The temporary flood wall creates a barrier between the backyards of 14 homeowners in Harlow who are used to having access to the greenbelt and the South Saskatchewan River beyond. Residents in Riverside put a stop to the city constructing a berm that would have cut off their access to the river. Harlow has not been given that option.--NEWS PHOTO GILLIAN SLADE
gslade@medicinehatnews.com@MHNGillianSlade
When homeowners along the river front in Riverside resisted the city’s attempts to impose the building of a berm, the city modified its approach to flood mitigation there.
The Riverside berm was ultimately constructed in 2016. It starts at Finlay Bridge going west for just two blocks, even though many homes several blocks further west were impacted by the flood.
“Riverside wasn’t pragmatic because of just the terrain. How it put up a wall or a berm, it wasn’t pragmatic,” said Dwight Brown, general manager Municipal Works. “We did berms up in Riverside and we went as far as we could to protect the community.”
Many of the homes in Riverside are still unprotected and did not even get temporary berms like Harlow did this year.
Brown said the city protects “as much of Riverside as was pragmatic and that’s what we’re going to do with Harlow as well”.
Ten of the 14 homeowners in Harlow impacted by the planned berm do not want it. Only three were affected by the 2013 flood and have already altered their properties to provide their own protection.
Brown says the city will consider the positioning of the berm and landscaping on it “but recognize our overarching is to (put) a berm in to protect the community … those residents.”
Coun. Kris Samraj says council often has to make decisions that people do not agree with.
“In this case council is balancing the flood risk against the wishes of these residents. I voted against this berm because it didn’t meet my standard for prudent spending, but building a berm to protect a neighbourhood is not an unreasonable position,” said Samraj.
Mayor Ted Clugston did not respond to a request for an interview on Tuesday.
Clugston said a few weeks ago that 90 per cent of the affected residents wanted a berm.
In November the News reported that many of the major flood mitigation measures were in place in high-priority areas, and emergency managers can better protect other areas as required with removable flood walls and barricades.
Ryan Shrives, property owner on Finlay Court impacted by the berm, does not understand why early this month temporary flood protection measures were put in place where the city wants to place the berm. Temporary measures have not been used in the past five years and the residents did not ask for it.
The city has said it was necessary to install the temporary flood measure, without an immediate risk of flood, because of the need for social distancing due to COVID. This would be difficult to do during a rush if a flood warning was issued.
Shrives says he watched workers putting the barriers in place and none were practising any social distancing.
Shrives says if the city feels flood protection is important it could continue to do temporary measures when there is a risk of flooding, citing the $3.6-million cost for a permanent berm.
“So I ask, why not use this measure that is substantially cheaper, already purchased and is stored with the city,” said Shrives.”Our prime river frontage real estate will maintain its value and it would be less invasive for the environment.”
Brown has revealed the city wants to close a lift station in the area and connect it to another lift station. The gravity pipeline between the lift stations would be hidden inside the planned permanent berm.
