00684
  1          MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   =======================================
 13            Thursday, February 17, 2005
 14        Sheraton Hotel, 161 Donald Street
 15             Winnipeg, Manitoba
 16   ========================================
 17   
 18                Volume 4
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00685
  1   APPEARANCES:
  2   Clean Environment Commission:
  3   Mr. Terry Sargeant - Chairman
      Mr. Barrie Webster - Member
  4   Mr. Wayne Motheral - Member
      Mr. Doug Abra      - Counsel
  5   Mr. Dave Farlinger - Technical consultant
      Ms. Cathy Johnson  - Secretary to Commission
  6   Ms. Joyce Mueller  - Secretary
  7   Manitoba Conservation:
  8   Mr. Trent Hreno    - Chair, Project Admin Team
      Mr. Bruce Webb     - Chair, Tech Advisory
  9                        Committee
      Mr. Stewart Pierce - Counsel
 10   
 11   Manitoba Floodway Authority:
 12   Mr. Rick Handlon   - Counsel
      Mr. Jim Thomson
 13   Mr. Doug McNeil
      Mr. Doug Peterson
 14   Mr. Cam Osler      - Intergroup Consultants
      Mr. John Osler     - Intergroup Consultants
 15   Mr. David Morgan   - TetrES Consulting
      Mr. George Rempel  - TetrES Consulting
 16   Mr. Robert Sinclair -  KGS
      Ms. Marci Friedman - KGS
 17   
 18   Participants:
 19   Mr. Bob Starr      - Ritchot Concerned Citizens
      Mr. Bob Bodnaruk   - RM of Springfield
 20   Mr. Steve Strang   - RM of St. Clements
      Mr. Orvel Currie   - Counsel to Municipalities
 21   Mr. Doug Chorney   - Coalition for Flood
                           Protection North
 22   Mr. Kerry McLuhan  - Coalition for Flood
                           Protection North
 23   Mr. Rob Loudfoot   - 768 Association
      Mr. Y. Shumuk      - 768 Association
 24   Paul Clifton       - Paul Clifton
      Mr. Jeff Frank     - Rivers West
 25   Gaile Whelan Enns  - Manitoba Wildlands
      Earl Stevenson     - Peguis Indian Band
00686
  1   Participants:  (continued)
  2   
  3   Mr. Jake Buhler    - Cooks Creek Conservation
      Mr. Lloyd Crooks   - Cooks Creek Conservation
  4   Mr. Jon Stefanson  - Cooks Creek Conservation
      Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel
  5   
      Presenters:
  6   Robert Millman     -  RM of Ritchot
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00687
  1                  INDEX OF EXHIBITS
  2   
  3   47:  Presentation by Robert Millman     762
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00688
  1                        INDEX
  2   
      CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MFA PANEL
  3   Cross-examination by Panel                         689            
      Cross-examination by Paul Clifton                  795
  4   Cross-examination by Maxine Clifton                897
      Cross-examination by Cooks Creek Conservation
  5   District                                           888
      Cross-examination by Jeff Frank, Rivers West       936
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00689
  1   Thursday, February 17, 2005
  2   Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m.
  3   
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'd like to get the
  5   morning proceedings going.  Good morning.  Welcome
  6   to day four.  On the order paper today, we have a
  7   few opening comments by Mr. McNeil from the
  8   Floodway Authority.  That will be followed by some
  9   more cross-examination by members of the CEC
 10   panel.  We have one person making a presentation
 11   which will probably come after the CEC panelists
 12   have completed their cross-examination or after
 13   the morning break, whichever comes first.  And
 14   then following that, we will have the
 15   participating groups engaging in
 16   cross-examination.
 17               Mr. McNeil.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
 19   good morning.  I'd like to first provide you with
 20   the results of my undertaking from Tuesday,
 21   February 15th wherein you had asked about summer
 22   operation.  It wasn't officially recorded as an
 23   undertaking in the transcript but I thought this
 24   would be beneficial nonetheless.
 25               Your question was how many times did
00690
  1   we think that summer operation would occur in the
  2   future on average for the new rule number 4 for
  3   non-spring emergency operation.
  4               Water Stewardship has researched the
  5   records back since 1969.  So that's a period of 36
  6   years.  And based on rule number 4, the province
  7   would have operated the floodway for emergency
  8   purposes in the summer for 22 of those 36 summers.
  9               I'd also like to make some corrections
 10   regarding statements I made yesterday about
 11   raising the primary dykes temporarily for the 1 in
 12   700 year flood after the floodway is expanded.  I
 13   believe I said that, and this is from memory
 14   yesterday, that 25 kilometres required raising of
 15   the total 110 kilometres.  I'd like to be able to
 16   verify that number but we haven't seen the
 17   transcripts since we went late yesterday.
 18               I checked our analysis and the correct
 19   figure is 35 kilometres.  Of this, 10 kilometres
 20   requires raising more than 0.6 metres or 2 feet
 21   and 25 kilometres requires raising less than 0.6
 22   metres.
 23               Also, I indicated that the cost of
 24   placement and removal of the temporary clay dykes
 25   is approximately $5 million.  That is still
00691
  1   correct.  But realistically, you should be
  2   including costs of field engineering site
  3   supervision and dyke patrol.  And that would then
  4   bring the total to $7 million.
  5               One last thing.  I had indicated to
  6   the last gentleman last night that the 700 year
  7   flooded area map for north of Winnipeg was in the
  8   EIS Supplementary Filing.  In fact it's not but it
  9   is in my presentation I made to the Commission and
 10   therefore it is on the record.  Thank you.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I'd like to
 12   now ask a few questions about the inlet control
 13   structure and these questions will relate to dam
 14   safety issues.
 15               I understand that the original design
 16   notes and drawings for the inlet control structure
 17   were lost because of fire damage; is that correct?
 18               MR. CARSON:  I believe that a good
 19   number of the records were lost, not all of them.
 20   But a lot of the detailed calculations were not
 21   retrievable, yes.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So then the full
 23   design strengths of the actual constructed work
 24   can only be calculated using a conservative
 25   approach.
00692
  1               MR. CARSON:  Well, not necessarily.
  2   There are critical reports and documents like that
  3   that stated what the objective of the design was.
  4   And they date back to the early 1960s.  So
  5   certainly the objective of what was required in
  6   the design is known.  Exactly how it achieved it
  7   is not totally clear in some cases.  I'm being
  8   very general.  It depends exactly on the specifics
  9   of what you are referring to.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I have a general
 11   question.  I guess what I'm looking for or one of
 12   the things I'm looking for is the condition of the
 13   foundation under the inlet structure.  And some
 14   related questions.  Was the bedrock foundation
 15   under the inlet structure grouted in the 60's when
 16   it was built?  So start off with those.  What is
 17   the condition of the foundation under the
 18   structure?
 19               MR. SMITH:  That question regarding
 20   the foundation, there are drawings, construction
 21   drawings that indicated that the foundation was to
 22   be cleaned, you know, down to sound rock and then
 23   concrete was placed directly on that.  We have not
 24   been able to ascertain if the bedrock below that
 25   area was grouted.  That's a question I can't
00693
  1   answer at this time.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, have you done any
  3   and what kind of investigation have you done of
  4   the foundation of the structure?
  5               MR. SMITH:  Well, we haven't done
  6   drilling at either abutment immediately adjacent
  7   to the concrete structure through the fill
  8   sections down into the bedrock.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Have you been able to
 10   confirm the integrity of the bedrock supporting
 11   the structure and the adjacent earth fill
 12   embankments?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Well, we did sampling of
 14   the soils through the embankments and some lab
 15   testing on the quality of the materials and
 16   analyzed both stability and the seepage
 17   characteristics of the materials.  And we do
 18   have -- this is a report that was completed prior
 19   to the preliminary design work.  So in that
 20   report, we had concluded that I think there was
 21   phi-value of 35 degrees through the granular zone.
 22               One of the questions that we had
 23   addressed with that work was more a question of
 24   piping or seepage concern.  And the filter
 25   criteria in that instance we felt were satisfied
00694
  1   adequately.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  So you are confident
  3   that the bedrock foundation is solid?
  4               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  I'm not concerned
  5   about the stability of the bedrock at that site.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  On an ongoing basis
  7   then, is there an instrumentation program that's
  8   been planned to monitor piezometric levels in the
  9   bedrock and the embankments?
 10               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  There are
 11   piezometers that we installed in the embankments
 12   and there are some existing ones below the
 13   foundation of the structure.
 14               I should clarify, the dam safety
 15   review that was completed was done by SNC Lavalin
 16   for this work.  So I will follow up on their
 17   report if there's anything further we can add to
 18   this.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  A couple of
 20   questions about the control gates.  What is the
 21   tolerance of the operation of the control gates to
 22   a differential settlement of the control structure
 23   
 24               MR. MCMILLAN:  Dave McMillan, KGS.
 25   The structure is essentially a massive structure
00695
  1   founded on rock and there is certainly no
  2   anticipated differential settlements.  But
  3   certainly there are gaps with seals between the
  4   gates and the structure.  So one would think
  5   somewhere in the order of an 8th to a 16th
  6   somewhere, a 16th to an 18th of an inch would be
  7   tolerable in terms of those gates to differential
  8   settlement.  And there's certainly no sign that
  9   those types of settlements have occurred.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  An 8th or a 16th of an
 11   inch doesn't sound like very much.
 12               MR. MCMILLAN:  But given that you
 13   build these structures on rock and really, the
 14   last thing that is installed is the gates that, if
 15   there were any settlements that were going to
 16   occur, they would have occurred essentially before
 17   the gates were installed.  So you'd be looking at
 18   differential settlements that would occur in time
 19   after the installation of the gates.  So for a
 20   structure of that magnitude, those types of
 21   settlements would really not be anticipated.  And
 22   that's probably a conservative estimate of the
 23   tolerable settlements.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, I understand that
 25   the original design criteria for maximum water
00696
  1   level was based on a contingency situation while
  2   the proposed maximum water level for the expanded
  3   floodway is based on a normal operating condition.
  4   So what would be the effect on risk to the
  5   structure if a contingency occurs during the
  6   rising limb of the hydrograph?
  7               MR. MCMILLAN:  The risk to the
  8   structure in terms of stability.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  The water level.
 10               MR. MCMILLAN:  Probably Rick is the
 11   best one to answer that in terms of water levels.
 12   Mr. Carson.
 13               MR. CARSON:  The original design was
 14   based on a maximum water level of 778 feet above
 15   sea level and the operation was to follow -- I'm
 16   not sure that they had broken it down into rule 1,
 17   rule 2, rule 3 specifically at that time.  But
 18   that was really the spirit of the design of the
 19   gate so that the operation would follow first rule
 20   1 and then if the flood is large enough, it would
 21   get up into rule 2 and the water level would rise.
 22   And if there were problems that arose, let's say
 23   in rule 1, there was the ability to go above rule
 24   1 and have a let's say an early application of
 25   rule 2 and going above state of nature.  And that
00697
  1   was considered I guess as a contingency.
  2               That contingency still exists with the
  3   expanded floodway.  The structure is no different,
  4   the operation will follow the same curves.  So in
  5   some respects, I would say the contingency still
  6   exists.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I noted in
  8   reading the materials that there was some
  9   discussion around the issue of gate redundancy.
 10   Can you tell me how that is going to be resolved
 11   or what the position will be in respect of gate
 12   redundancy?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes.  The plan which is
 14   included in the pre-design report and which was
 15   assessed under the EIS is to have backup systems
 16   for the existing gates.  So there will be
 17   redundancy in the systems that operate those
 18   existing gates.  Through the dam safety analysis,
 19   that was confirmed.  And also it was confirmed
 20   that through the dam safety analysis, should
 21   fine-tune some other design components outside of
 22   the inlet control structure related to the backup
 23   of the whole system and the reliability and
 24   redundancy of the whole system.  And that means
 25   inlet control structure, the west embankment of
00698
  1   the East Dyke and the West Dyke.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  So what will be done in
  3   that regard or is that yet to come?
  4               MR. MCMILLAN:  Basically in their
  5   assessment, dam safety assessment, they looked at
  6   increasing the level of redundancy of a number of
  7   the systems that operate the gates and looking at
  8   upgrading some of the systems that may make the
  9   gates vulnerable in the future.  So there is
 10   looking at the hydraulic system that operates the
 11   gates, adding more redundant features to those.
 12               One of the concerns with the gates is
 13   that -- the biggest concern, if the gates were
 14   actually, when they were in operation, were to
 15   fail down, and one of the things that SNC had
 16   recommended would be to adding some level of
 17   buoyancy to the gate system so that you could
 18   resist that downward motion with a buoyant chamber
 19   within the gates.  So that's under consideration
 20   for final design.  And just a number of other
 21   redundant systems in the electrical/mechanical
 22   systems that operate the gates.  So those are all
 23   systems that are being pursued at the final design
 24   stage.
 25               MR. CARSON:  Excuse me, Mr. Chair,
00699
  1   could I add to the answer that I gave with respect
  2   to contingency?
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.
  4               MR. CARSON:  I just thought of it as
  5   Dave was speaking there.  There is another aspect
  6   with respect to the West Dyke.  The original
  7   design envisioned the water level possibly rising
  8   as high as 778 feet and the inlet structure wasn't
  9   fully designed for that, but the West Dyke had
 10   only nominal free board at that condition.  In
 11   other words, just a nominal amount of difference
 12   in elevation between the crest of the West Dyke
 13   and this maximum water level of 778 feet.
 14               Now as part of the project, we are
 15   proposing to raise the crest of the West Dyke and
 16   increase that free board to provide additional
 17   contingency against wind and wave effects.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I
 19   understand that the original design assumed a one
 20   gate stuck up for one in a thousand year flood.
 21   But the present design does not have a similar
 22   what-if approach; is that correct?
 23               MR. CARSON:  The original design,
 24   could you repeat that, the original design assumed
 25   what?
00700
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Assumed a one gate
  2   stuck up for a one in a thousand year flood
  3   contingency.
  4               MR. CARSON:  I'm not familiar with
  5   that criterion.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Well, we can
  7   come back to that if we need to.  We can perhaps
  8   get some more information and ask it again.
  9               I think a final question on this area.
 10   Will there be an emergency preparedness plan
 11   completed including a worst case dam breach study?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, we'll be working in
 13   the near future with Manitoba EMO first to look at
 14   the evacuation of the city.  One of the concerns
 15   that came out of the dam safety workshop or review
 16   was that the city is really at risk between a 75
 17   year and the 700 year flood with the expanded
 18   floodway.  And so we need to finalize emergency
 19   evacuation plans and that builds into the
 20   emergency preparedness plan.  And it's all part of
 21   looking at the security of the system.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  The Canadian Dam
 23   Association guidelines suggested that be in place
 24   two years after the completion of construction.
 25   Do you anticipate this?
00701
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  I expect that we'll be
  2   completing that before we finish construction.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Just a
  4   moment.  Mr. Webster is going to lead some
  5   questions on groundwater issues.
