Late last year, PTx Trimble introduced an updated system to make that process even simpler and less time consuming.

“Last fall we released WM-FieldForm, which is moving our surface drainage solutions from our previous generation of hardware into our GFX displays and utilizing our newest GNSS receivers,” says Josh Ide, PTx Trimble’s strategic marketing specialist.

“And we’re currently developing our field drain solution, which is moving from our previous generation. It was WM-Drain and our new product will be called WM-FieldDrain.”

WHY IT MATTERS: Prairie farmers have been looking to take the shock out of extreme low or high water events by improving water management on their land. Strategies have ranged from natural infrastructure to significant technological or mechanical investment, or a mix of both.

The updated systems are designed for use with PTx Trimble’s GFX 1060 and 1260 displays, which are significantly faster than the previous generation displays. They get paired with the brand’s Nav 960 receivers, which can access signals from a larger number of satellites for improved accuracy.

“Previously we only used GPS and Glonass,” says Ide.

“Now we’re using BeiDou, Gallileo and QZSS as well, European, Chinese and Japanese constellations. It’s around double the number of satellites we can use at a time.”

PTx Trimble provides a complete hardware and software package for setting up a tractor and scraper or tile plow to do do field drainage. That includes a hydraulic control valve for the implement, receivers for both tractor and implement, the in-cab display and RTK system.

“If you’re starting from scratch, it’s roughly $20,000 to have all the hardware for the tractor and implement,” says Ide.

“That’s adding our display as well. One advantage is the display and receiver can be used for guidance as well.”

Precision placement

RTK is an essential element for accurate drainage, according to Ide. That is due to the amount of vertical error in satellite systems, which is generally twice the horizontal error distance in a system.

“We recommend that high-accuracy system for corrections. That’s because vertical error is double the horizontal error.”

PTx Trimble’s drainage systems could be installed as a DIY project, but it’s best to have it done by a dealer’s technician.

“We do have installation instructions that could allow you to do it, but it’s not necessarily recommended,” adds Ide.

When it comes to putting the system to work, the process begins by doing a field survey. If a grower knows there are only a couple of problem areas that need to be addressed, a survey could be limited to those areas.

The new PTx Trimble system helps significantly shorten the time it takes to do all that.

“It’s a lot faster than even 2D systems, using lasers,” says Ide.

“(With older systems), farmers could take an entire day or several days just surveying a field, or even individual tile lines.

“With the receiver on a tractor or even an ATV, they can survey a 40 acre field in 30 minutes and know where those problem points are. So, it’s had a huge impact on the speed of doing that.”

Planning farm drainage

Armed with that information, producers can then design each tile or drainage ditch line and install the system.

Ide says planning those lines can be done best by producers who know their fields well, and each run will be dependent on the topography.

“Every field is unique. There’s some art to it as well. If you ask 10 people to design for the same field, you’re going to get 10 different responses or solutions. They’d probably all work. Some of those responses are regional. It’s a little bit different everywhere you go.”

While it’s difficult to put a general dollar value on improving yields by installing a drainage system due to the uniqueness of every field, Ide notes there other advantages as well.

“When you do drainage work on a field, you can get days or even weeks, depending on the soil type as far as access to it. That’s a huge advantage. It allows you to get to those problem areas earlier to get as close as you can to those ideal harvest and planting times.”

The post WM-FieldForm brings data to farm drainage appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Some, particularly farmers who have used it to boost production and manage water or salinity on perennially challenging fields, will sing the practice’s praises. Others worry about downstream regional water management or waterway nutrient loading in heavily tiled areas.

WHY IT MATTERS: Tile drainage can help stabilize ground water levels in a field, providing better conditions for both the crop to grow and the farmer to operate.

The potential cropping benefits of tile drainage have sparked creative ways and research to overcome some of the environmental shortfalls, such as recycling tile-sourced water and reserving it for a farm’s use during dry times.

Agriculture has been playing with some of those concepts for years, such as bioreactors and constructed wetlands to act as natural filters and help address nutrient leaching from tiled fields into wider waterways.

Tile discharge drains water from a wide area to a single point, noted Matthew Reid, an assistant professor and researcher of civil and environmental engineering at Cornell University, during the recent Pan-American Light Sources for Agriculture Conference in Saskatoon, Sask. That potentially opens the door to “build something to try to mitigate some of those nutrient losses,” he said, such as the aforementioned bioreactors.

