Duluth’s floods wreak torrent of trouble in trout streams
October 17, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Up until now, Duluth’s flood recovery efforts have focused primarily on fixing basic infrastructure, including washed out roads, bridges and culverts. But the battle now is moving to a less obvious front stabilizing and repairing the 16 designated trout streams that course through town.
Continue Reading
Why not let nature repair the damage? Flooding happens…..this is a natural event. We have no money to fix the streets but we can spend a million a stream to undo what nature has been doing since water has flowed on this planet. Whats next????? Are we going to fill in the Grand Canyon?
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
29
Ideally, we would just let nature run its course and do its thing.
But the problem is that the redirection these streams took during the flooding will cause more issues with the spring thaw. The thaw is usually the biggest event these streams experience, and we had them guided to the point that when the thaw hits, damage to infrastructure is limited.
But now that many of these streams have taken new paths due to the flooding, many of those paths will cause overflows into areas without culverts and cause more flooding when it does thaw in the spring.
It is better to try to mitigate the effects of the spring thaw now, rather than to wait until we have more residential and infrastructure damage to deal with in the spring.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
20
We send 2/3 of our tax dollars to Washington DC. Half if it is utterly wasted. Part of it goes to some to “help” people in some other state. The rest come back and is billed as Free Money from Washington.
When are you guys going to wise up?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
4
This was not a “natural event”. Sure it was a ton of rain in a short time but most of the actual flooding was caused by the sheer amount of impervious surfaces made to direct the flows into a hundred year old storm drain system built for a city with half the population. These stream are our infastructure, not repairing them is just playing russian roulet with people’s homes and businesses as we wiat for nature to “take its course”.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Sometimes, I have a hard time sleeping because I’m constantly thinking about how my life would be different if the trout in gorgeous and serene Miller Creek went away.
Like or Dislike:
19 
10
It’s not so much about beauty, as it is about preventing a larger cost in the spring once the thaw hits.
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
I didn’t know that Duluth gave money away so easily away like Superior. Instead of spending $100,000 on a feasibility study, how about just asking for a quote? You still get a scope of work required and estimates on time and dollars and oh yeah, I doesn’t cost the taxpayers nothing. If those two companies want the job they’ll do it or other companies will come out of the woodwork to provide it. I’m with John(R) on this one, this is mother natures work and it will take some time, but she’s also fix it for free. Besides, with Duluth’s crumbling infrastructure, is it really necessary to spend $100,000 now so later when the estimates come in the councilors can say no we can’t afford it. Who am I kidding, it could come in at $2 million a stream and Fosle and Stauber would still be the only ones with brains to say no to it. I wonder if the contractors know to bid high because they know they can sell this by strumming the heart strings of the majority eco-libs on the city council. {Quick FYI: on feasibility study/waste: That stunningly impressive park at Belknap & Tower in Superior – $50,000. and that’s for a yeah, we can do that, it will cost this much, and here’s a pretty drawing to prove we actually did something}
Like or Dislike:
12 
8
The only reason we had trout in the streams was the DNR planted them. I’m sure we have a few spots that might need to be looked at if it puts people or infrastructure in danger….but this was a natural event. We had the flood back in 1972 and I’m sure we didn’t spend money to fix the streams back then. We could spend all this money and have another flood in 5 years. Do we have the dollars to keep fighting nature? Who fixed the streams 1000 years ago when our area flooded?
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
If you are sure we did not spend any money to repair the streams after the ’72 flood, you are going to have to provide some proof.
Stormwater management has been a very important part of Duluth’s infrastructure from the get-go, and these streams are a natural vein for the majority of the stormwater that comes through our area. Managing their path is key to preventing major problems when the spring thaw hits.
You cannot stop nature, but you can gently guide it in the right direction.
Oh, and we didn’t have buildings or roads we had to protect 1000 years ago.
Like or Dislike:
15 
7
I know this sounds crazy, but how about a common sense approach to this dilema, fix the problem around residential areas and let the rest take the course its supposed to !
