![](https://hdp-ca-prod-app-cgy-engage-files.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/8114/7691/3386/Concept2info.jpg)
Need more info? Please refer to the participant packages.
View illustrations of example flood barrier types.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of concept 2 and why?
<p style="color: rgb(63, 71, 78); margin-bottom: 1rem;">What do you think this concept's benefits and impacts will be on:</p><ul><li>The way the community looks, feels and moves?</li><li>Providing equal protection from river flood to all citizens/communities?</li><li>The amenities/services in your community?</li><li>The health of the rivers and floodplain as it flows from the mountains, through the city and to other communities downstream?</li><li>The long-term supply and quality of water for our community?</li><li>Protecting Calgary's economic core? Should downtown be protected to a higher level?</li><li>The city as a whole?</li></ul>
- Recent
- Popular
- Rising
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
-
Concept 1: Upstream Reservoirs
Concept 3: Upstream Reservoir and Barriers along the Bow River
Non-Structural Measures: Land Use Policies and Bylaws
About
You see the results of decisions made by The City of Calgary every day – in your roads, drinking water, parks and much more. Get involved and provide your input on City projects and programs. Together we can build a better community!
Have questions or want to learn more about a project, contact us below:
Phone | 311 or 403-268-CITY (2489) |
---|---|
Website | www.calgary.ca |