“The drainage water, instead of discharging directly into streams, can be diverted through basically a trench which is filled with wood chips … and the purpose is to provide a carbon source for biofilm that can then denitrify the nitrate,” Reid said, noting that other agricultural residues can be substituted for the wood chips.

That last point dovetails with his work hoping to improve bioreactors. He’s trying to get a better idea of how wood decomposes and how that effects wood chips’ ability to filter nitrogen.

Wood is a relatively poor carbon source. One of wood’s biological components, lignin, creates a layer of cellulose which protects it from microbial accessibility in low oxygen conditions and hinders its ability to break down.

Lighting up microscopic insight

Using eight-year-old wood from a bioreactor at a Cornell experimental farm, Reid and his team collected nine samples from close to the discharge, midstream, and downstream at three different depths. The samples were then taken to the lab and incubated with nitrate.

“We found that there was a significant amount of spatial variability in how effectively wood chips collected from different parts of the reactor were able to remove nitrate,” he reported.

Analysis found that a low carbon to nitrogen ratio was associated with a more degraded wood, higher surface protein concentrations, and resulted in thicker biofilm density to cause a greater release of dissolved organic carbon and quicker nitrate removal. All of which means that greater degradation of causes greater denitrification.

“At first that might seem a little bit counter intuitive,” Reid said, “but what this is in fact saying, is that we need the wood to be decomposing and releasing carbon if it’s going to be an effective support and an effective carbon source for the denitrifiers.”

Reid next wanted to get a micro-scale look at what was actually happening, in detail, during the degradation process, and therefore get ideas on how to influence it.

Using the National Synchrotron Light Source-II (NSKS-II) at Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS), Reid used the light beam for x-ray micro-tomography and the method of x-ray scattering scanning (which gives precise physical data of a thing based on how x-rays react to it) to visualize the crystalline cellulose in the decomposing wood.

At this micro level, they viewed the cellulose depletion in their nine samples, yellow indicating more intact wood material and blue to indicate degradation.

“When we specifically look at the upstream parts of the reactor, (and) in the deeper parts of the reactor, we see the surface of the wood as characterized by these bluer colors is telling us that … the cellulose is more depleted,” Reid said.

For the other parts of the reactor (midstream and downstream at the shallow, middle and deep depths), the wood was mostly yellow, indicating it was mostly still intact despite being environmentally aged for eight years.

Reid suggested two reasons for this:

1. The upstream parts of the reactor are exposed to higher levels of oxygen, which is needed in high quantities for the degradation of lignin.

2. Concentrations of iron and manganese are higher in the deep, upstream parts of the reactor. There’s a theory that the two minerals could play a role in wood degradation.

Reid’s team noted iron accumulating on the surface of woods chips, and collected measurements of the minerals in the wood (also though use of the synchrotron x-ray).

“We were able to see that in the interior of the wood, we see reduced forms of iron and manganese. (And) by the surface, there’s more oxidized iron and manganese,” he said, adding that proves the minerals’ oxidation reaction effects degradation and release of carbon.

Bioreactors need air time?

Under normal conditions, bioreactors are permanently flooded. However, the permanent flooding limits opportunity for oxidation and, according to Reid’s research, the needed wood degradation.

His suggestion was that the structures might need to be periodically drained.

“Expose the wood to oxygen, and then when it’s reflooded, we can have enhanced labile carbon release, which will then enhance denitrification rates,” he said.

The tested the theory in lab experiments and saw denitrification rates rise with reflooding. Reid is still investigating ways to optimize the insight and find a balance for best improvements in the field.

The post Better tile drainage: bioreactors could benefit from draining appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The province’s Water Security Agency (WSA) said Friday its $1 million cost-share rebate program will expand its eligibility beyond RMs, conservation and development area (C+D) authorities and watershed associations to also include landowners and small urban (under 5,000 people) municipalities.

The program provides a 50 per cent rebate of eligible costs, up to a maximum $100,000 per application/applicant, for activities in the 2023-24 program year.

Eligible work can include removing silt, sediment, beaver dams and/or debris such as trees, brush and deadfall. The work is meant to reduce risk of blockages that can cause flooding on roadways and farmland, whether on approved drainage projects or natural watercourses.

Eligible projects can’t involve altering, replacing or repairing existing structures such as culverts or approaches. Other than sediment removal, projects also mustn’t involve new earthwork of any kind, such as digging new ditches or deepening, widening or otherwise reshaping a natural watercourse.

In clearing natural channels, volumes of water released “must not be so significant as to result in damage to downstream lands.” A project proponent also must have consent from owners of land next to the natural watercourse before starting the work.