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  7   I wanted to ask some specific questions further
  8   about the inlet structure.  The first question is
  9   looking at the condition of the material under the
 10   inlet structure and comparing it with the
 11   condition of the material under the outlet
 12   structure, what's the difference in the anthology
 13   of that ordovician material between the inlet and
 14   outlet structure?  Are we looking at the same kind
 15   of material as the foundation?
 16               MR. SMITH:  I understand you're
 17   wondering about the difference in the quality of
 18   the bedrock underneath the two concrete
 19   structures?
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  That's right.
 21               MR. SMITH:  I know at the outlet
 22   structure, the drilling and coring that was done
 23   there, the bedrock quality is very good, very low
 24   number of fractures, so limited seepage potential.
 25               I'm just trying to -- I'm not sure
00702
  1   that I can make a direct reference to the inlet
  2   quality.  I might have to get back to you on that
  3   question.  I'd like to just follow up on that.
  4   But I'm not aware of any significant difference in
  5   the rock quality at the inlet structure.
  6               Again, as indicated, the construction
  7   drawings for the inlet were to prepare the surface
  8   down to sound rock which would mean any weathered
  9   rock would be removed, any poor quality zones
 10   would be cleaned out and normally they would put
 11   in a slush concrete infill.
 12               At the inlet structure at the time of
 13   construction, they had to build a coffer-dam in
 14   the river and the river bottom had a lot of
 15   granular zones, alluvial materials in the river
 16   bottom.  So they had seepage problems there
 17   resulted in grouting of that area as well as
 18   pumping to control the groundwater.  So there was
 19   a lot of grouting done at that time to control
 20   that seepage.
 21               At the outlet structure, there was a
 22   limited amount of seepage, very little inflow
 23   during construction.  And of course, it was built
 24   on the bank of the river.  It wasn't in the river
 25   bottom so there was a bit of a difference there in
00703
  1   the construction.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  The reason I'm asking
  3   this question is I understand that some of the
  4   drill holes at the outlet structure, and those
  5   were holes A03 - 9501, 9503 and 9504 showed vuggy
  6   dolomitic limestone, broken core zones and loss of
  7   drilling fluids.
  8               MR. SMITH:  At the outlet structure?
  9               MR. WEBSTER:  At the outlet structure.
 10   Now my understanding then is, the question I guess
 11   is, is the limestone foundation at the inlet
 12   structure, I mean it's some distance away, but is
 13   that limestone structure there similar?  I mean
 14   you've given some indication that you would have
 15   expected that they would have taken out any
 16   unsound material.  But we've been led to believe
 17   also that there may be clay lenses in that
 18   limestone under the inlet structure.  And I
 19   wondered if you could answer the question or the
 20   general nature of the question that I'm presenting
 21   to you as to the soundness of that material under
 22   the inlet structure?
 23               MR. SMITH:  Mr. McMillan just
 24   indicated that again, just to draw your attention
 25   to the dam safety review report, Appendix "C",
00704
  1   that they hadn't identified any concerns regarding
  2   the foundation of the bedrock as such.  I'm not
  3   aware of any major clay seams in that area that
  4   would be problematic for the stability of the
  5   structure.  But I'd like to, again I'll review
  6   that and I'd like to get back to you on that
  7   point.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  I'd like to ask
  9   you further, there is a statement in the IR number
 10   11(c) for the Commission.  Defining the hydraulic
 11   gradient through that bedrock as being 0.03 metres
 12   per metre.  Is that correct?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Yes.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  It's the right units?
 15   Now, the question I have is which monitoring and
 16   observation wells and intervals were used to
 17   define that hydraulic gradient?  And this is
 18   through the bedrock.
 19               MR. SMITH:  Just to clarify, that was
 20   IR --
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  11(c) from the
 22   Commission.
 23               MR. SMITH:  I believe that gradient
 24   was calculated based on the head differential for
 25   a flood event.  Like under normal conditions,
00705
  1   there will be no gradient in the river bottom
  2   across the structure.  There would be equal heads
  3   or equal surface water levels on upstream and
  4   downstream.
  5               So what I had looked at there was for
  6   a flood event, taking the upstream water surface,
  7   comparing that and the difference to the
  8   downstream tail water level across the length of
  9   the structure and calculating a gradient on that
 10   basis.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  One of the concerns I
 12   guess with respect to a limestone foundation is
 13   that it brings to mind what happens to limestone
 14   under the right kind of chemistry and water
 15   movement and that you can get voids such as we see
 16   in the Interlake in that limestone structure.  And
 17   I guess the questions that I am asking have to do
 18   with the possibility of essentially erosion or
 19   dissolution of that rock structure creating voids
 20   that would destroy the integrity of the rock
 21   foundation under the inlet structure.  I wondered
 22   if you had looked at that at all, if you have some
 23   evaluation of that possibility?
 24               MR. SMITH:  That was considered
 25   although usually those -- the formation of the
00706
  1   solution channels in limestone is a very very
  2   long-term event.  And certainly under the life of
  3   the structure, I wouldn't anticipate any large
  4   amount of solutioning to have occurred,
  5   particularly under these low gradients and
  6   short-term events.  So it wasn't a concern.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  I agree.  And I guess in
  8   terms of probabilities, this is a reasonable
  9   assumption.  On the other hand, is it not
 10   relatively straightforward to run some drill holes
 11   and essentially evaluate whether that's true?
 12               MR. SMITH:  Yes, that could be done.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  And that's not been done
 14   to date?
 15               MR. SMITH:  To verify the current
 16   integrity of the limestone under the structure?
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  Exactly.
 18               MR. SMITH:  No, we haven't drilled any
 19   holes through the structure.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  And those drill holes
 21   could come either from above or at an angle from
 22   the banks and so forth.  So it's a relatively
 23   straightforward thing to do?
 24               MR. SMITH:  Yes, it could be done.
 25               MR. WEBSTER:  I'd like to turn now to
00707
  1   the groundwater question and move somewhere some
  2   distance along the project to the area where
  3   groundwater is of particular concern.  I guess
  4   I'll start off by asking could you provide more
  5   details regarding the proposed monitoring network;
  6   that is the monitoring wells that you're using,
  7   the distance from the floodways and the aquifers
  8   that are actually either being monitored or
  9   planned to be monitored?
 10               MR. MORGAN:  I'll ask Mr. Smith.
 11   Maybe he can give more detail on that.  We're
 12   looking for Appendix "M" which is a large binder
 13   on all the existing baseline monitoring.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  I have Appendix "M" here
 15   and you're going to put the drawing on the --
 16               MR. MORGAN:  He's looking.
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay, good.  Can you
 18   refer me to the section while you're preparing to
 19   display it?
 20               MR. REMPEL:  We're looking for drawing
 21   251H002G.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  And that's in which
 23   annex, please?
 24               MR. REMPEL:  "M" as in Mary.
 25               MR. MORGAN:  In the drawings tab.
00708
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  That's binder "M".
  2               MR. MORGAN:  Binder "M" and in the
  3   drawings tab.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  There are annex sections
  5   here in binder "M".
  6               MR. REMPEL:  There's a section that
  7   says "Drawings" and that's the section you'll find
  8   this particular --
  9               MR. WEBSTER:  I have it open.  I'm
 10   sorry, you are correct.  I had it open at that
 11   section.  Go ahead.
 12               MR. REMPEL:  Right after the text,
 13   there should be a "Drawings" section.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  Indeed there is.  Thank
 15   you.
 16               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, this is from
 17   our preliminary engineering report, Appendix "M",
 18   drawing 251H002.  This shows the northern half of
 19   the project.  So the floodway -- just coming up
 20   through here, this is the outlet structure and
 21   this is the area I understand of prime interest.
 22   And this shows the provincial well monitoring
 23   network immediately along the floodway.  A lot of
 24   the wells are directly in the right of way.  There
 25   are additional wells further out.  And in fact,
00709
  1   within the study area, there is a significant
  2   number of monitoring points.
  3               Just to be clear, between the Highway
  4   59 north and the outlet structure, so within this
  5   region here, we have a total of 38 monitoring
  6   wells on the west side of the floodway.  And that
  7   would include 18 in bedrock and 20 in the
  8   overburden.
  9               And so from the pre-construction date,
 10   a lot of these wells had been monitored on a
 11   continuous basis.  So there is a continuous water
 12   level record.  And there's also been water quality
 13   monitoring at some of these wells over that period
 14   of record.  And in particular during flood events,
 15   there has been, with this continuous record, some
 16   excellent databases that had been obtained.
 17               Now in addition to that provincial
 18   system, we have gone in and installed additional
 19   monitoring wells at areas of interest.  For
 20   example, we picked four representative sections
 21   along the floodway, one at the CPR Keewatin
 22   Bridge, which is right near the base here, a
 23   second set at the Oasis Springhill area, Highway
 24   59, another set at Dunning Road and another set up
 25   near the outlet structure.  And the drilling here
00710
  1   was to put both wells down into the bedrock, into
  2   the till and into the clay and do a very rigorous
  3   monitoring program.
  4               Those sections were used as a basis
  5   for a lot of our studies where we did ultimately
  6   do detailed groundwater modelling to predict the
  7   influence of flood events and in fact had some
  8   good data to base that on because those also
  9   included provincial wells with the long-term
 10   monitoring.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  Are those wells capable
 12   of sampling with integrity at several levels
 13   within one well?
 14               MR. SMITH:  Well, there were separate
 15   installations.  To ensure the integrity, we'd have
 16   a separate well in the till and a different well
 17   down into the bedrock.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  That's what I was
 19   thinking.  So 38 wells overall?
 20               MR. SMITH:  Well, that's 38 wells just
 21   on the west side of the floodway.  Now some of
 22   those are the historical wells and some are the
 23   more recent ones that we've installed.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  Are you sampling then
 25   the upper and lower aquifers?  I gather that's an
00711
  1   accurate description of the situation there?
  2   Correct me if I'm wrong.
  3               MR. SMITH:  Well, we're sampling the
  4   till and the bedrock.  Is that what you meant by
  5   upper and lower --
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  Well, I understand at
  7   least in some of that area that there is an
  8   aquifer above the bedrock that is being used for
  9   some of the wells and some wells go deeper into
 10   the bedrock.
 11               MR. SMITH:  Well, the Birds Hill area
 12   has that upper sand and gravel aquifer.  That's a
 13   separate system.  And we do have some wells that
 14   are sampling the upper water quality there, yes.
 15               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  I guess you were
 16   telling us that there were 35 wells.  So is there
 17   a higher number of wells that you're sampling
 18   from?
 19               MR. SMITH:  We sampled a total of 20
 20   wells, not all of the wells there.  I was going to
 21   say we selected wells to try to be representative
 22   along the length of the floodway.
 23               Now those are all -- the provincial
 24   wells are the ones that we installed as part of
 25   the program.  Separate to that, there's domestic
00712
  1   wells and we sampled a total of 25 domestic wells.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  Now, domestic wells
  3   though are another kettle of fish, aren't they?
  4               MR. SMITH:  Yes.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  Sampling wells are
  6   designed with some integrity so that you can be
  7   confident that the water you are sampling is
  8   coming from the level that you've got the well to?
  9               MR. SMITH:  That is correct.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  Have you examined the
 11   domestic well you used from which you have taken
 12   samples to see whether in fact they are
 13   constructed properly to avoid surface
 14   contamination?
 15               MR. SMITH:  No.  The domestic wells
 16   are typically sealed at surface and you don't have
 17   ready access to them.  It will be a fairly major
 18   effort to expose those wells.  And typically, the
 19   home-owners, it's not something that is easily
 20   done.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  I don't follow what
 22   you're saying.
 23               MR. SMITH:  Well, our monitoring wells
 24   at surface, we have a steel casing with a lockable
 25   cap.  And just by removing that cap, you have
00713
  1   direct access to the well.
  2               For domestic wells, for part of it is
  3   for their integrity of their domestic supply and
  4   to avoid contamination, they are sealed.  So the
  5   pump in the system is totally sealed.  There is no
  6   ready access to be able to get down into the well
  7   if you will.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  So assuming the well is
  9   constructed properly and is delivering water to
 10   the domestic residents, the user, surely that's
 11   where you're taking the water from?
 12               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  The water is usually
 13   taken what we refer to as raw water before any
 14   treatment at the residence and the tap will be run
 15   to flush the system out prior to taking the
 16   samples.
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  So the fact that the
 18   well itself is sealed is no particular problem
 19   because there's still an access.
 20               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.  However,
 21   as you indicated, the integrity of the
 22   installation of the well is something that isn't
 23   readily apparent at the time of drilling whether
 24   or not the well was grouted if there's any surface
 25   interconnection, you know, below the ground.
00714
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  I guess where I'm
  2   going with this particular line of questioning is
  3   I'm wondering with the number of wells you're
  4   talking about, whether you have sufficient
  5   monitoring wells to be able to deal with the
  6   issues at hand to do with possible -- first of
  7   all, let's take this carefully.  Have you
  8   sufficient wells to deal with the water levels
  9   issues that had been brought up in the course of
 10   talking about the effects of the floodway, of the
 11   expanded floodway?
 12               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  I believe the water
 13   level coverage is good.  There are some select
 14   areas, local special concern areas that we do
 15   intend to install additional monitoring wells.
 16   For example, during the construction dewatering
 17   around some of the bridges or the aquaduct, it's
 18   very likely we want to put in some additional
 19   wells.  If there's a need for any construction
 20   pumping dewatering, that we want to be able to
 21   monitor closely the influence from that activity.
 22   So we do have funds available for that.  And
 23   that's part of a program that's been identified to
 24   be completed prior to construction with the
 25   ultimate review and permiting from Water Rights
00715
  1   Department.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  Let me just take it a
  3   little further before I go on to the other topics
  4   to do with water quality.  One of the challenges
  5   that I guess is coming, because of the fact that
  6   the expansion of the floodway may lead to enhanced
  7   loss of groundwater through seepage and because of
  8   the fact that people near the floodway want to
  9   extract more water for domestic use, how does your
 10   network of wells allow you to distinguish between
 11   the groundwater loss from seepage to the floodway,
 12   which is floodway responsibility, and groundwater
 13   usage which draws it down, the same water, for
 14   domestic purposes?
 15               MR. SMITH:  That's not an easy thing
 16   to do.  I'll just indicate on the east side of the
 17   floodway, the recharge that is occurring is
 18   available to developers in well systems prior to
 19   reaching the floodway.  So that water can be
 20   captured.
 21               Now west of the floodway, certainly
 22   there is -- some of the water that's discharged to
 23   the floodway is no longer available to those
 24   owners, in terms of separating out the two, I
 25   guess we have an existing piezometric level based
00716
  1   on the current floodway system and the regional
  2   use.  And in reality, you have an ongoing
  3   development issue here where they are probably
  4   reaching, in some areas they have reached, limits
  5   of the capacity of the aquifer.
