND ! protect Bragg Creek, Redwood Meadows, Tsuu T’ina & Springbank”

4 November, 2016

Dee says:

“McLean Creek is the best option, protects the most people.”

4 November, 2016

Anne-Marie says:

“Need to get rid of trees and bushes that hindered the flow of the rivers in 2013 and caused much of the overflow flooding. ”

4 November, 2016

Robver Lehodey says:

“Barriers are just that - they block access and likely reduce the property values and hence the tax base - also not effective for major event”

4 November, 2016

Forbes Newman says:

“ Do not waste any time with this option. This springbank option makes the most sense from every perspective. ”

4 November, 2016

CB says:

“Springbank Dam is the best option. Barriers will not hold back the amount of water we are discussing and could cause more damage.”

4 November, 2016

Carl says:

“I can't believe how much time has passed since the flood, and we are still talking about "strengths & weaknesses" of concepts. ”

4 November, 2016

concept2 says:

“Both upstream mitigation projects are the only sensible action plan & will protect everyone incl. downtown that cost us 2 billion to fix!!”

4 November, 2016

concept2 says:

“We flooded in 2005 albeit not majority overland but by ground water.These barrier/walls would not of helped in 2005 and obviously not 2013”

4 November, 2016

Doug says:

“This is a foolish idea, only part of elbow river downstream of glenmore dam is protected. Cost likely much higher(double). ”

4 November, 2016

Garry says:

“Barriers work in specific areas, but do little in a major flood . Springbank dam will make most barriers superflous . Do Springbank first!”

4 November, 2016

Ed says:

“Might help small pockets of land, however the Springbank solution would provide best overall protection.”

4 November, 2016

DVH says:

“The Springbank dam is the best option. Barriers would be problematic to build and would scar the river valleys. Go upstream. Fast!”

4 November, 2016

TS says:

“a single berm in SR1 will be much easier to maintain and therefore much safer than dozens of berms throughout the city”

4 November, 2016

TS says:

“Visual impact of barriers is a deterrent to climate change resiliency, as no one will want the barriers to be higher than is necessary today”

4 November, 2016

HJM says:

“Springbank Dam by far the best option, both esthetically, economically, and impacts few but could prevent great loss to many!”

4 November, 2016

TS says:

“Barriers will need impossible commitment from every landowner. If one section fails, the entire project is rendered moot.”

4 November, 2016

TS says:

“The height of barriers necessary will severely impinge river access due to the width that will be needed to lower costs.”

4 November, 2016

George says:

“Barriers alone is a poor substitute for upstream mitigation. It merely pushes the flood impact further downstream.”

4 November, 2016

Cindy says:

“Barriers don't need to be ugly. Barriers & upstream action are needed to protect all homes & downtown on both rivers, asap! ”

4 November, 2016

Michelle says:

“The Elbow River needs barriers as we need to protect our downtown infrastructure, surrounding communities and economy to a higher level.”

4 November, 2016

JBRideau says:

“Upstream flood control for major population centers is what has been used world-wide for decades, execute upstream mitigation”

3 November, 2016

Plsudlow@gmail.com says:

“This idea of putting flood barriers through communities would be terrible. Worse than doing nothing. ”

3 November, 2016

Tom Yeoman says:

“I can't see any strengths compared to Springbank dry dam. Weak: greater cost, less protection”

3 November, 2016

MW says:

“Please explain to me why berms are good enough for Bragg Creek and Redwood Meadows but not good enough for neighbourhoods in Calgary?? ”

3 November, 2016

Suzanne says:

“This could be combined with the Springbank reservoir to help protect areas along the Bow that would still need protection.”

3 November, 2016

Suzanne says:

“The cost benefit ratio speaks for itself. This is not the best use of our money.”