Eligible applicants are also responsible for gathering “all necessary approvals, licences or authorizations required under municipal, provincial or federal legislation” and approvals from any affected landowners for access to a work site.

The application deadline for this program year is Jan. 31, 2024; the program will only cover eligible costs incurred between April 1, 2023 and Jan. 31, 2024.

“Preserving unobstructed waterways and proactively managing potential flooding and erosion concerns play a critical role in safeguarding the well-being of every individual residing in Saskatchewan,” Jeremy Cockrill, the provincial minister responsible for the WSA, said Friday in a release.

WSA said it also “streamlined” the rebate program this year by “eliminating unnecessary steps” in the application process. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Saskatchewan drainage work rebates expanded to farmers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“We’ve dreamt of a 300,000-acre industry,” said Terry Buss, an agriculture adaptation specialist out of Manitoba Agriculture’s Beausejour office. “Back in 2017, we only had about 65,000 acres and last year we reached 225,000 acres.”

Buss was speaking at a July 26 field day at the Prairies East Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (PESAI) Crop Diversification Centre near Arborg, Man.

Why it matters: Field peas have seen a serious boost with end-users like Roquette coming into the province, but 2022’s return to wetter conditions brought production challenges.

In 2020, field peas reached their highest mark to date in terms of bushels per acre.

“The average yield across the whole province was 57 bushels an acre and, out our way, I had people breaking 80 on their fields,” Buss said.

The reason was simple: 2020 was a dry year for a crop that does not like to have its feet wet. It was the Goldilocks zone for field peas, and was only one amid a series of dry years. The province saw less rain than normal stretching back to 2018.

Last year, however, was a step too far. Production plummeted to an average 36 bushels per acre across the province.

“2020 was one of the driest years I’ve ever experienced,” Buss said. “Then in 2021, it was absolutely the Sahara Desert.

“The thing about field peas is that they’re not drought tolerant. A lot of people talk about them that way, but they’re not a dryland crop. They only explore about the top 18 inches of the soil block, so they are subject to drought fairly readily if it gets dry enough.”

Getting a sense of this year’s field pea conditions has been a challenge. The 2022 season has shown Buss, “everything from soup to nuts.”

“I’m seeing fields where I think we’ve got a yield potential in the 70-bushel area and I’m seeing fields where I think we’ll have a yield in the 19-bushel area, all five miles from each other.”

Drainage

The difference between the two is drainage. While infamous for their drier-soil preference, peas do grow in areas with high moisture.

“They’re quite productive in the U.K., where they’ve got a heck of a lot of water, but they have a heck of a lot of good soil drainage.” Buss said. “They’ve got good internal soil drainage, they’ve got tile drainage, they have a very mature drainage system.

“So this year, the biggest limit on field pea yield that I’m seeing is soil structure, soil drainage and internal drainage.”

Peas planted in well-drained fields or those with lighter textured soils are looking good this year, agronomists have noted. However, crops planted in dense soils on poorly drained fields are not faring so well.

“We have a real problem with that back in Beausejour,” Buss said. “If they’re on the kind of gumbo that makes up most of our area, they’re doing really poorly. They’re really polluted with root rot.”

Plants are shrivelling before filling pods, he noted, and he expects to lose 50 to 75 per cent in many of those fields.

Buss stressed the importance of location when planning for field peas. Think about soil type and remediating excess moisture, he advised.

Spring prep

Seeding date is another important factor in maximizing yield potential. Field peas germinate in cool soils and don’t like flowering when it’s hot, so early planting is optimal.

“We find that once we push our seeding date back to that last week of May, potentially we could be losing about 20 per cent of the yield,” Buss said.

According to the May 31 Manitoba Agriculture Crop Report, only 75 per cent of field pea acres were planted in western Manitoba by the end of that month, and persistent rains saw seeding delayed even further in the central, eastern and Interlake regions. Late seeding is considered a contributing factor to this year’s low yield projections.

“Optimum density is about seven to eight plants per square metre,” Buss added. “If you get over that, you’re just wasting your money. You’re not getting increased yield, but you are spending more on seed.”

On the other hand, density of three to four plants per square foot means crops are unlikely to reach their yield potential and will have a tough time competing with weeds.

“I carry this goofy hula hoop all the time,” Buss said. “It’s got a diameter of 28 and a quarter inches. That’s really important. If I count between 30 and 34 field peas in this hoop, I’ve got the right density to maximize yield.”

Early weed control is crucial, Buss said.

