Outlet channels Some believe proposed plan won’t prevent flooding or protect agricultural land
Ranchers along the shore of Lake Manitoba think the Manitoba government’s proposed outlet channels might do nothing to stop the chronic flooding that is destroying their farms.
Rather than rebuilding their spirits, the province’s $300 to $450 million plan leaves them feeling isolated and exposed.
“This does not protect our livelihood at all,” said Caron Clarke, who raises cattle along the lake near Ashern.
“What they will do is slightly reduce the level and duration of flooding.… It’s like saying the goal of the Red River Floodway is to limit flooding to four feet of water in Winnipeg’s basements from six feet.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Langruth rancher Tom Teichroeb said the provincial government plan won’t achieve anything to maintain the century-old cattle-raising economy around the lake if it just builds a new outflow channel without dropping water levels before the spring.
“We would have still flooded (in 2014 even if the proposed channels existed now),” said Teichroeb, whose pastures and hayland have been killed and permanently damaged by massive flooding in 2011 and 2014.
“We would still have had significant flooding. It might have been two to three inches lower.”
The Manitoba government is proposing two possible outflow channels in the area of the Fairford channel. Either of those would allow much more water to exit the lake than is now possible.
Lake Manitoba sits in a shallow pan that floods inland for kilometres if water levels rise higher than 812 feet above sea level.
Levels are now 814 feet above sea level, and thousands of acres of pasture and hayland are underwater and shorelines and vulnerable soils are being damaged.
The water level can swell suddenly when the Portage Diversion is used to redirect huge amounts of water out of the Assiniboine River and into Lake Manitoba to stop the Assini-boine flooding west of Winnipeg.
An equal amount of outflow water can’t be taken out at the Fairford dam, so water levels on the lake increase.
The Lake Manitoba-Lake St. Martin Regulation Review Committee, on which Clarke and Teichroeb sat, recommended that the lake’s level be kept between 810.5 and 811 feet in the spring.
However, in recent years it has been around 812 feet, which is the level at which flooding begins. As a result, any mass influx of water immediately causes problems.
Teichroeb said the province’s plan to build increased outflow capacity is good, but it does almost nothing for ranchers if the outflow can’t occur quickly enough to stop the flooding.
To work, the new channels need to be matched with a commitment to keep spring lake levels to below 811 feet.
“If they have a renewed commitment to maintaining the lake at a much, much lower level in the spring, if they have those permanent channels available, then it may suffice,” said Teichroeb.
“It can’t start at 812.”
Manitoba infrastructure minister Steve Ashton has said either of the channels should be able to control water level surges enough to protect residential homes and cottages around the lake from future floods. A once-in-200 year flood would probably reach only 815 feet rather than the 2011 levels of 817 feet.
He said most of the problems encountered in 2011 should be eliminated by building dikes and raising homes and cottages. Much of this work has already been done.
However, he said preventing widespread farmland flooding is not the focus of the efforts.
“Obviously, when it comes to flood mitigation, the primary goal is to protect homes,” Ashton said during a Sept. 18 news conference.
However, he said agricultural land would benefit from the increased outflow capabilities of a new channel.
“Everyone will benefit,” he said.
“Anyone around that lake will see a lower level once this is completed.… There is some benefit, but the real benefit is obviously to people and (non-agricultural) property.”
However, the perception that pasture and grazing land is a secondary concern makes ranchers like Clarke and Teichroeb feel neglected and unprotected from the ongoing problems caused by the frequent use of the Portage Diversion.
For them, protecting their houses is pointless if they lose their pastures, have to buy imported hay and sell their cows. They won’t be living there any longer if they keep getting flooded.
Teichroeb said avoiding house damage doesn’t mean much to him when his cattle have no feed.
“I’d rather live in a shack or an old grain barn with a heater if they could guarantee that I would have an income.”