  6               And the province has recently come out
  7   and indicated they are going to do a detailed
  8   regional water management study and that would be
  9   really part of that program, to evaluate not only
 10   the influence of the floodway but of all the other
 11   groundwater users in the area.  And that's, you
 12   know, an important study to be taken.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  So you would -- sorry.
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  Could I just,
 15   Dr. Webster, just add that what Mr. Smith is
 16   talking about is Minister Ashton, minister
 17   responsible for Water Stewardship, had indicated
 18   in a letter to the municipalities east and north
 19   of the floodway that Manitoba Water Stewardship
 20   will undertake this regional groundwater study
 21   over the next couple of years.
 22               MR. MORGAN:  Could I just clarify too.
 23   We're talking about a lot of the baseline
 24   conditions and I wasn't sure one of your questions
 25   there is we don't expect more leakage.  As we
00717
  1   showed yesterday the areas where we expected there
  2   will be seals, we don't expect more leakage from
  3   this project.  However there will be monitoring, I
  4   guess as you are discussing, to confirm this.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  I guess the questions
  6   I'm raising have to do with the perception that
  7   the floodway itself may be responsible for water
  8   loss.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Currently.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  But in the future after
 11   you have expanded the floodway and the water level
 12   goes down in the associated aquifers --
 13               MR. MORGAN:  We don't expect -- we
 14   don't expect any deepening.  We don't expect the
 15   water level to go down.
 16               MR. WEBSTER:  But how are you going to
 17   show that in fact the floodway is not responsible
 18   for lowering of the water in the aquifers when in
 19   fact you're telling us that you don't expect it to
 20   go down?  Supposing it goes down?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Okay.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  How do you say to the
 23   folks around about we didn't do it.  It was you
 24   folks using more water than you should have done.
 25   How are you going to show that?
00718
  1               MR. MORGAN:  I guess that's what the
  2   regional modelling study should assist with and
  3   also there should be monitoring and, you know, how
  4   people are using water.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  Isn't it in your
  6   interest to make sure that that's done properly
  7   and not waiting for some other study to happen
  8   that may or may not happen?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  We will be working in
 10   conjunction with Water Stewardship and we've built
 11   on the existing data that they've had, the
 12   monitoring data all these years since the original
 13   floodway was constructed.  And we're going to do
 14   more monitoring for the reasons that Mr. Smith
 15   indicated and we'll be working closely with water
 16   stewardship.  But they are taking the lead role in
 17   that regional study as they should.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  I guess I'm not
 19   questioning who should do what, I'm questioning
 20   whether in fact the thing is going to be done
 21   quickly enough to protect the Floodway Authority
 22   from difficulties that may arise from people
 23   saying, you know, it's your fault that the water
 24   level went down.
 25               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, we are
00719
  1   measuring the base flow along the channel to
  2   establish what the current discharge rates are.
  3   And you have to appreciate that it does vary from
  4   year to year in a dry year versus a wet year.  And
  5   it is a difficult thing to achieve.  You have to
  6   measure that base flow when there's absolutely no
  7   other surface water coming into the system.  So in
  8   fact, we are out there right now doing the
  9   measurements.  We have installed weirs at several
 10   locations along the channel and we'll be obtaining
 11   data.  And we did that last year as well to obtain
 12   some base flow measurements.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  So I guess going back to
 14   my earlier question, do you have sufficient wells
 15   to be able to do that job properly?
 16               MR. SMITH:  Wells to measure the water
 17   level?  Again, we will be installing some.  I
 18   stopped a little short there.  I had indicated we
 19   were installing some wells for construction
 20   dewatering.  There will be some additional wells
 21   also for the water level monitoring.  You never
 22   have enough wells.  There's always going to be a
 23   local condition that you have to address.  So
 24   there is a contingency fund that if issues come
 25   up, to address those, you know, on an as-required
00720
  1   basis.
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  Dr. Webster, I'd just
  3   like to add that the Manitoba Floodway Authority
  4   is certainly an interested stakeholder in this
  5   whole groundwater business.  And we don't want to
  6   add to the leakage that's there now with the
  7   expansion of this project.  And we're very much
  8   pleased with Water Stewardship's initiative in
  9   this groundwater study.  As I said, we'll be
 10   cooperating with them and sharing our data with
 11   them and working with them.  And they have
 12   indicated that they will be doing this over the
 13   next couple of years.  So that's good news.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  I agree that it's good
 15   news.  I would suggest that I'd want a few
 16   guarantees from them that the work is going to be
 17   done in a timely fashion so the responsibility
 18   that you folks bear is definable.
 19               Let me go further then to the
 20   monitoring of the system that's required for water
 21   quality, what information will be used to assess
 22   potential claims regarding bacteriological and/or
 23   chemical impact on residential water wells.  Let's
 24   separate those, let's talk about bacteriological
 25   questions, because that has been one of the issues
00721
  1   that the municipalities in the area have brought
  2   up.  So what information will be used to assess
  3   potential claims regarding bacteriological
  4   contamination of the water resource that those
  5   folks are using for domestic water by tapping into
  6   the aquifer or aquifers that are adjacent to the
  7   floodway.
  8               MR. MORGAN:  I'll just start and then
  9   pass it over to Mr. Smith for the details.  But I
 10   just want to make it clear that in the EIS we do
 11   talk about surface water conditions as described
 12   in engineering reports, and about the regional and
 13   local models they've done at certain points.
 14   Mr. Smith talked about four points north of, in
 15   the north part of the floodway.  And those models
 16   were calibrated to the local data and groundwater
 17   in the area, and that model actually does help you
 18   understand things like which way is the
 19   groundwater flowing.  Like it's flowing from Birds
 20   Hill, as we showed yesterday, west.  So the
 21   direction of flow tells you where the potential
 22   contamination would come from.
 23               The direction of flow, as based by a
 24   different monitor -- I don't know if there is any
 25   more details you want to add?
00722
  1               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, we'd like to
  2   have two additional witnesses added to our team
  3   who can address some of those points.
  4               MR. MORGAN:  We have a couple of
  5   hydrogeologists from KGS who worked very closely
  6   on the details on a lot of the development of the
  7   wells and the monitoring that we could swear in to
  8   answer some of these detailed questions.
  9               MR. SMITH:  And they are Dr. Rob
 10   Sinclair and Marcie Friedman.
 11               ROBERT SINCLAIR:  SWORN
 12               MARCIA FRIEDMAN:  SWORN
 13               MR. SINCLAIR:  Maybe just give me
 14   another shot at the question, just repeat it so I
 15   can answer it?
 16               MR. WEBSTER:  This is the general
 17   question and I want to go into more specifics in a
 18   minute.  What information will be used to assess
 19   potential claims regarding bacteriological
 20   contamination of the water source which people are
 21   tapping into with their wells?
 22               MR. SINCLAIR:  This is a complex
 23   question.  In Manitoba at any given time there is
 24   a lot of wells that are let's say 25, 30 per cent
 25   are contaminated at any given time, there is a lot
00723
  1   of interference from the septic fields, et cetera,
  2   that can complicate the issue.  But I think what
  3   we're looking at for this is certainly there will
  4   be a more complete background check of all wells
  5   in the area.  There may be some additional
  6   surveillance wells put in so that we can test not
  7   only quality and -- well, quality in terms of
  8   chemical and microbiological characteristics
  9   closer to the floodway, but we definitely are
 10   going to look at additional testing away from the
 11   floodway and into the domestic well areas.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  So do you have any
 13   background data at the moment?
 14               MR. SINCLAIR:  We don't.
 15   Historically, though, there has not been any
 16   complaints, over the 35 years of operation we have
 17   no complaints of water quality concerns regarding
 18   the floodway operation.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  Not too far to the east
 20   of the floodway is an area that was under a boil
 21   water advisory for years.  That probably is not
 22   affected by the floodway, but, I mean, this kind
 23   of thing is --
 24               MR. SINCLAIR:  We will have to deal
 25   with some of those issues and just look into them.
00724
  1   As I say, there will be more testing done to
  2   evaluate that sort of concern.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  Let's get specific
  4   because, yes, that's obviously what you have to
  5   do.  But the kinds of difficulties that the
  6   floodway is likely to create are associated with
  7   an event that is a flood event, which is a
  8   short-term sort of a thing.  Other than the kinds
  9   of things that were implied in comments that were
 10   made before the hearing itself actually started
 11   back on Monday, when people intimated that there
 12   was raw sewage going into the floodway at a couple
 13   of points on a more or less constant basis.  I'm
 14   not sure if you want to address, first of all,
 15   whether in fact there is sewage going into the
 16   floodway in its resting state?  Maybe we should
 17   establish that first.
 18               MR. MORGAN:  I'll just start with this
 19   and some of the details can be discussed by the
 20   KGS team.
 21               This concern of, what's called a
 22   surface water intrusion concern.  I was one of the
 23   people taken on the tour by Mr. Jonasson in which
 24   he did talk about the different concerns in the
 25   area with septic fields, as well as the floodway
00725
  1   and the discharge of the lagoon into the floodway.
  2   And we do note in our EIS that the floodway does
  3   accept wastewater, although it's to be treated,
  4   it's not the floodway's responsibility to ensure
  5   that, it's Manitoba Conservation's, and they have
  6   licences, as well as land drainage, which should
  7   be containing land drainage, not sewage.  So all
  8   that's acknowledged.  And we took that very
  9   seriously, and the KGS team also did.  They went
 10   and did additional modelling, as he talked about
 11   earlier, at key locations along the floodway,
 12   north by the floodway.  One is at the Keewatin
 13   bridge, two are on the Springhill area, and one at
 14   the Dunning Road, near where that lagoon discharge
 15   goes.
 16               Those modelling studies are described
 17   for the existing condition in the EIS under the
 18   surface water intrusion subtitle there, and then
 19   what would be the effect of the expansion, would
 20   it change anything in terms of the surface water
 21   intrusion?  And there's quite a lot of detail in
 22   appendix P -- well, it's a small report which is
 23   based on all the data in appendix M to calibrate
 24   it, and it's quite an easy read with some pictures
 25   explaining how the modelling is done.  As I said,
00726
  1   the models were calibrated, they did a lot of --
  2   and this is easily reviewable in the reports.  I'm
  3   not part of the team that did this analysis.  I
  4   reviewed the reports for the EIS.
  5               The calibration was done by looking at
  6   what is actually the materials in the area with
  7   core samples.  It's also done by -- as Mr. Smith
  8   said earlier, there's a very good record of flow
  9   water levels for the wells that are adjacent to
 10   the floodway, and from that, during the flood they
 11   could calibrate saying their model could tell
 12   what -- could simulate what's happening during the
 13   flood in terms of water levels and flow.  So that
 14   model was then used to determine what would happen
 15   during a flood as surface water does intrude,
 16   we're not saying it doesn't, but the rate of
 17   intrusion is -- well, it's detailed in that
 18   report.  I don't know if we have -- we have some
 19   pictures and examples that they could get into
 20   details and talk about it, and I could too.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  Basically, before we got
 22   into that, I wanted to establish how you could
 23   tell that the floodway itself was uncontaminated
 24   before any kind of flood event came along?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  We do not assume that it
00727
  1   is uncontaminated.  That is the essence of doing
  2   that modelling.  Any surface water runoff drainage
  3   could have some bacteria in it, it's not going to
  4   have zero fecal coliforms.  The idea is, the thing
  5   that was checked is, is the intrusion rates as it
  6   goes through, it is kind of filtered through the
  7   silty tills, is it at a slow enough rate that it
  8   is not expected to cause any problems?  And is the
  9   expansion not expected to cause any significant
 10   effect in water quality?  And that is the
 11   assessment, this is the information we use to make
 12   the assessment.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  Let's take this step
 14   wise.  Is there in fact infiltration, in the
 15   resting state of the floodway, is there
 16   infiltration from the channel into the
 17   groundwater, or is it the other way?
 18               MR. MORGAN:  It is the other way.
 19   That is the concern, obviously, is they are losing
 20   water from the, or not -- the existing aquifers,
 21   as we showed yesterday in the figures, up well
 22   into, they seep up into the floodway at a certain
 23   location so that the low flow channel is being fed
 24   by the floodway, not the other way around -- or
 25   from the springs, not the other way around.
00728
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  So while there's no
  2   desire for the floodway to carry contaminated
  3   water in its resting state, if it is there, the
  4   likelihood of it contaminating the aquifer is low;
  5   is that correct?
  6               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  Now, if we get into the
  8   flood situation, which is an unusual but
  9   nevertheless an important situation, then the head
 10   that's there controlling whether things infiltrate
 11   or not changes substantially.  And I think, as you
 12   say, there are some diagrams that show that, or I
 13   suppose they are models that show what could
 14   happen at various stages, various conditions of
 15   material under the channel.  Can you produce those
 16   for us?
 17               MR. MORGAN:  I can produce a couple of
 18   examples, and maybe then you can pull up the
 19   reports.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  As I recall, there's an
 21   indication of the likely extent of infiltration,
 22   the likely time it will take for that to restore
 23   itself because of the groundwater movement; am I
 24   correct?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.  Appendix P, and
00729
  1   it's summarized in the EIS, talks about the
  2   surface water intrusion modelling done at these
  3   four locations.  And I'll talk about that a little
  4   bit more in detail, because there is two things
  5   that were looked at.  One is the likely case, the
  6   calibrated case in which all the data fits.
  7               And then beyond that what modelers
  8   like to do is a sensitivity analysis.  In the
  9   sensitivity analysis you assume things are much
 10   different than reality, but much worse -- you
 11   could assume better or worse, usually it is much
 12   worse, so you can understand where should you be
 13   doing your monitoring to take care of these
 14   unanticipated events.  So you do the sensitivity
 15   analysis.
 16               What you do is assume that instead of
 17   say a silty till that there is sand, and if there
 18   is sand there instead of the silty till, how fast
 19   would it go down in towards the aquifer?
 20               All that analysis was done, which gave
 21   us a lot of comfort that they didn't, you know,
 22   they didn't try and just look at the expected case
 23   but wanted to look at what would be the
 24   unanticipated events so that they could better
 25   plan the monitoring network for the future.
00730
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  While we're waiting for
  2   that to come up on the screen, I wonder if you
  3   could address the issue, maybe we can address it
  4   as we go.  If you're ready, go ahead, we'll come
  5   back to that in a minute.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  Just to start where we
  7   were yesterday, because then it is easier to look
  8   at the map, this is the general, general flows
  9   coming from -- this is the map of the area and
 10   that's the floodway here, and this is Birds Hill,
 11   and the flow is going generally from east to west.
 12               Next -- then I just zoom in to show
 13   you where they did the -- I just zoomed in.  So
 14   this is the Birds Hill area.  They did additional
 15   localized, what is called contaminant transfer
 16   model, to see how things flow from the, or
 17   potentially could flow during a flood from four
 18   locations.  I have the general locations here.
