Rush Job on Dikes: 'Band-aids'
Thwarting Fraser floods will take 'sustained effort' say experts.
Flooded Fraser River at Mission, 1948.
Tyee Interview »
Kathryn Gretsinger interviews Chris Wood about Fraser River flooding.
Subscribe: iTunes | More Tyee podcasts
There's an unseemly kind of satisfaction to saying, "I told you so." I'm hoping this week that I will be denied that satisfaction, but the odds are leaning unnervingly the other way.
Last August, I led off a series of investigative reports for The Tyee on the subject of climate change by revealing the existence of a study which had found alarming flaws in the flood defences along the lower Fraser River. The second installment of that series imagined a combination of climate-change-driven extreme weather and forest loss in the interior that unleashed a catastrophic flood on an unprepared lower mainland -- in 2011.
I may have been off by only four years.
Not every element of the scenario I painted has come true by any means, but an unusually wet winter, consistent with what climate scientists predict will become more common in our future, has piled up a near-record spring snow pack in the central interior. The water contained in that snow now threatens to submerge significant portions of the most densely populated region in B.C., the source of nearly one-tenth of Canada's gross national product.
Rush job
In response, and with an urgency sharpened by the discovery that many dikes along the lower Fraser River are (or were, as of the beginning of the year) as much as a metre too low to offer adequate protection against a repetition of the "flood of record," the provincial and federal governments have opened the funding tap to raise the region's defences. Round-the-clock work was targeted for completion by May 15, hopefully ensuring that the most critical low spots have been brought at least up to the height necessary to contain any recurrence of the devastating floods of 1894 and 1948.
The effort is welcome and doubtless justified in the short term. Even so, images come to mind of little Dutch boys with extended fingers. For several reasons, the expense of more than $30 million dollars is a good deal less than reassuring.
There is, first, the nature of the work that's been rushed to completion. Much of it was directed at installing "rip-rap" shielding -- broken rock or cement, often caged in wire netting -- along dike faces and stretches of riverbank that are vulnerable to erosion. This is useful to a point: it helps prevent dikes being breached by strong currents and may protect roads and pipelines that follow the river from being washed away. But by itself it doesn't raise the height of the newly shielded dikes -- or the flood protection they offer.
If the river rises high enough, it will overtop the dike regardless of how much rip-rap has been installed.
Rushed repairs, moreover, are seldom as durable or effective as well-planned construction. "It was a scramble," says hydraulic engineer Adrian Chantler, a managing partner at the Vancouver firm of HAY and Company, which has consulted for a number of First Nations with territories along the river. "When it's done in a panic, they usually just drop rock over the bank. In a couple of cases it's actually been too late to do the work: the river's already come up, for instance at Peter Island."
In other cases, the dikes have been raised using sandbags, cement lock-blocks, or large wire baskets lined with heavy fabric and filled with sand. Again, these will hopefully be effective when the river peaks this spring -- but they're temporary measures. The money that's been spent on them will simply have to be spent again to contain any future high spring freshets.
Sustainable solutions
As Adrian Chantler put it: "It's not a good way to go to react as a knee-jerk and come up with a bunch of band-aids. We really need a longer term, more sustained effort."
That could take the form of a multi-year program to bring every dike from Hope to Sea Island above the level that might be reached by future freshets (or, in the case of dikes around Richmond, storm surges in the Georgia Strait).
After years of neglecting the flood threat and pushing responsibility for dike maintenance down to municipalities and regional diking districts, the province may be forced by this year's alarm to institute just such a program. But it won't come cheaply: figure about $2,000 a linear metre to bring the Lower Mainland's dikes up to scratch, with Delta alone counting some 60 kilometres of dikes (although not every dike needs upgrading along its entire length). The price tag quickly runs into hundreds of millions of dollars.
But worth every penny, surely -- if it saves the Lower Mainland from a catastrophic flood.
Well, perhaps not. No matter how conscientiously constructed, dikes have inherent shortcomings as a strategy to contain rivers in flood.
Dike side-effects
Dikes confine floodwaters into a narrow channel. As a matter of physics that has several consequences. The confined current flows faster, for one thing, increasing its scouring effect both on the river bottom and its banks. That harms aquatic habitat along the floor of the river and increases the likelihood that the current will find and expose any weakness in the dike defences. Prevented from spreading out sideways, the water also rises higher -- requiring a corresponding height of dikes to contain it. For both reasons, if a dike does then fail, the throttled river pours through the breach with far greater force, quickly opening it wider.