“In the research that’s been done, if you’re three weeks late from the earliest opportunity you could spray, you’ve probably lost 15 to 25 per cent of your yield.”

And because field peas are generally seeded early, herbicide performance becomes a concern, since plants must be actively growing to take up chemical.

“We have to be careful in terms of how cold it is when we’re spraying. But we definitely want to be on removing our weeds from the stands as soon as we can, because it’s the first ones that show up that are the problem.”

While the numbers aren’t tallied yet, Buss said he expects acres will reach about 200,000 this year.

The post When it comes to productive pea fields, location is key appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“When cattle get wet, their hair lies down and loses insulation value,” says Zac Carlson, NDSU Extension beef cattle specialist. “Mud will further reduce the insulation value of hair coats. Cattle become chilled quicker from wet and muddy conditions; this stress can inhibit the immune system, making animals more susceptible to disease.”

“Mud and manure carry bacteria and other pathogens that can affect cattle health,” says Dr. Gerald Stokka, extension veterinarian and livestock stewardship specialist. “Calves are particularly susceptible by direct contact or mud on dirty udders. Calves consuming mud or drinking from mud puddles are at risk for digestive tract infections, such as scours.

“Calves born in wet, muddy conditions are also more susceptible to navel/joint infections,” Stokka says. “Dip the navel after birth with a sanitizing liquid. A classic product is seven per cent tincture of iodine. A tincture contains alcohol. The alcohol provides drying action, while the iodine has disinfectant properties. Just be sure the solution is fresh and the container is free from contamination.”

In muddy conditions, ranchers should regularly move bunks and bale ring feeders to dry ground, recommends Miranda Meehan, Extension livestock environmental stewardship specialist.

“If footing around feeders becomes deep with mud, cows have a better chance of getting dirty udders,” says Meehan. “If moving feeders is not possible, use bedding materials around feeders to keep footing as dry and clean as possible.”

“Feed conversion and growth rate are severely impacted in feedlot cattle as mud conditions increase in severity,” says Karl Hoppe, extension livestock systems specialist. “Research has shown that mud up to eight inches deep will decrease feed intakes by five per cent to 15 per cent. Severe conditions with mud deeper that 10 inches will decrease feed intake 15 per cent to 30 per cent.”

“Foot rot can also be an issue with muddy conditions,” says Carlson. “The bacteria responsible for foot rot persist in wet areas. The skin between the toes becomes tender in wet conditions, leading to an increased risk of an opened wound and infection.”

“It is often difficult to do anything about mud when there are limited areas of dry ground,” says Mary Keena, extension livestock environmental management specialist. “Anything that can be done to minimize mud can help decrease the incidence of health issues. During calving, move cows yet to calve periodically to the driest ground possible or add bedding for those cows.”

There are few options once muddy conditions are in place, so preventive practices are key. NDSU Extension specialists recommend these tips to help reduce muddy conditions:

Scrape lots to maintain a three per cent to five per cent slope away from the feed bunk.

Reshape mounds to ensure quick drainage.

Move livestock to temporary feeding areas such as stockpiled pastures with adequate drainage or fields containing crop residue such as cornstalks.

If stockpiled pastures are not available, consider moving livestock to pastures with tame grasses, such as brome, crested wheatgrass, land that is better able to withstand the impact of early grazing.

If tame pasture is not an option, consider native pastures with Kentucky bluegrass as a dominant species to reduce potential negative impacts on the growth of native grass species.

Be aware of the potential for soil compaction when placing livestock in saturated crop fields in the spring and the potential for challenging planting conditions, adds Meehan.

The post Reduce muddy conditions for livestock health appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Precision Land Solutions (PLS) announced Friday it has bought the AccuPipe business — which makes HDPE tubing for the farm, commercial and construction tile drainage markets — from Minnesota-based manufacturer Prinsco for an undisclosed sum.

AccuPipe had been set up at Winkler, Man. in 2012 by PLS founders Chris and Charlotte Unrau. The Unraus sold the business in late 2013 to Willmar, Minn.-based Prinsco, which until now has operated the Winkler shop under the name Prinsco Canada.

“This investment will provide vertical integration with our existing Precision Land Solutions company, allowing for a consistent supply of drainage pipe to meet the growing needs of our clients,” PLS CEO Chris Unrau said in a release Friday.

Unrau, a former potato grower, launched PLS in 2006, setting up tile drainage on farmland and more recently moving into “full service agricultural water management.”