 19   One is CPR -- there is two right around this area,
 20   we talked yesterday about Springhill, one at Oasis
 21   Road and one at Springhill.  And then at Dunning
 22   Road, this is the location where that lagoon
 23   discharge goes in around there.  So these four
 24   locations were studied in more detail.  And I just
 25   have a couple of examples that we had out of the
00731
  1   EIS.
  2               Next, this is in general, as I said in
  3   general the flow is from the Birds Hill aquifer
  4   down into the carbonate aquifer, and there's up,
  5   typically there's upwelling when there's not a
  6   flood.  When there's a flood, it can get to a
  7   level which is higher than the groundwater in some
  8   areas, but not higher than the East St. Paul
  9   wells.  Those are up quite high and they are well
 10   above even the flood level, so there's no
 11   potential to travel that way during the flood.
 12               Next slide.  Okay.  Yeah, those are
 13   out of the EIS figures from yesterday, I'm trying
 14   to remember what they are.  Yeah, figure 5.43,
 15   figure 5.41 for the map, general map, and then I
 16   focused in on the areas where the modelling was.
 17               Okay.  This is a cross section at
 18   Dunning Road from the KGS report, appendix P.
 19   It's also in the EIS figure 5.4-8.  What this
 20   shows is the expected situation and the effect of
 21   the project.  I'll go through these two.  This is
 22   the flood level for '97, so this is at the peak of
 23   the flood.  What they did was model the flood as
 24   it goes through the floodway, and they calibrated
 25   this.  There is wells located here.  I won't get
00732
  1   into the details of where all of the wells are,
  2   KGS can do that, but there is wells located and I
  3   think I had one sample out of there that shows
  4   what a calibration is.
  5               So what they do is they take samples
  6   of materials in this area, core samples, this is a
  7   silty till, the carbonate aquifer is down below
  8   here.  There is some other clay on these other
  9   sides.  And this area after the flood, this sort
 10   of yellowish area had intruded into the till as
 11   far as that, which is about a metre, a bit more
 12   than a metre.  This is what the expected case is.
 13               This water then, after the flood, the
 14   normal upwelling seepage from the carbonate
 15   aquifer upward into the floodway occurs, and
 16   within a year this is all recaptured.
 17               By widening the floodway, that's the
 18   dashed lines in the red here, you don't cause any
 19   greater vertical intrusion.  This is one of the
 20   other benefits of not deepening.  If deepening, of
 21   course, we would be moving, taking some over and
 22   moving a little closer towards the carbonate
 23   aquifer. By widening we don't cause any more
 24   vertical intrusion, just a bit more on the sides
 25   here.
00733
  1               I just wanted to talk a little bit
  2   more about the calibration.  Next slide is that.
  3   This is a little blurred, but this is out of the
  4   appendix P -- appendix P, annex B I think, figure
  5   B-3, annex B of the appendix 3 report.  What this
  6   basically shows is what calibration is, in one
  7   sense, and then the groundwater flows.  And this
  8   shows that what they do is, during the period of
  9   the flood, so you have records of water levels at
 10   these wells near this location and they -- okay, I
 11   just read this, this morning, but this is -- what
 12   they have shown is well data, and then they show
 13   the model superimposed on top of that.  And it's
 14   very, very close in each location here.  There is
 15   a little bit of a separation between what is
 16   predicted from the model and what was monitored
 17   during the time.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  So behind the big red
 19   hump line there, which is made up of a series of
 20   points, is that right?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  There is a blue model
 23   line that sort of peeks over the top there?
 24               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
 25               MR. WEBSTER:  It's a little difficult
00734
  1   to see that.
  2               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, it is a little bit
  3   difficult to see it there.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  In fact, it coincides so
  5   closely.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  This one is a little bit,
  7   this one they separate slightly here, there's
  8   little round circles and there is bigger sort of
  9   diamonds, and that is the separation of -- you
 10   know, that's a very accurate, very close
 11   calibration, very tight calibration.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  So, in fact, your model
 13   in this case produces some results that we can
 14   have some confidence in?
 15               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, the KGS model.  I
 16   said I have reviewed it, they did the modelling
 17   and I reviewed it.  And this information is all
 18   available in the reports.  It gives us confidence
 19   that modelling done well, there's enough
 20   information, and we have confidence that this
 21   model can then be used to predict situations in
 22   the future.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  I don't want to belabour
 24   the thing, but since we stumbled over this at the
 25   beginning of our deliberations this week, it seems
00735
  1   important to follow this through to some kind of
  2   conclusion.  And that leads us then back to the
  3   question of monitoring.
  4               Have you a way of monitoring to make
  5   sure that after a flood event you can tell
  6   whether, in fact, there's been intrusion into
  7   important water bearing strata, under the
  8   floodway, there's been intrusion of floodway water
  9   into that area?  I'm thinking bacteriological
 10   contamination when I say this.  But when you
 11   sample water, you sample water for whatever you're
 12   going to use it for.
 13               MR. PETERSON:  Peterson speaking.  In
 14   section 12 of the supplementary filing we outlined
 15   a couple of things.  One would be the
 16   environmental protection plans that would be in
 17   place during construction, and the other was
 18   monitoring and follow-up plans will be developed.
 19   In that is a section on groundwater.  It's only a
 20   paragraph because that's -- what we're outlining
 21   is what we will do.
 22               There will be a monitoring follow-up
 23   plan developed that will designate the monitoring
 24   well network, where they will be, what they will
 25   be sampled for, the frequency of sampling, and
00736
  1   basically outline a monitoring plan.  That plan
  2   has not yet been developed.  And what we have
  3   committed to do would be to have that plan in
  4   place and approved by the regulatory agencies.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  I think one of the
  6   things that we are sensitive to is that things in
  7   the future need to be, we need to have some
  8   confidence that they are actually going to happen.
  9   Not that I don't trust you, I'm simply indicating
 10   that we need to recommend something that is
 11   specific, rather than a general idea -- rather
 12   than a general idea that it's going to happen
 13   sometime.
 14               MR. PETERSON:  The Commission is
 15   hearing the evidence on this project, and the
 16   purpose of this hearing is for the Commission to
 17   make recommendations to the decision makers.  So
 18   if that is an item that the Commission feels
 19   strongly about, they could make such a
 20   recommendation that would say that we not only
 21   propose to do this, but we actually do it.
 22               MR. MORGAN:  Actually, in the EIS,
 23   page 5-28, our recommendation as accepted by the
 24   Floodway Authority says,
 25               "Monitoring of groundwater quality in
00737
  1               the western side of the floodway
  2               should be done following a large flood
  3               to verify movement in effect of
  4               surface water intrusion."
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  So that's a commitment
  7   there.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.  I guess I am
  9   wanting to make sure that we decide how many
 10   monitoring wells and where they should be placed
 11   and that sort of thing, so that what's put in
 12   place in fact does the job you need to do.
 13               MR. MORGAN:  I will explain a little
 14   bit more about how the -- can you flip forward two
 15   slides?  This is the -- I want to make this very
 16   clear what sensitivity analysis is, because it's
 17   in the EIS, it is in the drawings, so people
 18   flipping them open don't get overly concerned.
 19               What is done is a sensitivity
 20   analysis.  And in this case, what is assumed is
 21   this area is not silty till, as it is, it's a
 22   hundred orders of magnitude more permeable -- not
 23   hundred orders of magnitude, hundred times more
 24   permeable, two orders of magnitude.  So it's
 25   basically saying simply, well, if we replace this
00738
  1   with sand, what would happen?
  2               This tells you sort of where things
  3   could go if you were, you know, if there was --
  4   this is sort of a potential thing, it's not
  5   likely.  And a lot of people will talk about,
  6   you'll see in submissions by experts from
  7   participants, they talk about there's a potential
  8   for this, there's a potential for that, did you
  9   look at this?  Yes, it was looked at.  That is
 10   what sensitivity analysis is.
 11               Potential is not expected.  Expected
 12   is what we evaluate when we do the assessment.
 13   Potential is what we use to determine where should
 14   we be doing additional monitoring in order to
 15   ensure that, you know, in order to catch these
 16   unanticipated events in the future, if they are,
 17   you know -- that is what sensitivity analysis is
 18   used for.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  All right.  What I
 20   understood this diagram to show was that even
 21   under these circumstances, to a large extent, the
 22   infiltration is largely self-correcting, although
 23   it's not entirely self-correcting.
 24               MR. MORGAN:  No, some of it still
 25   potentially could move to the west.  Although even
00739
  1   in this unrepresented state, it takes -- at the
  2   locations I think it varied from half a year to
  3   ten years to get to the right-of-way.  And so
  4   that's under this unrepresented condition of ten
  5   to a hundred times faster flow than we really
  6   think could be happening.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  So understanding that
  8   the floodway in its expanded state would cause
  9   infiltration that is self-correcting, almost
 10   certainly, where would you like there to be
 11   monitoring wells to be able to demonstrate that
 12   the groundwater is not affected adjacent to the
 13   floodway?
 14               MR. MORGAN:  In these locations where
 15   there was already -- well, these locations that
 16   when we did the sensitivity analysis showed that
 17   the, you know, it's coming out, potentially coming
 18   towards the west.  These are the areas where
 19   you'll be putting monitoring, like Dunning Road,
 20   at Springhill, Oasis Road to the west, that says
 21   at the CPR.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  Because of the
 23   tendency --
 24               MR. MORGAN:  We identified a lot of
 25   those in P, a lot of those areas.  As Mr. Smith
00740
  1   said, as they come along and there's more
  2   investigation and understanding, you'll see where
  3   there's potential for a little bit lower
  4   permeability or higher permeability, and that's
  5   where you'd want to have monitoring wells.
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you very much.
  7               MR. REMPEL:  Dr.  Webster, you
  8   mentioned raw sewage entering the floodway.  There
  9   has been discussion over that earlier.  Would you
 10   like us to expand a bit on that event that led to
 11   that publicity about that concern?
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  I think that would be
 13   helpful, yes.
 14               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. McNeil can provide
 15   some explanation there?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  What occurred in November
 17   of 2004 was discharge of raw sewage, combined with
 18   storm water from the Transcona/Kildare land
 19   drainage trunk sewer.  The sewer is a land
 20   drainage or a storm sewer, it is designed to take
 21   the storm water runoff, snow melt runoff from the
 22   entire Transcona area and discharge it into the
 23   floodway, which is normally the case.
 24               However, in November of 2004, the raw
 25   sewage got into the storm system by way of cross
00741
  1   connections between the sanitary or wastewater
  2   sewer system and the storm system.  It is standard
  3   practice in the industry in North America with the
  4   two pipe system to have these cross connection to
  5   prevent basement flooding, as well as risk to
  6   public health if raw sewage should get back into
  7   the basements, when there are incidences.
  8               In this case, the city, when the city
  9   was alerted -- MFA was also alerted about the
 10   incident -- but when the city first heard about
 11   the incident from the Public Health Department,
 12   which was informed of the incident from one of the
 13   participant's engineering consultants that was
 14   doing testing out in the floodway of the surface
 15   water, the city reacted immediately.  They sent
 16   out people and they investigated to find out where
 17   these cross connections, or where these cross
 18   connections were overflowing, and then determined
 19   that there were three locations that had grease
 20   buildup in the sanitary sewer, which then backed
 21   up the sanitary sewer and overflowed into the
 22   storm sewer.
 23               The city has carried on with their
 24   monitoring, and they are still doing monitoring
 25   today because they are still getting at that
00742
  1   outflow fecal coliform levels that shouldn't be
  2   there, substantially reduced from November, but
  3   still having a problem, they are still
  4   investigating.
  5               I guess the only other thing is that
  6   the reason that there was significant land
  7   drainage being discharged into the floodway at
  8   that time was that they were draining a storm
  9   water retention basin that is used for storage and
 10   for attenuating summer discharges and spring
 11   runoff events.  In advance of the consideration
 12   that there may be a significant spring runoff
 13   event in the city this year, they are discharging
 14   from that pond.  That could also be the source of
 15   some of the contaminants.
 16               So that was the situation.  It's
 17   typical in any of these storm and sanitary systems
 18   to have these cross connections to prevent
 19   basement flooding backup and risk to public
 20   health, but not normal.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  What you're implying
 22   then is this was an unusual occurrence?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  It's an infrequent
 24   occurrence, and the project itself has no effect
 25   on whether those occur or not.
00743
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  Similarly, there was a
  2   referral at that same time to possible
  3   infiltration into the floodway from the east, from
  4   the area just south of Birds Hill, I think it was,
  5   into the floodway.  Is that also an unusual
  6   occurrence, or is it treated sewage?  What is it
  7   that --
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm sorry, Dr Webster, I
  9   don't know what incident --
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  There was a mention, it
 11   was outside of the hearing, outside of the hearing
 12   context, but there was an indication of concern by
 13   local residents of inflow into the floodway from
 14   that lagoon area just south of Dunning Road.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Oh, you're talking about
 16   the lagoon that services the trailer park adjacent
 17   to Birds Hill Park?
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  That's right.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  I don't think there was
 20   any unusual incident.  It was just that when I was
 21   on the tour with Mr. Jonasson, he just pointed out
 22   that there was a lagoon discharging into the
 23   floodway.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  That is treated, that
 25   is --
00744
  1               MR. MORGAN:  Yeah, a lagoon is
  2   treated.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  -- in the normal way
  4   when these things are discharged, the water goes
  5   into a water course, that is not raw sewage.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  No.
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  And they would have a
  8   licence for that facility.
  9               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Smith would like to
 10   make one more comment on monitoring, if you
 11   please.
 12               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, I'd just
 13   like to clarify.  Appendix O of the preliminary
 14   engineering report includes a compilation of all
 15   of the investigation works done both from a
 16   geotechnical and the groundwater perspective, and
 17   we would quite often test for parameters to help
 18   both ends.
 19               Now, in addition to that there is
 20   several other appendices.  I can read them out
 21   just quickly here; appendix G, focus on the
 22   channel; appendix J, on the bridge investigations;
 23   K was test excavations along the channel; and M
 24   was groundwater.  In addition, we had a
 25   supplementary report on Oasis Road.
00745
  1               And just to sum up that work, in
  2   total, just in this program in the last couple of
  3   years, we've had about 338 holes, out of those 83
  4   had hydrometer analysis, which tells you the grain
  5   size in the small end fraction, the clay silt
  6   size, as well as clay content on another 143.  And
  7   the reason I mentioned that is, it gave us a very
  8   high confidence level in the till materials, and
  9   particularly from Highway 59 north up to Lockport,
 10   as the representative material there was
 11   consistently 40 to 60 per cent clay silt content,
 12   which in fact would classify as a clay, a low
 13   plasticity clay, rather than we typically have
 14   referred to this as a silt till.  So just so you
 15   can appreciate it is a relatively low permeability
 16   material.
 17               And notwithstanding that, certainly we
 18   recognize there's a potential for local isolated
 19   pockets of more permeable sandy or siltier
 20   materials.  And certainly that's, as Mr. Morgan
 21   has indicated, the non-representative case where
 22   we still have to be prepared for that.  But
 23   that's --
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  I'd like to ask a few
 25   more questions on this area.
