Dear Editor,
Danielle Smith's call for the release of the long buried flood mitigation report hints that it might contain nuggets of wisdom which could spare us future grief.
High River residents did not get the opportunity to participate in the hearings, which were to form the basis of the report. High River is located on the junction of two river systems, unusual in that the Little Bow and the Highwood rivers diverge there rather than converge. Floods in High river had historically been worsened by water entering the town from the south via overflows into the Baker Creek, several miles upstream. Response to the situation was dyking on the right bank of the Highwood within the Town and building the Hoeh dyke at the Baker Creek inlet over concerns with the Highwood diverting back into the Little Bow, compromising irrigation infrastructure, as well as protecting the Town from flows from the south. This afforded reasonable protection for the Town, except in extreme events which over topped the Hoeh dyke, since development was mostly south of the Highwood and overflows were now primarily directed to the north.
Ralph Klein made sure environmental issues did not produce problems for any type of development, stripping Alberta Environment’s authority. The result was residential development to the north where the water was now being directed. The outcomes were predictable and have cost tens of millions to partly remedy with dykes which have increased risk to other areas .
The flood study for the Highwood river was updated in 1992 with new risk criteria; areas were identified as floodway, within which no development was to take place, and flood fringe, which could be developed subject to appropriate measures. Once again development was allowed to proceed in the floodway and flood fringe with the barest accommodations to the risk.
It was a case of ignoring the science because it was inconvenient, which raises an interesting issue regarding science and Ms. Smith’s position on one particular issue. She is on record as opposing action on climate change because “the science is not settled”.
Paying attention to the science of climate change is inconvenient for the continued expansion of fossil fuel use but the flood situation in our river valleys is a good example of where ignoring the best science we have leads us. Having a provincial leader and potential premier who denies overwhelming scientific evidence does not give me much comfort or confidence she would do anything to solve our pressing flood issues.
Emile Rocher
High River