“Ultimately, this allows us to serve our clients better, while providing an additional service to the local market,” Unrau said.

In the same release, Prinsco co-president Jamie Duininck said the company is “confident that our employees and customers in Canada will be well taken care of,” adding the U.S. firm will continue to partner with AccuPipe as a supplier, “giving AccuPipe access to our full line of water management products.”

Prinsco, which also has operations in nine other U.S. states and is known for its gold-striped tile pipe, had sought to expand its Canadian footprint after buying AccuPipe by setting up another tile pipe plant at Taber, Alta. in 2014.

That plant closed a couple of years later, a Prinsco spokesperson said, citing market conditions at the time among other factors.

At the Winkler plant, meanwhile, “it’s really business as usual for us,” general manager Garnet Peters said in PLS’s release. “Our staff is staying on and we’re committed to producing the same quality product at cost-effective price points right here in Manitoba.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Tile drainpipe supplier AccuPipe changes hands appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“We were trying to convince them to dangle the carrot to create more beneficial wetlands, but also allow producers to improve their land. That’s not what we got. That’s where the big disappointment is. We viewed this as an opportunity to change our regulations to better benefit both sides of the spectrum. Realistically these regulations are very similar to the old ones.”

Why it matters: As long as there have been farmers drainage has been important and contentious. Crops need water to grow, but too much can drown them, as well as prevent or delay seeding and harvest. Drainage can affect wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge and have downstream effects on land and water quality.

KAP does see some positives though, especially the streamlined approval process for proposed farmland drainage projects.

Now farmers wanting to do minor drainage projects can register online and get an answer from the government within 14 days, Sustainable Development Minister Rochelle Squires said in an interview Oct. 4.

“I inherited a backlog of hundreds of applications for drainage projects on farmland,” Squires said.

Some of them were as simple as swapping out an old culvert for a new one of the same size, she said.

“An application from 2013 still hadn’t been processed,” she said. “We were seeing applications for tile drainage that were just sitting in a queue and not being actioned in a quick, responsive way because of the way the system was set up before. And we knew that was unacceptable.”

But given the Water Rights Act’s ‘no net loss of wetland benefit’ policy, KAP was expecting the new regulations would be more flexible allowing farmers to drain larger wetlands classified as Class 4 and 5, if they replaced them with three times as many acres of new wetland, or to consolidate wetlands.

According to Janssens that would result in healthier wetlands, while improving farmland, making farmers more efficient and profitable.

“We were hoping to see an incentive program,” Janssens said. “If we created a bigger, healthier more permanent wetland then we could exchange that for cleaning up other areas of the farm where it was unfeasible to go back and forth with large equipment. You start losing a lot of time and a lot of money going in circles. If you can consolidate it (wetlands) to one area of the field you can create something more beneficial. That was the end game goal in our minds.”

Managing water is important to landowners and all Manitobans, Squires said.

“We consulted very broadly and found that many Manitobans agree that Class 4 and 5 wetlands (see sidebar) provide huge ecological benefits to the province,” she said. “We know these wetlands are the kidneys of our watersheds and are essential to cleaning up Lake Winnipeg and other waterways so we do need to protect Class 4s and 5s as much as possible. That is something our government has always been clear on.”

While KAP isn’t sure how it will proceed, it’s not giving up on pushing for future changes, Janssens said.

“The act isn’t the problem, the regulations are,” he said.

“The bright side to that is the regulations I think could probably be changed.”

Meanwhile, Janssens expects lots of farmers to contest the classification of their wetlands, which he said could’ve been avoided with greater flexibility around projects involving Class 4 and 5 wetlands.

“Producers can’t do anything with them,” he said. “That’s a frustration. You feel like you’re losing control of your own land when you’re dictated to.

“I guess the next step for us is to ask the provincial government how it is going to keep things economically sustainable,” Janssens said. “When you handcuff them (farmers)… water management is a huge problem right now. What are you going to do for the producers who aren’t allowed to better manage their land but are also suffering the economic losses associated with poor water management?”

The government’s new GROW (Growing Outcomes in Our Watersheds) program will provide some support.

“This is going to be a huge benefit for landowners and farmers in the Province of Manitoba,” Squires said.

GROW, which is a made-in-Manitoba ALUS (Alternate Land Use Services), program will have $100 million of funding, Squires said.

Premier Brian Pallister will announce the details in a few weeks, she said.

Wetland classes defined

(See class the full definitions here on the Manitoba government website)

Class 1: Ephemeral
Length of Water Retention: one week or less.
Type of Vegetation: Low prairie species such as Kentucky bluegrass, goldenrod, forbes.