00746
  1               In the construction phase, you have an
  2   environmental protection plan that you are putting
  3   in place.  Is sampling for bacteriological and
  4   contaminants of concern being considered for that
  5   period during construction?  Is that being, is
  6   that something that you would extend -- first of
  7   all, are you planning to do it during the
  8   construction phase, which is the time during which
  9   you may have enhanced possibility of
 10   contamination?
 11               MR. PETERSON:  Yes, Dr. Webster, that
 12   is part of the -- we are considering the
 13   parameters right now, which of the bacteriological
 14   parameters we will be looking for, we will be just
 15   looking at total coliform, fecal coliform, e.coli,
 16   which are the chemicals, which are the nutrients,
 17   which are the pesticides.  So we're in that
 18   process right now in our spare time working on
 19   those programs.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  And would that program
 21   be carried on after the construction period?
 22               MR. PETERSON:  They are broken up into
 23   two parts.  One is the construction environmental
 24   protection plan, and then the other part is the
 25   ongoing long-term monitoring and follow up plan.
00747
  1   Right now we're focusing on the construction
  2   phase, but we're also in that thinking what
  3   information will be useful in the long-term and
  4   what information will be carried over.  So they
  5   will be submitted as two separate plans but the
  6   thinking will be linked.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  It's possible you may
  8   install additional monitoring wells during
  9   construction to make sure that things are going
 10   the way you want them to go; is that correct?
 11               MR. PETERSON:  Yes.  We'll be working
 12   with the technical advisors.  And that is one of
 13   the reasons why this process isn't speeding up a
 14   little bit, because we have to work out those
 15   administrative things, like contracts and stuff
 16   like that.  So that's why we're at that phase now.
 17   We had indicated earlier that we will be doing
 18   that work a little later, but we're doing it right
 19   now for administrative reasons.  So, you know,
 20   it's all going to be laid out.
 21               At what we have committed as both
 22   would be -- both plans would be submitted to the
 23   regulators for approval before implementing them.
 24   The construction plans we said would be approved
 25   before we start construction.
00748
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  Backing away to a
  2   slightly more generalized question, but
  3   nevertheless an important one.  Because the
  4   floodway, in fact, extracts water from an aquifer,
  5   because it's currently not licenced, but it's
  6   anticipated it is likely to be licenced in the
  7   course of the process we're going through, has the
  8   groundwater discharge to the floodway been the
  9   subject of licencing?  Generally speaking this is
 10   done in other jurisdictions.  Have you in fact
 11   addressed that issue?
 12               MR. PETERSON:  I think one thing we
 13   would have to say is that the floodway does not
 14   extract water, it accidentally intercepts water.
 15   It's not our purpose to do that.
 16               In the supplementary, in one of the
 17   responses, and I can't remember if it's in the
 18   information requests or in the supplementary
 19   filing, there was a question about that, whether
 20   or not a water rights authorization was required,
 21   and Water Stewardship I believe indicated that
 22   they were not required.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  As I say, it's a
 24   practice in other jurisdictions, I understand, for
 25   that to be a licenced water, not exactly use, but
00749
  1   certainly it represents an exploitation of a water
  2   resource to allow it to drain away under those
  3   circumstances.
  4               MR. PETERSON:  Again, we're not
  5   licensing authority.  Manitoba Water Stewardship,
  6   there is a Water Rights Act that says when you
  7   need licences and when you don't.  For example,
  8   they said we would need licence permits or
  9   authorizations in order to dewater during the
 10   construction of the bridges, so we will be making
 11   those applications.
 12               We just had a response called up and
 13   it indicates that under the Water Rights Act in
 14   Manitoba there isn't a requirement for licensing
 15   of the floodway structure -- oh, sorry, it's in
 16   response to the three rural municipalities and
 17   it's information response number 4A.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Mr. Motheral.
 20               MR. MOTHERAL:  Yes, as you can see --
 21   to the authority -- this is a huge, huge issue for
 22   the municipalities, the issue of groundwater.
 23   It's in pretty well every one of their
 24   presentation, and you will probably hear more
 25   about this yet.
00750
  1               I think, I believe there is a need to
  2   demonstrate that there is a comfort level that the
  3   water will not be affected, and if so, it needs to
  4   be mitigated in some ways.  So it is just that
  5   it's a very, very important issue to the
  6   surrounding municipalities.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  On that moment I think
  8   we'll take a break for 15 minutes, so please come
  9   back at quarter to 11:00.  Immediately after the
 10   break, the first item of business will be a
 11   presentation by Mr. Robert Millman of Grande
 12   Pointe, and that will be 10 or 15 minutes and then
 13   we'll get back into cross-examining the proponent.
 14   
 15               (Proceedings adjourned  at 10:30 a.m.
 16               and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.)
 17   
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we come back to
 19   order.  Mr. Robert Millman, if you could take the
 20   seat at the front of the table, please?  The
 21   proponent panel can stay in the general area until
 22   Mr. Millman is concluded, right at the first
 23   chairs at the end of the table.
 24               Would you please state your name for
 25   the record?
00751
  1               MR. MILLMAN:  Robert Millman.
  2   
  3               (ROBERT MILLMAN: SWORN)
  4   
  5               MR. MILLMAN:  Good morning, Mr.
  6   Chairman, members of the Clean Environment
  7   Commission, other distinguished representatives
  8   and stakeholders.  My name is Bob Millman.  I live
  9   at 2124 Southside Road in the RM of Ritchot.  My
 10   home is located on the south side of the road
 11   approximately 500 yards east of the newly
 12   constructed Seine River diversion.
 13               And if I could just direct the members
 14   of the Commission, I have included a rough map of
 15   my location, four pages beyond the first page so
 16   you can see where I am.
 17               I'm here today to present my concerns
 18   about the potential for my area and those areas
 19   further east becoming a basin which could
 20   periodically flood with polluted water from the
 21   Red River Floodway, as a direct result of the
 22   construction of the Seine River Diversion and the
 23   proposed gapping of the south wall of the floodway
 24   embankment around its drop structure.
 25               I will start by giving a little
00752
  1   history as to why I'm here today.  I moved into my
  2   home in '92, and in '97 I successfully protected
  3   it from flooding by building a four to four and a
  4   half foot dyke.  The flood waters that engulfed my
  5   area came from the west, crossing over Highway 59
  6   in an easterly direction.
  7               The Grande Pointe Dyke and Seine River
  8   Diversion were subsequently constructed, and I was
  9   lead to believe at the time that they would afford
 10   me a good level of protection from future
 11   flooding.  However, after personally observing the
 12   water levels in the diversion and floodway in the
 13   spring of 2004, I became concerned about the
 14   potential of that diversion to flow backwards and
 15   flood the area east of it.
 16               My concerns were well founded, I
 17   learned, after making inquiries with the Water
 18   Stewardship branch and receiving a copy of the
 19   Acres office memorandum, dated February 15, 2002,
 20   (Addendum One).  I was shocked at what I read and
 21   was in disbelief that this information had been
 22   known by government and had not been widely
 23   shared.  Had I known this information when the
 24   window of opportunity for flood proofing existed,
 25   I would have followed through with my initial
00753
  1   application.
  2               My subsequent pursuit of answers to my
  3   questions and concerns has been very frustrating
  4   since that time.  I have raised my concerns, both
  5   privately and in writing, as a concerned citizen
  6   with the Floodway Expansion Authority and publicly
  7   as a participant in an environmental impact study
  8   session.  So far I believe my concerns have fallen
  9   on deaf ears.
 10               My belief that the Seine River
 11   Diversion has the potential for causing flooding
 12   in the area east of Grande Pointe seems to be well
 13   accepted as factual.  (Addendum 1 - Acres Office
 14   Memorandum and addendum 3 - letter from the
 15   Floodway Expansion Authority.)  Regrettably that
 16   seems to be the only point where I have found
 17   agreement with the Water Stewardship branch or the
 18   Floodway Expansion Authority, that this part of
 19   Grande Pointe and areas further east can be
 20   flooded by polluted Red River water flowing in a
 21   southerly direction out of the floodway, and
 22   spilling over the banks of the diversion or Seine
 23   River, periodically and predictably, is simply
 24   unacceptable to me and others who would be
 25   negatively impacted.
00754
  1               The matter of fact manner of
  2   presentation of this fact by the Floodway
  3   Expansion Authority communicates no concern about
  4   it whatsoever.  In fact, the tone seems somewhat
  5   self-congratulatory and invitational of gratitude
  6   for the improvement to be realized over the 1997
  7   flood levels.
  8               At no time during several meetings
  9   that I have attended, nor in conversations or
 10   communications that I have had with authorities,
 11   has anyone expressed any concern for the
 12   environment in our area as a result of periodic
 13   flooding.  The underlying premise of the Acres
 14   memorandum and letter from the Floodway Expansion
 15   Authority is that the area will be better off than
 16   it was in 1997, as if the 1997 flood peak was
 17   natural.
 18               I believe the flood levels experienced
 19   in 1997 in the Grande Pointe area and points
 20   further east were made artificially high by the
 21   timing and/or rate at which the flood gates were
 22   raised, by the inadequacy of the floodway entrance
 23   to accommodate the abundance of flood water, and
 24   by the earthen plugs placed in the ditch at the
 25   floodway bridge which prevented water from flowing
00755
  1   out of Grande Pointe and into the floodway.
  2               The premise of the Acres memorandum
  3   and of the Floodway Expansion Authority seems to
  4   be that the 1997 peak levels were natural, and we
  5   have the benefit of improvements already made and
  6   will continue to benefit when the expansion is
  7   completed.
  8               The improvements already made, as I
  9   understand it, are largely attributable to the
 10   notching which has taken place on the southern
 11   embankment of the floodway between St. Mary's Road
 12   and Highway 59.  While I don't lack appreciation
 13   for the value of this improvement, for those of us
 14   living east of the Seine River Diversion it is
 15   hard to get excited about it when flood waters
 16   have now been provided a channel to spill out into
 17   our area.  We would have enjoyed the same level of
 18   complete protection as Grande Pointe within the
 19   ring dyke, 1997 level plus two feet, had the Seine
 20   River diversion not been constructed.
 21               The improved situation theme that runs
 22   through the correspondence that I have received
 23   from the Floodway Expansion Authority, I first
 24   found perplexingly persuasive.  However, realizing
 25   that polluted Red River floodwater can flood my
00756
  1   area periodically and predictably quickly
  2   extinguishes any sense of good fortune or
  3   gratitude.  I believe that flooding in the areas
  4   east of the diversion will occur periodically and
  5   will be damaging to our environment and costly to
  6   the homeowners and businesses.  The mere existence
  7   of the diversion and its drop structure guarantees
  8   this.
  9               I have the same protection as those
 10   inside the Grande Pointe ring dyke from
 11   floodwaters coming from the west and the south,
 12   but no protection from waters coming from the
 13   north through the diversion.
 14               I want to draw the attention of the
 15   Commission to several other points before closing.
 16   In the Acres memorandum all of the options for
 17   preventing flooding caused by the diversion appear
 18   to have been completely abandoned.
 19               Secondly, the improved situation theme
 20   can also be noted in the draft minutes of an
 21   environmental impact study meeting on
 22   September 13, 2004, addendum 4.
 23               Lastly, to date, in spite of my
 24   inquiries and requests, no authority has committed
 25   to paying compensation for losses caused by
00757
  1   flooding due to the creation of the Seine River
  2   diversion, with its potential to flood us
  3   unnaturally with Red River waters flowing from the
  4   north.
  5               This potential for flooding has not
  6   been completely publicized to all of those who
  7   would be directly affected, and there have been no
  8   offers to re-open a flood-proofing program.  I
  9   find these omissions especially concerning given
 10   the jeopardy in which the diversion's existence is
 11   putting us.
 12               Lastly, two questions I would like to
 13   leave the Commission with to further focus your
 14   attention.  What are the plans for checking wells
 15   east of the diversion, and how would the water
 16   quality of our wells and aquifer be restored if
 17   they were negatively impacted by periodic
 18   flooding?  But more importantly and generally,
 19   what is the history of flooding in the RM of
 20   Ritchot prior to the construction of the floodway,
 21   and what moral and ethical issues does that
 22   history raise?
 23               On behalf of all of us living east of
 24   the Seine River Diversion, I would like to thank
 25   all members of this Commission for their time and
00758
  1   attention to the matters that I have raised.  I
  2   place my trust in this Commission, this
  3   Commission's intent to squarely address these
  4   critical environmental issues.  Thank you very
  5   much.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Millman.
  7   Questions for clarification at this time?  Mr.
  8   Webster.
  9               MR. WEBSTER:  Mr. Millman, your use of
 10   the name Seine River Diversion raises in my mind
 11   some concerns, since I believe that this is a
 12   second Seine River Diversion, is it not?  Is there
 13   not also another Seine River Diversion?
 14               MR. MILLMAN:  I believe there is.  I'm
 15   talking about the one that parallels Highway 59
 16   just south of the floodway bridge.
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  And this flows --
 18               MR. MILLMAN:  Newly constructed.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  This does not flow in a
 20   westerly direction into the Red River, but flows
 21   in a northerly direction into the flood --
 22               MR. MILLMAN:  It flows in a northerly
 23   direction, in a desirable way under normal
 24   circumstances, preventing an excess of water going
 25   into Grande Pointe which is now ring dyked.  In
00759
  1   adverse conditions, it is known to flow backwards.
  2   And part of my concern is that that information
  3   has sat with the Government for a few years.  And
  4   I was not advised of this, nor my -- it was only
  5   through my own investigation this spring and the
  6   concerns that I observed that I pursued it -- that
  7   I received the Acres memo, which is addendum
  8   number 1, which clearly states that back in 2002,
  9   that it can and will flow backwards under certain
 10   circumstances.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  Just a couple of further
 12   points of clarification.  Your map is helpful.  I
 13   would like, though, for us to understand where the
 14   Grande Pointe dyke surrounding the community is
 15   situated.  Now, part of it is along Highway 59; is
 16   that right?
 17               MR. MILLMAN:  Yes.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  Where does it go from
 19   there?
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  I believe it is Mondor
 21   Road that continues that dyke.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  Is it to the west of
 23   Highway 59?
 24               MR. MILLMAN:  It is, it goes to the
 25   west of Highway 59 and around.
00760
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  And the northern
  2   boundary of it, is it along the floodway?
  3               MR. MILLMAN:  Yes.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  Is the Seine River
  5   itself on the outside of that dyke, or does it
  6   flow through the dyke area?
  7               MR. MILLMAN:  The Seine River goes
  8   into Grande Pointe, and the part that goes in is
  9   within the ring dyke.  The diversion, as shown on
 10   the little map that I sketched, is outside of the
 11   ring dyke.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  So that under flood
 13   conditions, is the Seine River in its natural
 14   channel somehow blocked?
 15               MR. MILLMAN:  Can you repeat your
 16   question, please?