3 November, 2016

DClarkT says:

“After attending the information sessions, it would seem barriers along with the Springbank project are appropriate measures. ”

3 November, 2016

Junbao Wu says:

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

3 November, 2016

Lw says:

“Springbank reservoir ASAP. Far superior. ”

3 November, 2016

Margaret Nielsen says:

“If barriers are not high enough - in high flood water trapped on wrong side of barriers - Springbank far superior ”

3 November, 2016

John C says:

“Springbank Reservoir asap!”

3 November, 2016

Marilyn L says:

“Let's build Springbank and not dally with less effective options. ”

3 November, 2016

ratfink says:

“This proposal will impact more people more adversely and restrict enjoyment of the river. The Springbank Resevoir is the best solution.”

3 November, 2016

Jorgen says:

“If the Springbank dam doesn't proceed this is an option: albeit more expensive and labour intensive.”

3 November, 2016

Michael B. says:

“Just build SR1. The rest is is merely secondary and ineffective. We'll still be messing about when the next flood takes out the City.”

3 November, 2016

RM says:

“Helpful in certain areas, but not practical or cost effective as a primary solution. This doesn't replace upstream reservoirs. ”

3 November, 2016

Cc says:

“Not to be the replacement for upstream mitigation and not effective enough. Mountain to city area control of flow the most effective.”

3 November, 2016

Nancy says:

“Raging river waters in the 2013 flood changed the course of the rivers, moved massive amount of rock... Berms might not be very effective! ”

3 November, 2016

JH says:

“Flood walls & berms for emergency installation perhaps. Permanent structures no. The whole valley would have to be walled. $$$$$$”

3 November, 2016

moc says:

“Springbank dry dam is the most practical and effective plan. ”

3 November, 2016

George says:

“This would be very negative. I do not support this option ”

1 November, 2016

Theatre Mom says:

“Ugly, not cost-effective, and doesn't sound like it will work. What about McLean Creek?”

1 November, 2016

Ellen B says:

“Yes, protect the downtown core.There will be very hard decisions to be made by private home owners and the city for berms along the rivers.”

1 November, 2016

Maureen Siegfried says:

“City should protect its city and not dam Springbank and take away homes,ranches Does not protect Bragg or Tsuu Tina in that municipality.”

1 November, 2016

ranchman1 says:

“This supports the full Deltares report that has kept Holland above water for centuries.”

1 November, 2016

ranchman1 says:

“Current enjoyment of the river apparently includes being right in it, not just beside it! Or heaven-forbid having to walk somewhere to see ”

1 November, 2016

Adriana says:

“I think this idea is not good. I don't support it. It will prevent enjoyment of the river.”

1 November, 2016

ranchman1 says:

“What a concept - the jurisdiction that allowed the development where it is in the way of the river has to pay to create their own solution. ”

31 October, 2016

Rose says:

“I believe barriers would be a very good idea. We should also have forests along the rivers upstream to absorb flood waters.”

31 October, 2016

Tom says:

“I like the idea that it protects along both rivers equally. There is no reason that one river community should get special treatment.”

31 October, 2016

Tom says:

“Not sure I believe the Benefits estimate. Seems low compared to upstream alternatives. Are you trying to push us to a certain alternative?”

31 October, 2016

D.E. says:

“These are a piecemeal ugly approach. Maclean Creek will not be visible.”

31 October, 2016

Mary says:

“Good that protection is equal to all communities aesthetic changes are a moot point as the dam would certainly change the countryside”

31 October, 2016

altadiva says:

“A good option - no effect on river health, cost-effective. This could be done in an aesthetically pleasing manner.”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“A comprehensive solution is available. See www.preventingalbertafloods.ca and contact your government representative. GOA has ignored it.”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“Springbank dam and barriers along the rivers are Band-Aid solutions. Use our experts & talented workforce for a solution worthy of Alberta.”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“GOA want to set an example on the world stage but are ignoring the need to care for our water resource & produce hydro-electric power.”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“Barriers cannot withstand raging rivers. 80% of floods come from sudden snowpack melt so to manage high flows in the mountains commonsense.”