Class 2: Temporary
Length of Water Retention: One week to one month.
Type of Vegetation: Wetland species such as fine-stemmed grasses, sedges and forbs.

Class 3: Seasonal
Length of Water Retention: One month to three months, often dry by mid-June but may hold water for the entire year.
Type of Vegetation: Shallow marsh vegetation such as emergent wetland grasses, sedges and rushes.

Class 4: Semi-permanent
Length of Water Retention: More than three months, hold some water year round under wetter conditions but go dry in below-average years.
Type of Vegetation: Marsh vegetation and submerged aquatic vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes and pond weeds in the central area of the wetland.

Class 5: Permanent
Length of Water Retention: Year round in average years with permanent open water in the central areas, but may go dry in years with well-below-average moisture conditions.
Type of Vegetation: Central area is open water free of vegetation surrounded by a zone of submerged aquatic vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes and pond weeds.

The size of the wetland is determined by the extent of wetland vegetation and the edge of the natural prairie. The size of a wetland is not determined by the extent of water which can vary from year to year.

Sustainable Development staff can help determine the class and size of a wetland. Email drainage@gov.mb.ca for assistance.

Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development

The post KAP unhappy with new drainage regulations appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Our additional investments and the steps we are announcing today will improve protection for downstream landowners and enhance watershed management on the prairies,” PC leader Brian Pallister said in a release Friday, just ahead of Tuesday’s provincial election.

The funds will go into aerial mapping of riverbeds through LiDAR technology to assist watershed planning in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the release said.

“Our goal is to reduce the incidence and volume of excessive water flow from Saskatchewan that impacts Westman downstream,” said Pallister. “This step will add planning security for farmers, improve land productivity and reduce insurance costs.”

After catastrophic flooding in 2011, some blamed wetland drainage in Saskatchewan, “unrestricted and uncontrolled by the Saskatchewan government and paid lip service by Manitoba,” Ian Milliken wrote in an opinion piece in the Co-operator in July that year.

Milliken was, at the time, a livestock producer at Reston, Man. and a 30-year employee of the Manitoba government, in the wildlife field.

“I personally have seen satellite images of entire townships in Saskatchewan which drain directly into the Assiniboine. Here, 250,000 wetland acres have been drained in southwestern Manitoba. All of these wetland drainages enter the Assiniboine and Souris River watersheds,” he wrote.

The PC news release did not identify specific waterways or plans. It promised to work with the government of Saskatchewan to refer the issue of cross-border drainage to the Prairie Provinces Water Board, and to request recommendations for better co-operative management.

The provincial Liberals and NDP have also made promises related to water management.

NDP leader Wab Kinew promised “bold action” to help protect Lake Winnipeg and other waterways, in an Aug. 23 news release.

The release specifically pledged funding for the upgrade of the North End Water Pollution Control Centre in Winnipeg, which the release said treats 70 per cent of Winnipeg’s sewage, and allow it to remove more phosphorus and nitrogen from what it sends into the Red River.

In an Aug. 2 release, the Liberals pledged help to Winnipeg and municipalities to upgrade infrastructure, including the North End Water Pollution Control Centre, by issuing $500 million in “Save Lake Winnipeg Bonds.”

The post Election 2019: PCs promise a million for watershed management appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

He’s been fighting with the RM of Grey for years over drainage around his home and land he owns between Elm Creek and St. Claude.

The blunt-talking Houde doesn’t attract much sympathy, at least not locally. Over the years, he’s tangled repeatedly with the RM on drainage issues and clashed with animal rights groups over his horse feedlot operation.

His farm laneway has a profanity-laced sign spelling out exactly how little he cares if anyone is offended by what they see. He matter-of-factly concedes he’s “not well liked” in the area, but goes on to say he doesn’t much worry about it.

Now he’s spending thousands of dollars taking the province and the RM to court over his drainage complaints, something he says has become a matter of principle.

Why it matters: Pending changes to how drainage is regulated in Manitoba have the potential to increase tensions between landowners and local governments.

While some would dismiss this as just Houde’s latest quarrel, he’s not the only one to have problems with the interplay between drainage, local government and the provincial department that’s supposed to regulate it.

Landowners across the province say they’re facing a situation where provincial regulators have been issuing drainage licences, often to local governments, without fully considering their downstream impact.

Their pleas for help are falling on deaf ears. Yet when they then take action to protect their interests, they say regulators are suddenly ready to take action — against them.