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  Under flood conditions,
 18   is the Seine River in its natural channel which
 19   flows through Grande Pointe, is that blocked?
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  It goes under Highway 59
 21   in culverts.  I can't tell you whether there are
 22   controls on those culverts or not.  A lot of the
 23   water last spring, I can tell you, was directed
 24   down the Seine River diversion, as you see it on
 25   the sketch of that map.
00761
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  So there is some kind of
  2   a structure that is either --
  3               MR. MILLMAN:  A drop structure.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  That is associated with
  5   its passage under Highway 59 and the flow, the
  6   excess flow goes down the diversion?
  7               MR. MILLMAN:  Yes, and there is a drop
  8   structure at the end of the diversion where it
  9   enters the floodway.  This is detailed very
 10   carefully by Acres in their memorandum which is
 11   addendum one.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  And the last
 13   question then is, the Seine River diversion that
 14   you are talking about was installed in 2003 or
 15   2004?
 16               MR. MILLMAN:  I believe it was 2002 or
 17   2003.  There are many people here that know.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  It has only been present
 19   for a couple of years?
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  Correct.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Millman.
 22               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, if we
 23   could add Mr. Millman's presentation as exhibit
 24   47.
 25   
00762
  1               (EXHIBIT 47:  Presentation by Robert
  2               Millman)
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we have the
  4   floodway team back up?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, would you like
  6   an explanation of the situation surrounding
  7   Mr. Millman's property?
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  How did you guess?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  Just give me a minute to
 10   call up the information.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps not only
 12   Mr. Millman's specific property, but just the
 13   general area and the general issue of this
 14   diversion?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, that was my plan.
 16               Okay, Mr. Chair, I'm going to call up
 17   a diagram so I can explain the situation in the
 18   Grande Pointe and Seine River diversion area.
 19               So let me just explain this diagram.
 20   This is from appendix H of the preliminary
 21   engineering reports, and it is the location plan
 22   figure 2-1.  It is an area map.  It shows the
 23   floodway pretty much in the centre of the screen
 24   starting at the Red River, and then moving in the
 25   northeasterly direction.  This is the Seine River
00763
  1   here.  This white line is Highway 59, Southside
  2   Road is either this one or this one, I think it is
  3   this one, which Mr. Millman lives on.  And in 2001
  4   and 2002, the Grande Pointe dyke was complete.
  5   And that was one of the community ring dykes that
  6   was undertaken under the Canada/Manitoba/Red River
  7   Valley Flood Protection Program.  And it was built
  8   generally to 1997 plus two, although a couple of
  9   the legs were raised because of concerns over
 10   wind.
 11               Here is the south embankment of the
 12   floodway, and the east leg of the Grande Pointe
 13   dyke is Highway 59 down to Mondor Road, which I
 14   think is right here.  And then -- sorry, in the
 15   vicinity of the Seine River is still Highway 59
 16   and then Mondor Road, and then the dyke follows
 17   the CPR Emerson subdivision to the north as the
 18   west leg of the dyke, and at some point crosses
 19   over the rail line, and then runs up north towards
 20   the south embankment of the floodway, somewhere
 21   west of Hallama Drive here.
 22               Now that this is a dyked community,
 23   there could be a situation when the Seine River
 24   peaks in a spring runoff scenario that it could
 25   flood the dyke community from within.  So a gated
00764
  1   control structure was put on the Seine River
  2   underneath Highway 59, and a diversion channel was
  3   constructed all along Highway 59 on its east side
  4   from the Seine River going north, and then with a
  5   drop structure at the floodway in the south
  6   embankment.
  7               Mr. Millman's concern is that when the
  8   floodway is at a certain peak elevation, that
  9   water will back up and reach, back up in the ditch
 10   system that leads -- sorry, let me add that the
 11   ditches that used to flow to the Seine River or to
 12   the Highway 59 ditch were intercepted by the new
 13   diversion channel.  So the ditch along this road
 14   and the Southside Road, and Prairie Grove Road up
 15   here, now discharge into, or were intercepted by
 16   that Seine River Diversion channel leading to the
 17   floodway.
 18               So now what I want to show you is a
 19   table, let me just find it, which summarizes the
 20   situation in this area.  And this is relating to
 21   water levels right at the drop structure of the
 22   Seine River Diversion.  This is table 6-1 in
 23   appendix H.  So these elevations relate to the
 24   water level on the prairie immediately upstream of
 25   the drop structure for the Seine River Diversion.
00765
  1   So this would be on the south side of the floodway
  2   embankment on the prairie.
  3               At the time of the 1997 flood, and I
  4   think I mentioned this in my presentation, the '97
  5   flood did spill over into the highway -- east of
  6   the Highway 59 area, and the peak water level was
  7   771.9.  And that would be very similar to the
  8   water level at the gentleman's residence, and at a
  9   depth on the prairie, or a depth in his yard of
 10   approximately 4.4 feet.  And he actually confirmed
 11   that in public consultation when we dug up his
 12   information about ground elevation and whatnot.
 13               Now, the current situation with the
 14   Grande Pointe dyke in place and the existing
 15   floodway channel, and the two east embankment
 16   gaps, and with the Grande Pointe drop structure,
 17   because of the more efficient entrance of water
 18   into the floodway, if we had a repeat of 1997 with
 19   all of these gaps, even though we have the same
 20   channel, then the water level would be 769.0 at
 21   his residence, or one and a half feet above the
 22   landscape, above the ground.  And after the
 23   floodway is complete, the capacity of the floodway
 24   will improve that situation again and, in fact, it
 25   will be below prairie.  We have indicated here
00766
  1   that prairie at that structure is 767.5 feet above
  2   sea level, and the water level in the floodway
  3   backing up will be 765.5 for a 1997 flood.
  4               Now, the Highway 59 is generally above
  5   the 1997 level, even south of Grande Pointe.
  6   There are, though, culvert openings through it.
  7   So it acts partly as a dyke, there are culvert
  8   openings so that the water would eventually get
  9   through that area and get into the drainage
 10   system.  But the real benefit to his area
 11   immediately east of Highway 59 is the new gaps
 12   such that that water in the flood plain will get
 13   more efficiently into the floodway and provide a
 14   lower water level of almost 3 feet.
 15               In the 700 year flood, and actually
 16   for any flood bigger than 1997, you will start
 17   seeing higher water levels in the floodway, of
 18   course, but also on the landscape.  And so a 700
 19   year flood during the 1997 conditions would have
 20   been 778.3.  And then with the current changes in
 21   the area, because of the gaps, it would drop by .3
 22   of a foot.  So 700 year flood definitely floods
 23   over the top of Highway 59 and floods a wider area
 24   further to the east.  But with the gaps that drops
 25   that elevation by .3 of a foot over the 1997
00767
  1   situation.  And then when the floodway is built,
  2   there is a slight benefit again because of the
  3   capacity of the floodway and because of the new
  4   gap at the drop structure.
  5               So there are instances, though,
  6   between '97 -- well, actually, with a '97 flood up
  7   to the 700 year flood that, yes, the floodway
  8   elevation will be higher than the landscape, but
  9   the flood level on the landscape from the overland
 10   flooding from the Red River will always be higher.
 11               And one of the other concerns that
 12   they have is that, in this area, is that they
 13   believe that they are going to see flooding from
 14   the Seine River because of the diversion channel.
 15   And I can't recall what the diversion channel,
 16   what the event it was designed to.  But we looked
 17   at the records of the coincidence of the Seine
 18   River peaking and the Red River peaking, and
 19   although you can't say that will never happen,
 20   typically what happens is the Seine River does
 21   peak long before the Red River peaks, so it will
 22   always be able to discharge into the floodway
 23   before you saw the influence of the Red River
 24   flooding overland and reaching that area.  And
 25   that's -- I will leave it at that.
00768
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  How about his concern
  2   about the diversion backing up, and that would
  3   have nothing to do with the peak on the Seine,
  4   that would be the peak on the Red, would it not?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Right, but it will always
  6   be left then whatever water -- whatever flood
  7   event creates the elevation in the floodway is
  8   also creating overland flooding into his area, and
  9   so although there will be water backing up into
 10   that drainage system because it is below the
 11   landscape, the water on the landscape will always
 12   be higher, so that water will always be draining
 13   to the floodway, the water that would affect his
 14   property and other properties.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you for
 16   that explanation, Mr. McNeil.
 17               I think we will go back to Mr.
 18   Webster, who has a few more questions on
 19   groundwater issues.  Following that I have a
 20   handful of short snappers that hopefully will
 21   conclude.  Mr. Webster.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  This question is one
 23   that relates to municipal water supply wells, and
 24   the question is:  Is the Floodway Authority
 25   planning to establish a well head sanitary
00769
  1   protection zone around all municipal water supply
  2   wells located in the areas adjacent to the
  3   floodway?
  4               MR. SMITH:  Bert Smith, Dr. Webster.
  5   I understand the question is basically well head
  6   protection of municipal wells.  I guess the prime
  7   responsibility for that really lies with the
  8   municipality.  The protection of the well systems
  9   are, obviously they are subject to a lot of
 10   different possible sources of contamination.  And
 11   I guess the closest one to the floodway is the
 12   four Oasis Road wells.  Up gradient of the
 13   floodway you have got an unconfined aquifer
 14   situation with a lot of different potential
 15   sources, whether it be septic fields or open
 16   gravel pit activities by contractors.
 17               So certainly it is important that the
 18   municipality recognizes that, and I'm sure they
 19   do, and they are testing their water regularly and
 20   using appropriate measures to ensure that the
 21   water is potable.
 22               There is also this question of a
 23   potential for infiltration of water from the
 24   floodway to the wells -- and me just be clear --
 25   you are wondering about what well head protection
00770
  1   measures the Floodway Authority are considering
  2   relative to the expansion project?
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.  I think, again,
  4   this comes under the category of making sure that
  5   the floodway is effectively protecting itself,
  6   that is the Authority is protecting itself by
  7   making sure that the contamination likelihood from
  8   other sources is minimized.
  9               We have been through questions
 10   relating to the likelihood of infiltration into
 11   the aquifer from the floodway.  This is a question
 12   of protecting the well head from contamination so
 13   that, in fact, difficulties are minimized,
 14   difficulties of all sorts in terms of
 15   contamination.
 16               I guess I'm not necessarily implying
 17   that the Floodway Authority must itself pay for
 18   the well head sanitary protection zone, it may or
 19   may not be the case that there is contribution
 20   required, but the establishment of a protection
 21   zone around the municipal wells is important to
 22   make sure that those wells are not going to cause
 23   you any problems.
 24               MR. SMITH:  Yes, I guess in that
 25   regard certainly the Clean Environment Commission
00771
  1   can recommend to the Municipality of East St. Paul
  2   to undertake the appropriate measures.  Quite
  3   often on any well, certainly municipal wells as
  4   well, the problem will start with the way the well
  5   is finished, the details of grouting and sealing
  6   at the surface, and in the immediate subsurface
  7   around the annulus of the well, and to ensure that
  8   there is no pathways for any surface contaminants
  9   to get down into the well.  And that is certainly
 10   a very important consideration.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  My point is, it is in
 12   the interests of the Floodway Authority to ensure
 13   that those wells are in top condition?
 14               MR. SMITH:  Certainly it is, I agree
 15   with you.  And again, that's not really the
 16   Floodway Authority's place to be instructing the
 17   municipality how to maintain their well, but we
 18   would welcome any recommendations on the part of
 19   the Clean Environment Commission to that end.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  All right.  Would you
 21   provide information summarizing any incidents of
 22   bacteriological and/or chemical impact on
 23   groundwater users since the start of the floodway
 24   operation?
 25               I understand in your response number
00772
  1   18 to CEC request for information that you have
  2   indicated no impacts were recorded.  I wondered if
  3   you would provide information summarizing any
  4   incidents that you are aware of in that period,
  5   for the record?
  6               MR. SMITH:  We are not aware of any
  7   data supporting contamination as a result of
  8   floodway intrusion.  The only incident that I'm
  9   aware of is anecdotal, speaking to a resident when
 10   we had an open house up in the Lockport area, a
 11   well I guess on the west side of the floodway, one
 12   resident indicated that she had noticed some
 13   discolouring of the water for a short period
 14   during the 1997 flood.  And I had asked at the
 15   time if any samples had been analysed, but
 16   unfortunately there weren't.  So I don't have any
 17   specific data that you are referring to on
 18   bacteriological.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  Bacteriological and/or
 20   chemical.
 21               MR. SMITH:  And/or chemical with
 22   respect to any influences of floodway?
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  That's right, I'm
 24   wondering if you have any monitoring records that
 25   can be used in that sense?
00773
  1               MR. SMITH:  Well, the Provincial
  2   Government has periodically monitored the wells
  3   along the right-of-way during flood events, and
  4   did some very, on a couple of occasions, fairly
  5   rigorous sampling of the chemistry.  I guess the
  6   bottom line there is, there is some mixed data.
  7   In some cases looking at the data you could say
  8   there appears to be a change during a flood event
  9   and that could be attributed to possible water
 10   effects, however, those similar type of changes
 11   have also been noted in the years where there was
 12   no flood.  So it is not a clear indication there.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  Again, this looks as if
 14   it indicates that the monitoring system needs to
 15   be better than it has been along the floodway.  Is
 16   that correct?
 17               MR. SMITH:  Well, the monitoring on
 18   those particular events certainly was good data.
 19   I agree it would be prudent to increase the
 20   frequency of monitoring and certainly add
 21   additional wells along the floodway in sensitive
 22   areas.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  Finally then, is the
 24   Floodway Authority actively looking at ways of
 25   making sure that the monitoring system along the
00774
  1   length of the floodway meets these kinds of needs
  2   and criteria?
  3               MR. SMITH:  Yes, that's part of the --
  4   the program prior to construction will be to
  5   develop that monitoring program in conjunction
  6   with the regulatory authorities, and certainly get
  7   input from the public and the RMs in that regard.
  8   We have had some discussions with individual
  9   homeowners, some who are very close to the edge of
 10   the floodway, and have indicated that we certainly
 11   would want to add their homes to the base program
 12   for ongoing monitoring of domestic wells, to try
 13   and get a representative case.
 14               The closest wells are probably in the
 15   order of 300 metres west of the floodway at some
 16   locations, and then there is other roads that are
 17   stepped back half a kilometre or a kilometre back.
 18   We are talking now in the section from Highway 59
 19   north up to Lockport I think is the most sensitive
 20   area.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  Now, there have been
 22   some concerns that we have been talking about in
 23   the area of over the last hour and a half or so,
 24   concerns of the rural municipalities adjacent to
 25   the floodway.  In the course of our deliberations
00775
  1   it is possible that we might come up with the idea
  2   that an independent review is required of some of
  3   these concerns.  It is a possibility.  As a
  4   possibility, would the Floodway Authority consider
  5   participating in that kind of an exercise should
  6   it be necessary, beyond what we are doing?  Is
  7   it -- would you be willing to take part in that
  8   kind of review to help those folks?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, we would.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.