31 October, 2016

Christine says:

“Could these be faster and effective solution? Especially considering the Springbank dam has NO regulatory approval to proceed fully...”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“Environmentalists warn against rip-rap barrriers as they destroy fish habitat and do not work as no vegetation grows to bind in flood events”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“Why does GOA allow logging in sensitive watersheds such as Ghost Valley and McLean Creek? Protecting water sources is priority most govts.”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“Flood waters should be managed in reservoirs in the mountains before they become raging, uncontrollable torrents. We have perfect location.”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“After the 2008 flood the barriers and pathway repairs were devastated again in 2013 in Fish Creek Park & Harvey Passage. What waste.”

31 October, 2016

Noelle Read says:

“We saw in High River what happens when attempts are made to control a raging river. Then the water cannot return to the river from behind ”

31 October, 2016

AJ says:

“Best idea. Much cheaper than Springbank. Protects those along the Bow and Elbow and doesn't destroy another community. ”

31 October, 2016

DDSB says:

“love it, if you want to protect the city, manage it within the city!”

31 October, 2016

Tom says:

“If Barriers are Ok for the Bow, then they should be Ok for the Elbow. The Bow is the biggest threat.”

31 October, 2016

Cameron says:

“Elbow - The city should consider barriers and berms as option #2, but option #1 is to complete the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir.”

31 October, 2016

Tom says:

“In addition to other measures may provide additional protection but will be costly and difficult to implement”

31 October, 2016

Purdys says:

“If you have no choice, other than the Springbank Dry Dam (our #1 pick for flood mitigation, upstream), then this would be our #2 choice alt.”

30 October, 2016

David says:

“Barriers along the Elbow river would completely change life in the community in a very negative way. Use a dry dam.”

29 October, 2016

Patricia says:

“Upstream reservoirs most cost effective and studied with lowest impact, proven results. Enough consultation, build them!”

29 October, 2016

Paul says:

“Destroys visual aesthetics and restricts access, a bad idea compared to an upstream reservoir. Home owners would revolt and cause delays”

29 October, 2016

Maureen Murray says:

“Barriers along the Bow do nothing to protect communities downstream.”

29 October, 2016

Maureen Murray says:

“Potential loss of personal enjoyment of river front vs protection of personal property and protection of community. Tough choices.”

29 October, 2016

KHayes says:

“Every major city in the world with a major river running through it has had to provide major flood mitigation protection. ”

29 October, 2016

K Hayes says:

“Protect the downtown core!!!”

28 October, 2016

Monica S says:

“I like the idea of concept #2. I'm particularly glad that it includes action that will protect Bowness as I own a house on the river. ”

28 October, 2016

Cheryl says:

“I strongly object to barriers that protect some at the expense of others (eg. The Safeway Berm). Please don't do that again!! Protect all.”

28 October, 2016

Cheryl says:

“Berms protected Inglewood and could do the same for those along the Bow & Elbow...on a cost benefit analysis, it should be done right away!”

28 October, 2016

James Meadow says:

“Reservoirs and dry dams are the way to go!”

28 October, 2016

Cindy says:

“I agree with proceeding on this front as quickly as possible, especially on the east end of Bowness. Our homes deserve protection too!”

24 October, 2016

Kefco says:

“We need higherberms in Sunnyside/Hillhurst. Land is already owned by the city and costs are reasonable.”

24 October, 2016

Eric says:

“Inner city "barriers" are impractical, they merely move the damage-Should be implemented where improves/captures flow ”

23 October, 2016

Justin says:

“I strongly dislike the idea of ugly barriers along the rivers. Calgary is just starting to be more nice and walkable. Don't ruin it.”

22 October, 2016

Brian Castle says:

“Barriers in conjunction with dams provides best solution”

22 October, 2016

Debbie Young says:

“ Barriers without upstream dams are the Darth Vader of solutions - cannot improve quality of life in city. Combination of solutions required”