For reasons unknown, the media and Manitoba government are choosing not to spin it this way…. but I see no way else to interpret it.
This CBC article has the quote.
The crest, expected to pass through the Winnipeg within the next couple of days, is forecast to be 6.78 metres. Only the flood of 1997, with a crest of 7.35 metres, was worse in the past 100 years.
If not for the floodway diverting water around the city, the 2009 crest would actually be 9.1 metres, officials said.
Now correct me if I’m wrong… but there was no Floodway in 1997. So if the estimated 2009 crest *without* that floodway is 9.1 metres vs. 7.35 in 1997… should this not then be considered the worst flood in 100 years?
1950, 1979, 1997, 2009
30 years, 20 years, 10 years… is the next 100 year flood coming in 5 years?