 11               MR. SMITH:  And maybe add to that,
 12   that regional modeling study by the province, that
 13   would be considered in our part certainly as an
 14   independent study.
 15               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Webster.
 17               I have a handful of questions on about
 18   three different areas, and I think they are
 19   relatively quick and short.  I would like to just
 20   go back to the area that I was canvassing earlier
 21   on the inlet structure, and a couple of questions.
 22   I believe, and I think it might have been, I'm not
 23   sure whose response, but somebody referred to, in
 24   respect of the gate redundancy issue there was
 25   reference to further study that was being done.
00776
  1   And I think there might have been reference to an
  2   expert panel that was looking at that.  Has that
  3   report been completed, or when will it be
  4   completed?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, we did have an
  6   independent expert review of the inlet control
  7   structure in the west dyke and the west embankment
  8   of the east dyke that occurred last fall, and we
  9   brought in experts with -- actually I will refer
 10   to our response in the CEC information requests --
 11   a response to CEC information request number 12E.
 12   We had five independent expert consultants come in
 13   with a workshop, they had long-term experience
 14   with prairie farm rehabilitation administration of
 15   the Federal Government, a retired director of dam
 16   safety for B.C. Hydro and others.  And they were
 17   tasked with looking at three things, the possible
 18   need for backup gates versus improved reliability,
 19   the design criteria for wind related to freeboard
 20   on the west dyke, and the flood stages at or near
 21   the design stage at the inlet control structure
 22   and the proposed invoking of emergency overflow
 23   operations.
 24               They have drafted a report, a summary
 25   of the discussions that were held at that
00777
  1   workshop.  Actually, it was drafted by the lead
  2   expert, and currently the other members of that
  3   expert team are reviewing and providing their
  4   comments to that document.  So we are hoping to
  5   get that in the next little while.
  6               Basically they had already given us
  7   some preliminary recommendations.  And one of them
  8   was that it was suggested by them that further
  9   risk analysis, particularly related to the risk of
 10   loss of life for moderate floods, should be done.
 11   And that is what I was referring to earlier by the
 12   risk of failure of the flood protection system for
 13   floods between 75 years and 700 years with the
 14   expanded floodway.  And what has to happen first,
 15   though, is the development of the evacuation, a
 16   firm evacuation plan for Winnipeg should the
 17   system fail, and then following that we can do the
 18   emergency protection plan for the structures and
 19   whatnot.
 20               They have also suggested that we
 21   refine the analysis of wind and wave setup on the
 22   west dyke.  They thought that there were some
 23   refinements that could be made.  We used a 2D
 24   model, in fact the original analysis was done by
 25   the Canadian Hydraulic Centre, and they've
00778
  1   suggested that that model be refined further to
  2   make some improvements on the west dyke design.
  3   And that will be undertaken during the detailed
  4   design process over the next couple of months.
  5   And other things regarding gate reliability and
  6   whatnot will likely come out of the report when it
  7   is finalized.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  In response
  9   to some of the questions I had about the dam
 10   safety issues around the inlet structure, and I
 11   think it was Mr. Smith who mentioned that there
 12   had been a dam safety assessment done by SNC
 13   Lavalin; is that correct?
 14               Now, did that constitute a dam safety
 15   review as set out in the guidelines of the
 16   Canadian Dam Agency or the Canadian Dam
 17   Association?
 18               MR. CARSON:  The objective was that
 19   they would follow the general rules that were laid
 20   down in the guidelines, yes.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm
 23   asking Mr. Carson to add a couple of lines about
 24   that.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  We welcome that.
00779
  1               MR. CARSON:  Yes, generally the theme
  2   was to follow the Canadian Dam Association dam
  3   safety guidelines.  However, the floodway
  4   structures are not in the normal sense of dams and
  5   dykes that have been addressed by these
  6   guidelines.  And so it was somewhat difficult to
  7   apply those guidelines to this floodway situation.
  8   There were certainly some parts of the guidelines
  9   that were directly applicable, such as required
 10   safety factors, stability safety factors for
 11   various conditions of retaining water, and they
 12   were quite easy to apply.  But there are other
 13   parts of the guidelines that are more difficult to
 14   relate directly to the floodway system.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I would also
 16   ask Mr. McMillan to speak for a moment about some
 17   of the results that came directly out of that dam
 18   safety analysis respecting the stability of the
 19   control structure.
 20               MR. MCMILLAN:  Dave McMillan.  The
 21   results of the dam safety review are documented in
 22   appendix C of the preliminary design studies.  SNC
 23   Lavalin found that the structures are extremely
 24   stable and exceeded the minimum guidelines that
 25   are outlined in the Canadian Dam Association dam
00780
  1   safety guidelines.
  2               For instance, for the sliding
  3   stability, which is one of the key indicators,
  4   they found a stability factor of 3 to 5 compared
  5   to a minimum standard of 1.5, which would indicate
  6   that the structures are extremely stable.  And as
  7   well they found the stresses, calculated stresses
  8   in the rock, in the foundation that we were
  9   talking about previously as really very low by a
 10   factor of 3 or 4 lower than what the minimum
 11   required stress would be.  And in their
 12   conclusions they identified no concerns at all
 13   with the stability of the structures nor the
 14   stresses in the foundation.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, you say that some
 16   of the factors in the dam safety association
 17   guidelines, the Canadian Dam Association
 18   Guidelines don't apply to this structure, but I do
 19   understand that they apply to any structure more
 20   than two and a half metres high which contains
 21   more than 30,000 cubic metres of water.  And when
 22   this structure is fully operating, it is certainly
 23   containing a lot more water than that.
 24               MR. CARSON:  Yes, that is certainly
 25   true.  And I guess those portions of the
00781
  1   guidelines are directly applicable.  And I'm going
  2   to try and think of an example of portions of the
  3   guidelines that are not directly applicable.
  4   Could we have a short huddle here?
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, we would like
  7   an undertaking to come back to this with you.
  8   There are some difficult concepts that we would
  9   like to be able to explain properly with the
 10   appropriate visuals, and we want to confer with
 11   the author of appendix C.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Sure, we will welcome
 13   that.
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  Can we come back first
 15   thing Monday with that?
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.  Changing
 17   area, I have a few questions that I don't think
 18   are terribly complicated, and it is just about
 19   some of the effects immediately downstream and
 20   also upstream of the inlet structure.  And I would
 21   like you to describe the operation of the floodway
 22   inlet and the corresponding effects on water
 23   levels in the river downstream of the inlet.  And
 24   particularly I would like to know if there is a
 25   restriction applied to the rate of decline of the
00782
  1   Red River level, both up and downstream of the
  2   inlet, as the floodway is put into operation.
  3               So, first, what effect does it have on
  4   water levels downstream?  And then what are the
  5   limits on the --
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Are you talking about
  7   spring operation, Mr. Chair?
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think any operation.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  By downstream you mean
 10   downstream of the outlet?
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Of the inlet, just
 12   immediately downstream of the inlet, what are the
 13   effects on the water levels when the floodway is
 14   put into operation?  I'm looking at sort of bank
 15   stability issues.
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  I guess I don't have a
 17   hydrograph to explain this, you know, with the
 18   rising limb of the hydrograph as the flood
 19   develops and the gate operation, and the declining
 20   side of the hydrograph.  I do have something
 21   from -- I guess in general terms on the rising
 22   limb of the hydrograph, because of the gate
 23   operation, the river level does rise upstream of
 24   the inlet control structure a little faster than
 25   it would under natural conditions, obviously
00783
  1   because the operation of the gates.
  2               When the gates are lowered, and this
  3   applies to all operation of the gates, Manitoba
  4   Water Stewardship attempts to mimic nature by
  5   dropping the gates slowly and having the receding
  6   limb of the hydrograph follow as close to what
  7   nature would have provided if the gates didn't
  8   exist.
  9               We mentioned yesterday that in summer
 10   operation it is built into the rule to try to
 11   attempt to not lower the water levels more than
 12   half a foot a day, less if possible.  And that's
 13   to mimic nature so that there is no influence one
 14   way or the other by the gate operation, or impact
 15   on what nature would do to the river bank is in
 16   its natural state.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  I understand that on
 18   June 11 last year there was a drop of six feet in
 19   one day.
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  You would be referring to
 21   the downstream side.  When the gates are operated
 22   for that -- and that's a non-spring event -- there
 23   is an attempt to try to get the water down as
 24   quickly as possible in anticipation of the rain
 25   storm event.  Although not preferable certainly,
00784
  1   because of the potential impact to river banks in
  2   the City of Winnipeg, it was felt that the
  3   forecast rain storm was significant enough that
  4   was it was worth that risk to lower more than --
  5   the water level in the city more than that half a
  6   foot a day.  So that's what happened in that
  7   situation.
  8               So that's why, when the rule was
  9   written, it was written around the basic premise
 10   that you don't want to lower water levels
 11   anywhere, upstream or downstream, more than half a
 12   foot a day.  And then you need this window, ten
 13   day window, in order to do that if rain storms are
 14   forecast for that situation.
 15               In terms of the spring operation with
 16   the raising of the gates, it is purely to follow
 17   the rule 1 curve, whatever should occur in
 18   response to a specific flood event.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think you mentioned
 20   probably yesterday that you have plans to conduct
 21   engineering and geotechnical investigations to
 22   look at river bank stabilization.  Was that
 23   correct?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  More specifically it is
 25   to look at the condition of the river banks over
00785
  1   time, as they react to both natural and flood
  2   events -- or sorry, operation events, and
  3   determine whether or not human actions have any
  4   difference on the river banks over and above state
  5   of nature.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  And how much of the
  7   river bank will you be surveying?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  It won't be a continuous
  9   surveillance, it will be a test hole and
 10   monitoring program.  And if I recall correctly, it
 11   is approximately 30, up to 30 kilometres upstream
 12   of the inlet structure and 30 kilometres
 13   downstream.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  30 kilometres
 15   downstream would be pretty well right through the
 16   city, wouldn't it?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  And 30 kilometres
 19   upstream, how far would that go?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  At least to Ste. Agathe.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  And what objectives do
 22   you have in that?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  The objective is to
 24   determine whether or not the operation has any
 25   impact on river bank stability.
00786
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  A couple
  2   of -- this is changing subjects quite a bit,
  3   sorry, just one moment.
  4               It has just been pointed out that in
  5   rule 4 it actually talks about a rule curve of one
  6   foot per day.  It is a minor issue, but just --
  7   except in circumstances of extreme urgency to
  8   lower river levels more than one foot a day -- you
  9   will not operate the floodway under this rule to
 10   lower river levels more than one foot a day?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  That is obviously
 12   correct, and what was going by was no more than
 13   one foot a day, but the objective was half a foot
 14   a day.  And that's where we got the ten days and
 15   the five feet.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thanks.  Mr. Webster
 17   has one more issue, or one more question on
 18   groundwater, and then I have a couple of general
 19   big picture questions that might take us to our
 20   lunch break.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  My question has to do
 22   with the other aspect of construction that might
 23   have an impact on groundwater, and that is bridge
 24   foundations.  As you construct new bridges, I
 25   would imagine that you would have to take the
00787
  1   foundation down to bedrock.  Could you address the
  2   issue generally, and perhaps give us a specific
  3   example or two as to how you tackle that problem
  4   so that groundwater is not adversely affected over
  5   the long term?
  6               MR. MORGAN:  I will just start and say
  7   that that was noted in the EIS in the groundwater
  8   section.  There is, on page 520, figure 5.4, there
  9   is discussion of what the effects could be and
 10   what the mitigation would be in there.  But I will
 11   pass it on to Mr. Smith, he has a lot of
 12   experience in the detail of how they go about
 13   doing this.
 14               MR. SMITH:  Bert Smith here.  I would
 15   just like to clarify first that the original
 16   floodway construction was done with, as we have
 17   discussed, a significantly higher pressure.  So
 18   when they work to the foundations, they have water
 19   heads in the order of 20 feet or more differential
 20   to deal with.  And the current situation, as we
 21   have been discussing with the piezometric surface
 22   now having dropped close to the floodway, there is
 23   discharge into the floodway, so there is some up
 24   gradient into the base of the floodway.  But when
 25   we proceed with these bridges, the differential
00788
  1   head will be much less than what we have had to
  2   deal with in the past.  So it will be, the control
  3   will be, I will say easier, but it won't be as
  4   challenging or difficult.
  5               Now, some of the bridges that we are
  6   looking at, for example, the rail bridges in some
  7   cases they are looking at steel H-piles, which the
  8   steel H-piles will be driven down to refusal in
  9   the till, whereas on the highway bridges they will
 10   use concrete pre-cast piles.
 11               Some of the thoughts we have had, for
 12   the driven steel there will be less disturbance
 13   for the foundation, but for the concrete piles a
 14   portion of foundation will be -- we will drill an
 15   initial open hole so you can put your pile caps
 16   down, so that will be below surface.
 17               The actual piles, we have had
 18   discussion about possibly adding in tubes within
 19   the concrete piles as grout ports.  So when the
 20   piles are driven to refusal, we will then be able
 21   to pump grout in to infill any voids created and
 22   protect against the potential for seepage coming
 23   up around those piles.
 24               In addition to that, however, the
 25   groundwater construction dewatering program will
00789
  1   be possibly required at four sites that we have
  2   identified, and as Dr.Morgan has indicated, that's
  3   in the EIS.  And part of the next phase prior to
  4   construction will be to do some initial testing
  5   site specific at each of these sites, determine
  6   how much pumping would be required on a local
  7   basis in the vicinity of the -- right in the
  8   floodway base where the piles will be installed
  9   for the bridge supports.  And that program will
 10   identify then what the influence radius would be
 11   around the bridge, and that will be part of the
 12   program submitted for approvals to the regulatory
 13   authorities to monitor that influence and to have
 14   a mitigation program when that construction is
 15   ongoing.
 16               So I guess there is one other thing
 17   that I could add.  On the bridges that we are
 18   going to decommission, the intent is, when those
 19   piles are removed, is to address if there are
 20   local seepage issues at piles, to address that
 21   issue as well.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  I think that's adequate.
 23               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, if I could
 24   just add a point of clarification.  In the
 25   presentation before the break, Dr. Morgan had,
00790
  1   when we were talking about the Oasis Road area and
  2   the municipal wells, East St. Paul wells, had made
  3   reference to the level being above the floodway.
  4   That level, in fact, what he meant was the
  5   piezometric level as monitored in a nearby
  6   provincial well, J0006.  The actual base of the
  7   municipal wells as drilled goes down close to the
  8   bedrock surface.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I have a
 10   couple of questions that I will direct to Mr.
 11   McNeil.
 12               Given that you are here before these
 13   hearings seeking, or asking us to recommend to the
 14   minister that you be issued an environmental
 15   license for this proposal, given that it is very
 16   likely, or there is a very real possibility, if
 17   not a likelihood, that we will recommend
 18   conditions be attached to the license, I would
 19   just like to know what resources the Floodway
 20   Authority has in place to implement such
 21   conditions?  Do you have any environmental staff
 22   employed by the Floodway Authority, and what
 23   authority would they have to implement such
 24   conditions?