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
I agree, let’s have some common sense and hopefully lower cost solutions. I wonder how much the “trout stream” designation is adding to the cost. How much is this supposed benefit to the city’s population worth? IMO, not much…let’s get our priorities straight.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
EVERY stream in Duluth runs through a residential area at some point.
But I agree with your sentiment.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
How about we shut down the world’s most expensive fish tank and used the money from that to fix the streams where the fish actually feed themselves and have some skin in the game.
NO MORE FISH WELFARE!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
how about fixing the streets that were screwed up by the flood FIRST? What is with the hole on 59th ave west above 8th street or is the city waiting for snow to fill it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I’m not in favor of giving money away….If we are going to blow 16-20 million on fixing the trout habitat then how about helping people hurt by the flooding? Quite a few people lost everything they had. I would rather help those in need. I do care about the trout…..but I care more about people.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
I’m no engineer (I don’t even play one on TV), and I can’t speak to the streams in central and eastern Duluth, but I have walked the Mission Creek from Fond du Lac to the Becks Road no less than eight times in the last three months. Since the Mission was included in the group that will “probably cost more” (paraphrased) than a million dollars, please allow me to save you (and we taxpayers!) some money–probably close to a million dollars–with the plan below:
1. From Bridge 3 (the only one on Oldenburg Parkway) to the Becks Road, do nothing. The creek is wider in places, but essentially nothing has changed, and there are trout minnows in every deep pool. The fish are fine.
2. Repair Old Mission Creek Parkway from the top of 131st West to the debris catcher dam. The fill is already there–hundreds of yards of it–piled in the old ski jump parking lot from residents’ yards. Please do not preach about the “raw sewage” contained in that fill. It has long since neutralized and is probably the most fertile topsoil in the city right now.
3. Once you’ve repaired the road (and now citizens can again use the abundant trails back there), you’ll have access to the debris catcher dam. Clean it out, and either re-channel the creek through it, or extend the dam to include the existing (new) stream bed. Cost will be about the same.
4. Rebuild the trailhead to the East Loop of the Mission Creek Hiking Trail and the Superior Hiking Trail by building a bypass around the cliff where the trail used to be. I’ll bet volunteer labor (the SHT team) would be happy to help, as they desire access to the SHT from this point. Fond du Lac residents have created a rough route for you already…just follow the footprints and trampled vegetation.
5. Repair the West Loop of the MCHT where it comes down the hill north of the old ski jump. This is the one true danger to hiker safety, besides the trailhead to the East Loop mentioned above (see Item 4 above).
6. As Don mentioned above, do NOT spend 100K on a “feasibility study.” Instead, the RFQ should include the scope of work. Whatever the vendor bids, we can either afford it, or we can’t. If we can’t afford it, don’t waste any more time discussing it.
7. The Mission has been blown out to accommodate a 500-year flood. The yearly spring run-off will be a drop in the bucket. Just look at the old ski jump: Where the stream was 40 feet wide, now it’s 150-200. There’s plenty of room for run-off there.
8. Please stop hanging pink ribbon at the edge of every draw and valley feeding the Mission. Even the untrained, uneducated, and unclean can tell where the fall lines, watersheds, and sheer points are. Heck, you can see the cracks in the earth where future slides will occur. We don’t need five miles of pink ribbon cluttering up the landscape to tell us this.
9. Please take down the “park closed” signs (and the threats of a 500-dollar fine) and stop worrying about perceived “danger.” Yes, we’re all aware of potential “liability.” But we’ve been dealing with slides in the Mission Creek Valley since we were kids. It ain’t no big deal…
10. From Bridge 3 downstream to the ski jump, there are healthy trout in every deep pool–we’ve seen them. Again, the fish are fine. Stop diddling.
The above should cost no more than 300K. If it does, you got ripped. Or, if the bids DO come in at greater than 300K, give it to the locals, and we’ll do it for that much (thus creating “green jobs”). You can use the surplus to repair the Kingsbury above the Zoo, the Pulag (81st-82nd West), the Sargent above Gary, and still have some left over for flood relief to families affected by this disaster.
Thank you for your attention. I promise I won’t even send a bill.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0