Residents near Salmon River worried flooding could end up killing someone

Monique Chiasson
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

MURRAY SIDING - Murray Siding residents are past the point of frustration because of flooding from the nearby Salmon River.
"When someone loses a life that's when it'll be taken seriously and it'll be too late," sighed Paul Richardson, a resident of Salmon River Road.
He is one of many Murray Siding residents who are upset flooding issues from the river have not been resolved. There was major flooding in the area in 2003 and again last winter, with water and ice chunks causing serious damage to some properties.
"You don't want to work on your yard because the water damages it when there's flooding ... I've considered leaving (the area) but was concerned about my property value," said Richardson, who lost a washer and dryer in the 2003 flooding.
Last winter about two feet of water and ice chunks flooded his yard.
Richardson has communicated his concerns to area politicians but said nothing has officially been done.
"I think it's a money issue. I'm told there's no municipal money for it and (Colchester) County has to go to the federal government for funding," he said.
Richardson would like to see a dike for the area.
Richard Dykeman, who lives on Stephen Avenue off of Salmon River Road, said he's not impressed with the lack of political results.
"Zilch is being done. Residents are scared. If the ice chunks come up to (a house) foundation, you would lose the house and maybe lives ... I've lost all confidence and exhausted every avenue," said Dykeman, who has been actively communicating with other area residents and politicians since the spring regarding flooding concerns.
"(The river) looks so docile but it's quite violent ... it will come up quick," Dykeman said, adding he believes the riverbed needs improvements or dredging.
Dykeman acknowledges studies on area flooding have been done but says, "what good is a study if nothing is done?"
Colchester County Mayor Bob Taylor agrees there's been a delay in finding a resolution but said the issue will be dealt with.
"It seems like we haven't been doing anything but we have. It took a back burner over the years but it's come to the foreground again," said Taylor.
"You should see more activity in the first year. You can't just go into the river without provincial and federal government (help); there are lots of hoops to go through."
Taylor said a new flood advisory committee was recently formed and the county will meet with the Town of Truro's flood advisory committee in the new year, and a county water management plan is being worked on.
Taylor believes correspondence has been sent to other levels of government regarding the issue.

mchiasson@trurodaily.com

Geographic location: Salmon River Road, Colchester County, Stephen Avenue Truro

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Josh Hale
    December 14, 2011 - 10:27

    There are effective ways to repair damage to your home after flooding, and other weather damage. Looking into foundation repair and other structural reinforcement can really help.

  • Larry
    March 01, 2010 - 14:40

    Did these people not realize that the river was there when they bought? What is the government going to do, move the river? It's been proven that riverbankdykes don't work, look at New Orleans. Huge tax dollars for a small area problem.

    • justin
      September 08, 2010 - 13:59

      hey i live there and the ones who are responsible are the ones that sold houses there and said back then oh it would be safe

    • justin
      September 08, 2010 - 13:59

      hey i live there and the ones who are responsible are the ones that sold houses there and said back then oh it would be safe

    • justin
      September 08, 2010 - 21:54

      and these floods never use to be real real bad it seems that there are more ice jams now since they built that bridge by the trailer courts because the ice jams up on the rocks and before when they had the old bridge there was nothing for the ice to jam on so the ice went freely and it didn't cause the water to get to to high except for the flood in 03 but that was caused by 60 mm of rain and ice but no ice jamed up then so i think the main problem is the rocks under the bridge but then again they have to be there to protect the sement from the ice in the winter but i think that the sement on the bridge is less important floods are more important they should somehow get rid of the rocks

  • BJ
    March 01, 2010 - 14:40

    .
    I don't get it. What is council supposed to do? Move the river??? A dike up the entire side would cost several million everyone else pays for. They bought properties next to a river now they want the river to go away?

  • BJ
    March 01, 2010 - 14:40

    .
    Rob... Who said anything about Park St.? It's on a floodplain too. No dike for it neither for the same reasons. Happy now?

  • Rob
    March 01, 2010 - 14:40

    But all you big mouths want something done with Park St, which coincidetally floods because of the River.
    You hot shots need to shut up for a change.

  • High
    March 01, 2010 - 14:40

    (The river) looks so docile but its quite violent ... it will come up quick, Dykeman said, adding he believes the riverbed needs improvements or dredging.

    YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING?!?! Haven't we done enough damage to our waterways? I can't believe that these people want the government to spend taxpayer money when they were so foolish to buy or build homes next to a river that is prone to ice build up and flooding! RIDICULOUS!

  • John
    March 01, 2010 - 14:39

    Dredging the river would be devasting to fish stocks and environmentally unfriendly.

    When were these houses put there? Personally, I would not build or buy on a flodd plain, and folks that did should have known better. Now they want government to pay for their oversight in good judgement? All brooks and rivers flood at some time. What about insurance ?

  • Reg
    March 01, 2010 - 14:39

    If you were stupid enough to buy/build your house on a flood plain then too bad. Don't come crying to the taxpayer to come and bail you out. Common sense seems to be lacking more and more these days.

  • Mel
    March 01, 2010 - 14:39

    I've lived in Salmon River my whole life in the same house my dad grew up in. It's a river, it wasn't man made. If you were worried about flooding you would'nt have moved to the floodplain. It's had bad flooding for years. People who are from this area know if its calling for lots of rain on a semi-warm day, and theres still lots of snow, then yeah its gonna flood. That's why you create a plan to either stay at a hotel for a couple days, or family or friends place. I can remember ice cakes being all through our backyard when I was younger and they did come all the way up to our house, and yes our house is still standing and hasn't needed foundation repair yet. It's something were used to at my house were not about to go asking politicians to ruin nature and start digging to find a solution.

  • Ruby
    March 01, 2010 - 14:39

    If you can look to the Ice Age ,that River would be much more wider and no doubt covered the areas the houses are built on now.
    Its all on marshland.It will always be like that.
    Maybe making the River wider at the Bridges would make the water have more room to travel out etc.

  • common
    March 01, 2010 - 14:39

    Flooding from the Salmon River is certainly nothing new, so why on earth do people build houses where they should know that they will have flooding/ice problems?

    People need to start using some common sense before buying or building in an flood prone area.

  • Mary
    March 01, 2010 - 14:39

    In this paper dec 21, 2009
    NEW buildings on the flood plain???
    park street and marshland drive are WELL KNOWN for flooding but they are allowing new buildings???.

    TRURO Changes have been made to a development proposal that was denied more than two years ago by Truro town council.
    Ron Wallace Realty Ltd. is proposing two apartment buildings, one with 39 units and another with 63, for 16 Park St. In 2007, Wallace proposed the same sized units, as well as a third building with 12 units, on 5.7 acres of land near Marshland Drive.
    Council and residents opposed the construction citing traffic and flooding concerns as well as the proposals size.