Both effects were blamed for contributing to hundreds of dike failures along the upper Mississippi River that resulted in that river's worst flood on record in 1993. In that instance, once the river water had breached the levees (as they call dikes in the central U.S.), remaining stretches of intact dike prevented water from draining back into the river's natural bed—prolonging the inundation.
Then there are longer-term and less obvious consequences of relying on dikes. One is psychological: the impression of safety they provide may encourage development in the 'protected' areas behind them that will be under water should they fail. Another is ecological: such hardened river banks have nothing in common with natural riparian habitat, whose plant and animal communities are adapted to -- and often depend on -- being occasionally submerged.
Yet a third long-term consequence of a strategy of diking has again to do with physics. The Fraser River carries huge volumes of silt and gravel down from the interior. When the river reaches its natural delta in the Lower Mainland, it slows down, dropping much of that material to the riverbed (the reason why the delta exists at all). Even allowing for the acceleration of the confined current, the same thing happens between diked riverbanks. With each passing year, the riverbed rises -- pushing up the river's surface by a corresponding measure. (Along the lower stretches of China's Yellow River, this effect has actually raised the riverbed above the level of the surrounding countryside).
That in turn presents communities along the river with two almost equally unpalatable alternatives: keep on raising their dikes ever higher in an effort to keep up with the rising river bed -- or dredge out millions of tons of gravel and silt at vast cost and further devastating effect on aquatic habitat.
Cross your fingers
With luck, the next few weeks won't put the recent dike repairs to the test. Pray for summer to hold off. A long, cool and generally dry spring will give the snow still in the mountains (80-85 per cent of the winter's total accumulation is still on the slopes) time to melt gradually. The threatening alternative is for a sudden turn in the weather followed by two or three weeks of above-average heat that melts the snow quickly and sends it rushing downriver. Worse yet would be a heat-wave broken by a day or so of heavy rain in the central interior.
Regardless of what the next four weeks bring, the longer-range climate forecast tells us that we dare not let the sense of urgency that prompted the recent emergency repairs lapse once the imminent threat has passed. The record of recent years and the prediction of climate models warn us to expect more winters with heavy snow accumulation and more abrupt shifts from cool temperatures to hot, with a rising risk of heavy spring rain topping off the flood hazard.
Whether that means we also need more, higher, or stronger dikes may be another matter. Even the Dutch have recently begun to rethink that strategy. I'll take a look at some alternatives in a future report.
Related Tyee stories:
- Fraser River Will Surge over Dikes, Experts Find
Study predicts 'multiple dike failures.' But government has cut warning system. - The Coming Catastrophe
Fail to fortify Fraser dikes, and BC could wake up to a weather nightmare. - Billion-Dollar Development Planned for Flood-Prone Shore
Homework will be done says Mission mayor.





9
Login or register to post comments
Grumpy
4 years ago
Yes, let's cross our fingers
The cool weather has prolonged the snack and if we get a sharp rise in temperature, watch out!
I remember watching the Fraser over-top the dikes along River Road in Delta in the early 70's, an eerie sight indeed.
Why were not the municipalities investing in dike improvement? should it not be an annual concern?
Me thinks city engineers were too busy hob nobbing with developers for housing etc. instead on keeping an eye on the river.
Now the screw turns......
Realist
4 years ago
Who to blame
Don't forget that there has been a constant decrease in monies being supplied by senior governmnet sources. Federal transfer payment reductions to provinces have led to provincial cutbacks to municipalities. Again the forced reduction of corporate taxation has led to a domino effect in funding shortages. While corporations may pay some of there profits back to shareholders, this return is nothing to the benifits society recieved when corporations were taxed directly.In the fifties the corporate taxation rate hovered around 40 % and the lives of society's members where good. Today the rate stands at aprox 5%. This has caused the degradation of our schools, healthcare and general infrastructure. This is the cost of lack of government control on corporate greed and unbalanced capitalism. We all suffer so that a few can get wealthy. This is what is happening at an ever accelerating rate. Thus, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is why our society is degradating so rapidly. Pure Greed and we sit by and watch it happen, entertained by sports events and the actions of Britney and Paris.
We are all sheep.
murdock
4 years ago
Acceptable alternative?