In Houde’s case, land just north of his home place is getting additional water from a municipal drainage channel that flows from the east. The water passes through two newer culverts, where it hits a small ditch that quickly becomes overburdened and overflows — onto his land.

He contends a drainage channel across the end of his land is the RM’s responsibility to maintain and it has failed in its duty to do so.

Houde says municipal officials have repeatedly told him they’re not willing to do any further drainage work to move the water away.

“They want to use my land as a holding area,” Houde said. “They installed those culverts without my consent, and the law says they need the consent of any downstream landowner. And Sustainable Development (the provincial department in charge of drainage) doesn’t seem to care — but when I build a dike, they’re out here right away with a high-hoe to put a hole in it.”

The RM presented a different perspective in its presentations in court hearings in early March. Curran McNicol, lead counsel for the RM of Grey, said Houde purchased land that had been pasture, cleared trees, conducted unlicensed drainage work of his own, and now wants the municipality to assume responsibility for maintaining a private drain that’s on his land, albeit connected at both ends to municipal drainage infrastructure.

“Mr. Houde had lived and owned land in this area for many years,” McNicol told the court. “He knew the condition of the land and knew it looked like a holding pond.”

McNicol added, Houde by his own testimony, says he chose to “take a chance” on the property.

Which version of events is truer is the question before Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Brenda Keyser, who heard several days of testimony.

Brewing battles

Farming wouldn’t take place in Manitoba without drainage. Still, the region’s topography makes spring flooding a fact of life in the province.

The situation has intensified as farming equipment and farms have increased, the pressure to drain has grown and the technology to do it has improved. The result is a rush of water every spring, frequently with nowhere to go as the public drainage infrastructure becomes overwhelmed.

That’s caused anger and frustration from landowners who are starting to take the disputes to court, finding no solution either from local government or the province.

One drainage consultant says she’s had eight clients in the past two years either take the matter to court or begin legal proceeding and then settle prior to trial. Another says there are many more cases out there that are likely to seek a legal solution in the coming years.

It’s an expensive and time-consuming process that can take years. In the case of Houde and the RM of Grey, the first legal documents on file stem from 2013.

For one former landowner in the Interlake, who asked to remain anonymous because he has pending legal action, the battle has underscored a double standard in regulatory enforcement.

“The whole thing just makes me so frustrated,” the landowner told the Co-operator during a recent conversation.

After he disputed drainage work carried out by the RM under previous leadership upstream and downstream of his property in the northern Interlake, he concluded local governments receive different treatment from regulatory officials than individual landowners.

The municipal work involved changing the direction of water flow and building a water control structure, he said. He claims the work was in clear violation of the Water Rights Act, but getting resolution has proven to be a long and winding road.

Among the discoveries he made on that journey was that the drainage application was made verbally to provincial staff, resulting in what he says is inadequate analysis, and that the RM had illegally installed the water control structure adjacent to a highway without a permit from the provincial Highways Department, as well as other violations.

He also says he was astonished to learn of the thousands of licences Sustainable Development issues in some years, especially during wet cycles (see below), and questions how provincial staff could possibly conduct their due diligence.

He and Houde both say local politics played a role in how their drainage fights played out, noting that it seems to be landowners with less local economic and political clout who are disproportionately affected.

“You can get high school politics in some of these RMs,” the landowner said. “There are three groups out there. There are people who count a lot and get what they want. There are people who count a little and get some of what they want. And there are people who don’t count at all and get nothing.”

Obvious issues

A former provincial government engineer who worked for 25 years in drainage and water licensing agrees with the landowners’ concerns.

Since his retirement, John Arthur has worked as a consulting engineer for landowners, governments and developers.

“In water licensing, analysis has just dropped off the table,” Arthur told the Co-operator. “Drainage applications are being rubber-stamped without proper analysis. Plus, there’s favouritism — municipalities are allowed a lot more leeway than private individuals.”

He says there are plenty of examples of local governments that spend the time, energy and money to get it right. But he said there are even more examples of those that aren’t putting in that effort, which is creating drainage chaos in some parts of the province.

He said a provincial government that’s no longer equipped to do the work exacerbates the problem.

In Arthur’s time with the department, provincial engineers reviewed drainage applications. He questions whether the department has enough expertise on the front lines today to handle the incoming requests. As well, the workload increased, with thousands of drainage licences issued during peak years.

