Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The effect of the South Canal and Loutsenhizer Canal on flood discharges <br />hav,~ been examined. <br />The South Canal has existed throughout the period of rainfall record- <br />keepi ng. Duri ng the enti re period of its ex'j s tence, the canal has not <br />bredched due to runoff. The only breaching that has occurred has been due <br />to operational circumstances. Because of th"js significiint period -of safe <br />opention and because the hydraulic review suggests the canal can convey up <br />to I,400 cfs during an emergency, it is judged unlikely that the South Canal <br />wil' breath during the 500 year event. It was concluded that the Sout,h <br />Canal has sufficient excess capacity to convey the 100 year recurrence interval <br />intE!'^cepted tributary flows at least to the Dry Cedar Creek basin. A more <br />extE!I1Sive hydraul ic analysis of the South Cana,) capacity and conveyance of storm <br />flo~ls is recommended to examine the practicality of an emergency sp'il 1 structure <br />at [Il'y Cedar Creek. <br />The Loutsenhizer Canal has a history of bl^eaching. Because of this, <br />its function as a storm runoff conveyance fad'l ity wi 11 be ignored" The canal <br />has been assumed to be flowing full, such that any tribl,ltary runoff flows <br />acrcss the canal remain within the same basin. <br />A backwater analysis will be performed a'long the main watercollt'ses for <br />the peak f'Iood discharges. The backwater ana'lysis def'ines the extent of <br />fl oodi ng to be expected. <br />Flood di scharges at major desi gn poi nts al'e conta'j ned in Tab1 E! 7 and <br />are illustrated in Figure 12. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />18 <br />