Uncertain futures do present one possible alternative...
Permit the river to flood as it had prior to the 1870's.
This would, of course, mean allowing much of Richmond and Delta to be innundated - thus costing million$ to the 'supposed' real-estate values. Yet, of course, this would also refresh the delta and give the plant growing regions a renewal.
Any cost/benefit analysis must include such a course of action. Stop spending million$ on the dikes and attempting to re-shape the watercourse, put the funds into 'hardening' the protection of riverbanks that are eroding all the time and do threaten higher ground revenues.
Umslopogaas
4 years ago
Levees
Levees are actually the natural banks of rivers that carry a heavy silt load. The river builds up its bed and banks with silt, eventually flowing in a bed that is higher than the surrounding country side and contained by natural banks called levees that will always fail in extreme flood conditions. The river then creates a new bed and new set of banks and eventually silts that up and repeats the process all over again. Meantime it floods everything lower than the bed it has silted up.
Any efforts to postpone the inevitable will be at great cost and to no avail over the long term. It will then be interestng and sad to see where the failures come and how they affect the value of the real estate that so many have worked so hard to purchase and develop.
But hey! We have the Olympics to look forward to and billions of dollars to spend on that bagatelle of applied steroids and pork barrels. Ain't life in B.C. grand. Never a dull moment, all dullness is reserved for our politicians.
dolphin
4 years ago
Rush Job
In Quesnel, the mayor recently declared a "state of emergency" and has a fleet of dump trucks building dikes. Most think it is pretty late to start building dikes, but given that his own house is in a vulnerable area (devastated by the 1948 flood) better late than never. The previous mayor was roundly criticized by riverfront homeowners for "ruining their view" and allowing dike walkers to look into their back yards. There was talk of lawsuits. People who live in flood plains protest too much methinks.
Percy
4 years ago
Unnecessary growth, unnecessary cost...
Let's see, we've pursued a policy of explosive urban growth, driven almost entirely by external immigration, in a floodplain.
Maybe the problem is that our choice of mass immigration unrealted to economic needs or realities is catching up to us.
Rhea
4 years ago
Flood plain building/government funding
Any time the government (federal, provincial or municipal) starts shelling out money and doing their @ss-covering before the disaster happens instead of after, you know there are major problems ahead. Given the current snowpack and weather conditions, a catastrophic flood appears to be nearly a certainty.
That said, I still have real problems believing the number of people who build or buy homes in the flood plain and then wail and gnash their teeth when it - gasp - floods. Apparently Pitt Meadows homeowners (who bought subdivision houses built on what was previously fertile and productive farmland, but that's another rant) were wringing their hands and wailing about how nobody TOLD them this could happen and how come they were allowed to buy/build there. People just don't have a clue, or they don't educate themselves about what living in a flood plain actually means. This is another really nasty down side to allowing developers to log-it-burn-it-pave-it wherever they want. First and most importantly, you lose the ability to feed your population locally, a fact which really doesn't seem to be sinking in to a population used to buying imported, out-of-season and factory produced food for artificially low prices. These are people who buy everything at WalMart because it's cheap and who think that their food just magically appears at the grocery in its wrappings.
Second, the characteristics which make for great farmland quite often make it vulnerable to events like this (which is often why it was sparsely settled in the first place), and by ignoring this possibility we are exposing ourselves to major economic liability. Look at the history of the Nile Delta, where the periodic floods were welcomed to feed the crops and people adjusted to them. The difference here is that we've invested in providing permanent and expensive housing/sewer/etc. in a not-so-secure spot with blithe indifference to what has happened in the past and what might happen in the future.
So we've screwed up pretty spectacularly on two counts already. I'm just waiting to see the hand wringing and fallout that happens when the water starts rising. I'm betting a lot of property values are going to take a very steep dive in the wake of this mess.
alive
4 years ago
What planning?
When you elect politicians for 4 year terms, then all you get is 4 year planning!
Primarily they plan on how to get re-elected and that usually means do not spend any monies unless necessary!
We elect idiots and we pay for it!
Engineers are another matter, they work on averages and statistics:
As an example the only road connecting Kitimat to the Smelter, was built a foot above average heigth of the river!
That worked fine untill we had heavy snowmelt and high tide, suddenly nobody could make it to work, amazing isn't it?
clubofrome
4 years ago
Tents are easy to move....
Posted in January....