“They just hammer these licences out. When I was there, we had engineers. My staff were engineers and civil engineering technologists,” Arthur said. “We did proper analysis — this is the drainage area, this the flow, this is the size of the pipes — we just did a proper analysis, to ensure nobody got flooded upstream or downstream.”

That’s resulted in a system that’s driven by complaints, rather than compliance. He said as he travels the province as a consultant, he sees multiple examples of drainage work that wouldn’t qualify if compliance were the standard.

“If you’re putting in a 36-inch culvert and downstream there’s an 18-inch culvert, you can look at that and say, ‘that might be a problem,’” Arthur said.

The problem is set to get worse if, as is widely speculated, the province is set to download responsibility for drainage onto local governments in an ongoing review that should yield results later this year.

“I think it’s fair to say the current government would just love to off-load this to RMs and say, ‘here, it’s your headache,’” Arthur said.

But in reality in many cases that would just further download the headache onto farmers and other landowners. They’ll face economic losses as the water pushes the problem downstream.

Under review

Manitoba Sustainable Development disputes the contention the department is playing favourites.

In remarks prepared by a communications officer, the organization says it “… reviews every licence application under the Water Rights Act based on the application and local conditions. There is certainly no bias towards one party or the other.”

When asked what the minimum qualifications were for individuals approving drainage licences, Sustainable Development said staff are “… hired based on the best qualifications to effectively do their jobs. Ongoing training, mentorship and performance management is provided to ensure they provide the best, professional service.”

An amended Water Rights Act came into effect June 4, 2018, and Sustainable Development recently completed public consultation on what it describes as a new “… streamlined approach to drainage licensing under the proposed Water Rights Regulation,” noting there will be updated policies and procedures coming as a result of the changes.

Sustainable Development also insisted that lack of documentation doesn’t mean adequate reviews aren’t being conducted.

“Every application is different and may not always require significant documentation,” its statement read.

What to do if you’ve got a drainage problem there are some simple steps you can take to protect your interests.

• Ask to see the drainage licence and any accompanying Sustainable Development analysis.
• Ask to see any surveys or other studies done on the project either by the province or local government or other agencies.
• Seek related documents from other agencies like conservation districts or the Highways Department.
• Keep a record of any contacts you make on the issue in the form of a diary and take plenty of photos.
  

The post Drainage licensing in Manitoba: Policy or politics? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Farmers like him, who want to consolidate water bodies on their own land and keep it there to use to irrigate crops, shouldn’t have to pay $12,000 an acre to compensate the province for the loss of wetlands, he said.

To that end KAP delegates voted to lobby the Manitoba government to remove compensation requirements when consolidating Class 3 to 5 wetlands when the water is entirely stored on the same farm to be used for irrigation.

“Put that water in a place where it can be used and not be just a nuisance,” said Sunaert during a debate on the resolution.

In 2012 a third of his farm’s acres drowned from excess moisture in 2011, he said. Sunaert purchased irrigation equipment and started irrigating from his wetlands.

“We’ve seen significant yield benefits and managed some of this excess water,” he said. “At the end of this year, 2018, we managed to get the water back down to historical levels, or at least close. We went from a 32 per cent loss down to three or four per cent.”

Earlier in the meeting Sunaert told Agriculture Minister Ralph Eichler he was using excess water to irrigate crops, but couldn’t get a licence from the province to consolidate Class 3 and 4 drains, which are classified as temporary wetlands prone to drying up in summer.

“I think you’re exactly on the right path that I would like to see,” Eichler said in reply. “It’s not clear about retention of water. I certainly encourage any producer who is draining water off to have a plan to capture that water and reuse it in a timely manner. I think that’s the modernization that we need to look at. I certainly encourage it. Those regulations are being drafted through consultation with your organization and others on what those regulations will look like. Certainly we knew the process was too long and tile drainage was one of those. When we first announced Roquette was coming we knew peas didn’t like water.”

Eichler added the government is trying to expedite drainage projects.

“Water is something we always have to worry about managing,” he said. “And certainly we are more than happy to try and proceed with that and we are going to proceed with it.”

Sunaert said the government talks about working with farmers, yet it wants to charge him $12,000 per acre of consolidated wetland.

“(It’s) on my own land and I’m not crossing any roads and I am using it for a beneficial purpose that helps the economy,” he said. “I’m just wondering if there is any compromise that you can foresee?

Eichler replied he’s not the minister of sustainable development, who oversees drainage, but added he would relay Sunaert’s concerns.

“We’ll continue on that dialogue,” Eichler said.

The post KAP wants drainage regs changed to encourage on-farm storage appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.