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  I suppose it depends on
00791
  1   the level of effort required by the conditions.
  2   We do have three environmental people on staff,
  3   and we have a staff of about 25 now in areas of
  4   administrative operations, hydraulics,
  5   transportation, environmental and finance, all
  6   reporting to our CEO.  And no matter what comes
  7   out of the hearings, the results, we would first
  8   tackle those objectives.  And we can always
  9   supplement our own resources with the hiring of
 10   consultants, which we do for most part anyway in
 11   terms of preparation for the hearings, in terms of
 12   preparing the predesign, in terms of preparing the
 13   EIS, and in terms of doing the final design.  As
 14   much as possible we do try to use our own
 15   resources, but we definitely supplement with
 16   consulting services or contractor services or
 17   whatever it takes.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  In respect of
 19   forthcoming environmental protection plans, will
 20   they include an environmental management system
 21   for the authority itself?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm going to pass that
 23   question to Mr. Peterson, as he has prepared the
 24   EPP.
 25               MR. PETERSON:  Peterson speaking.  Can
00792
  1   you clarify that a little bit?
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Environmental
  3   management system is sort of an element of
  4   environmental management, and I'm just wondering
  5   if the Authority intends to put in place an
  6   environmental management system to guide it, to
  7   guide its work in the environmental protection
  8   area?
  9               MR. PETERSON:  I will try to answer
 10   that, but I'm not quite sure that it is getting --
 11   what you are getting at.
 12               During the construction phase,
 13   basically with the construction the environmental
 14   protection plan is an environmental management
 15   system.  During post construction and in the
 16   future, are you then referring to the ongoing
 17   monitoring say of chemical use or monitoring for
 18   derelict vehicles or --
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think I am referring
 20   to an environmental system that would guide the
 21   Floodway Authority in how it carries out its
 22   mandate.
 23               MR. MCMILLAN:  There are internal
 24   protocols that guide the authority in doing its
 25   work to ensure that environmental issues are
00793
  1   always top of mind.
  2               MR. PETERSON:  Peterson speaking.
  3   Some of those are described in section 12 of the
  4   supplementary filing, which is the construction
  5   phase environmental protection plan.  Part of that
  6   will be the establishment, for example, of our
  7   guiding principles, and how we will -- if you look
  8   at how we are going to conduct ourselves.  It is a
  9   generic term that covers a lot of things.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  It is a generic term
 11   but it -- Mr. McNeil.
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. McNeil speaking.  I
 13   was just going to add, Mr. Chair, that as a Crown
 14   agency of the Government, we've adopted basically
 15   the sustainable development practices and
 16   principles of the Manitoba Government.  So in our
 17   office administratively we have adopted those
 18   principles.  Doug is speaking specifically to the
 19   EPPs, but we have a recycling program and we try
 20   to minimize the use of resources whenever
 21   possible.  And the EPPs and everything else that
 22   follows out of that administrative policy
 23   framework follows those sustainable development
 24   practices.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm not entirely sure
00794
  1   we are talking about the same thing, but I will
  2   leave it for now.
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm not either.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  So that concludes the
  5   Clean Environment Commission cross-examination up
  6   to this stage.  As I've noted before, when the
  7   participants are engaging in their
  8   cross-examinations, we may come back in with some
  9   questions that more directly relate to their
 10   concerns.
 11               Right after lunch we will start with
 12   participant groups conducting cross-examination of
 13   the Floodway Authority.  The first person up will
 14   be Mr. Paul Clifton.  It is my understanding that
 15   Mr. Paul Clifton has some props that he wishes to
 16   use.  As long as they are relevant to the issues
 17   before us, that is perfectly acceptable.  I would
 18   ask Mr. Clifton to have them in place before 1:00
 19   o'clock, and we will reconvene exactly 1:00
 20   o'clock.
 21               (Proceedings recessed at 12:00 and
 22               reconvened at 1:00 p.m.)
 23   
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we come to order,
 25   please.  Now we're going to have some minor
00795
  1   problems here because I can't see all of your
  2   smiling faces.  But I would ask that if you are
  3   trying to get my attention or if you are
  4   responding to a question, please identify yourself
  5   and we'll work around the props.
  6               Mr. Clifton, just a couple of words
  7   about cross-examination, and you've heard this
  8   from me orally and probably in writing as well,
  9   that the main purpose in asking questions at this
 10   point is to gather information that you will later
 11   use in your presentation or closing statement.
 12   And it is also very important that questions that
 13   you ask at this time are relevant to the issues
 14   before us so that they are relevant essentially to
 15   the filings that have been made by the Manitoba
 16   Floodway Authority in respect of this application.
 17               If any repetition or if you're asking
 18   questions that have already been asked and
 19   answered, I'll point it out and we'll just move on
 20   to the next one.  Okay, Mr. Clifton, over to you.
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I
 22   haven't been sworn in though.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  At this point, you
 24   don't need to be.  At this point, you're
 25   cross-examining.  It's when you make your
00796
  1   presentation, whenever that is, next week, that
  2   you would need to be sworn in.  At this point,
  3   you're not giving evidence, you're asking
  4   questions.
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  I'm just going to
  6   talk very briefly about what I have before the
  7   people and I'm speaking not only to you,
  8   Mr. Chair, and your commissioners, Floodway
  9   Expansion Authority folks but also public.  This
 10   is a public forum.  I have put a lot of effort
 11   into this thing and I think I have something to
 12   add to this and I hope I do that.
 13               In my humble opinion, we're moving
 14   from a low head dam to a high head dam and the
 15   first dam was never licensed and I'm going to go
 16   through that in a bit.
 17               There is some misunderstandings by
 18   folks in my writings.  Sometimes I go for the
 19   throat and I don't necessarily mean that.  In
 20   particular, we'll deal with the Ombudsman's report
 21   of 1998 and it referred to an incident that
 22   happened in 1997.  And to the very good credit of
 23   your engineer that is heading up your technical
 24   group on this in support of you is Mr. David
 25   Farlinger behind you.  I have got to credit
00797
  1   Mr. David Farlinger for hearing very personally
  2   about the issues in the valley, very clearly
  3   listening and very clearly articulating what
  4   people said.  I've got to give Mr. Farlinger
  5   credit for that.
  6               In some of my writings to the Manitoba
  7   Ombudsman, who has been very very helpful in this
  8   thing, he's reported on the inadvertent
  9   destruction of audiotapes of not only the
 10   Commission hearings of the commissioners as you
 11   would speak privately and under tape, but also
 12   unfortunately the valley was devastated
 13   significantly.  People were out of their homes.
 14   People came.  They didn't have computers and all
 15   this stuff, to articulate on paper what was in
 16   their heart.  They spoke to Mr. Farlinger and his
 17   Commission and Mr. Farlinger's commission heard it
 18   and recorded it.  But inadvertently, those records
 19   were destroyed.
 20               As society becomes -- this is in the
 21   report and it's very important.  It talks about --
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  You should be directing
 23   questions to the proponent at this time.  This
 24   sounds more like a presentation which you'll get
 25   an opportunity to do next week.
00798
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  So let me sit
  2   down then.  I have got records upon records upon
  3   records.  And then I in undertaking, way back
  4   when, a default position and I have many questions
  5   that I would like to ask of the Floodway Expansion
  6   Authority -- and am I also able to expand on what
  7   these people have provided in public to us or is
  8   that something in that these gentlemen have
  9   provided CV's of --
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  At this time, you are
 11   looking for clarification of issues to be used in
 12   your presentation next week.  So expansion on
 13   issues and expressing your opinion should be done
 14   next week, not during a cross-examination.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  The West Dyke,
 16   I've got that slide here.  Okay.  As I see it, the
 17   West Dyke is in place now at an elevation of
 18   roughly 97 plus 2 feet.  And, Mr. McNeil, maybe
 19   you can help me out here.  That dyke that is now
 20   existing, is that the dyke that was in place in
 21   the flood of 1997?
 22               And then further to that, I ask you,
 23   was the existing dyke elevated and was that
 24   existing dyke elevated under provincial licence
 25   and to what degree was it elevated post flood?
00799
  1   And also alignment.  What is the alignment of the
  2   dyke now versus the alignment in 1997, let's say
  3   May 15th, 1997?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I'd like to
  5   ask Mr. Rick Hay from the Floodway Authority to
  6   answer those questions.  He's already been sworn
  7   in and you have his CV.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  If he can come
  9   to this front mic if you wish or he can come up to
 10   the front.
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  Correction, I don't
 12   believe Rick Hay was sworn in but you do have his
 13   CV.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Hay, it might just
 15   be easiest to use that microphone right there,
 16   just at the desk next to Mr. Handlon and I'll ask
 17   Ms. Johnson to swear you in.
 18   
 19               (RICK HAY: SWORN)
 20   
 21               MR. HAY:  A number of questions.  I
 22   will try to address them in the order I recall
 23   them.  The first one I believe was, is the current
 24   alignment of the West Dyke what existed the same
 25   as that that existed during the '97 flood?
00800
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  That's right.  Like I
  2   know the answers to these questions.  What I'm
  3   trying to lead into is you record or it's recorded
  4   that on record what actually has transpired.  But
  5   the alignment has changed and I believe it's been
  6   elevated.  I believe it's been extended and I will
  7   lead into that after you answer your question.
  8               MR. HAY:  My recollection of post '97
  9   reconstruction of the West Dyke, if you will, is
 10   that yes, there was an increase in the height, in
 11   the elevation of the crest of portions of the West
 12   Dyke, primarily I believe from a location known as
 13   Avonlea Corner.  It's the most southeast extension
 14   of the West Dyke.  I believe, from that point
 15   going west, the reconstruction finished the crest
 16   approximately a metre or less above its previous
 17   elevation.  I should back up a bit.
 18               During the flood, as you may all
 19   recall, an extensive effort was undertaken on the
 20   West Dyke to raise it.  And in fact, an extension,
 21   if you will, commonly known at the time as the
 22   Z-Dyke was hurriedly erected as well.  That
 23   extension got the moniker Z-Dyke because it indeed
 24   took a criss-cross approach to its alignment.
 25   Following the '97 flood, it's my understanding
00801
  1   that hurriedly constructed portion of the West
  2   Dyke was essentially returned to its original
  3   grade.
  4               The extension of the West Dyke that
  5   was incorporated into the post flood
  6   reconstruction of the West Dyke simply carried it
  7   on from a point, I believe roughly a mile and a
  8   half west of PR 330 where the West Dyke happens to
  9   be on PR 305.  Rather than take that cross-country
 10   zigzag alignment, the PR 305 going straight west
 11   early from its intersection at 330 was adopted, if
 12   you want to call it, as the more logical alignment
 13   of the West Dyke.
 14               And PR 330 was reconstructed.  I
 15   haven't got the records with me to tell you
 16   exactly when that work took place but I could
 17   undertake to get those if the Commission requires.
 18               Suffice it to say, there are portions
 19   of the West Dyke existing now that are indeed
 20   higher than they existed prior to and during the
 21   1997 flood, if that's the point you're trying to
 22   drive at.
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  That's where I'm going.
 24   And actually, help me out.  Can you recall the
 25   project GI018 was the tender for moving
00802
  1   40,000 cubic metres of mud?  And I understand
  2   that --
  3               MR. HAY:  Was that the Highway's
  4   contract?
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  No, no, the initial
  6   contract.
  7               MR. HAY:  I'm afraid I don't know.
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  There was a
  9   caution to folks that if you're going to undertake
 10   to expand the flood protection for the City of
 11   Winnipeg, thou shalt strongly consider putting '97
 12   behind.  I know we're not supposed to talk about
 13   compensation but we're talking about mitigation of
 14   a project.
 15               Okay.  I have records here that I had
 16   asked questions of environmental approval,
 17   specifically Mr. Strachan and Mr. Webb as far as
 18   the construction of the West Dyke.  He gives me
 19   records that he said discussions with the Water
 20   Branch about the implications of elevating or
 21   extending the dyke and told Water Branch that they
 22   would have to have licence to do the work.
 23               Are you aware whether the initial work
 24   was done under licence or not?
 25               MR. HANDLON:  Mr. Chair, I don't know
00803
  1   that you can have a statement as lengthy as
  2   Mr. Clifton did and then have a question.  Perhaps
  3   Mr. Clifton can be advised that if he's going to
  4   make a statement, it should relate to the question
  5   itself.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  I generally accept your
  7   comments, Mr. Handlon.  We are a little looser in
  8   our procedures than a court room.
  9               Nonetheless, Mr. Clifton, you should
 10   limit any introductory comments to your questions.
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  Let me rephrase it then.
 12   Mr. Farlinger, in his very diligent work,
 13   recommended the function of the West Dyke is
 14   intended to perform as a fail safe under extreme
 15   flood conditions by allowing the flood waters to
 16   enter the LaSalle River system before extensively
 17   high water can cause damages of the floodway
 18   control structure should be considered in planning
 19   the extension of the West Dyke.
 20               Were there any studies or undertakings
 21   to look at the implications against the control
 22   structure of extending and elevating the existing
 23   West Dyke?
 24               MR. HAY:  My recollection is that
 25   there were.  How formal, I would have to delve
00804
  1   back into the records to find out.  I do recall
  2   that portion of the West Dyke that was involved in
  3   PR 305.  My recollection is that transportation --
  4   well, the Highways Department at the time did get
  5   an environmental approval to reconstruct that
  6   grade and, you know, obviously to the, you know,
  7   to the elevation as to the profile that was
  8   designed.  And my recollection was that there was
  9   an assessment of the hydraulic implications
 10   associated with, you know, with that environmental
 11   approval.
 12               Again, I would have to undertake to
 13   try and find those specific approvals and the
 14   reports behind them.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  I'll help you a little
 16   bit, read into the record, that the existing West
 17   Dyke was topped up over the 10.8 miles in the
 18   range of five and a half feet without licence.
 19   Okay.  Now I want to expand on this now, please.
 20   And I get this information from supplementary
 21   filing.  Did you want to jump in?
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  No.  Go ahead,
 23   Mr. Clifton.
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  In the supplementary
 25   filing.  As we get closer and closer to the
00805
  1   project, these people are more candid.  And I read
  2   in here, and this is a western economic
  3   diversification.  Now I know this is a
  4   Manitoba-led undertaking but there is certainly
  5   the federal implications and federal dollars here.
  6   And there is also more stringent requirements.
  7               My question is, I read from WED's most
  8   recent update on August 27th, 2004 that $6 million
  9   of federal funds went into enhancement of the West
 10   Dyke and elevations and extensions to Brunkild.
 11   Can you give me the screening report number for
 12   that particular federal screening of that project
 13   that is required under the Canadian Environmental
 14   Assessment Act?
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  How is that relevant to
 16   the matters before us?  I'm prepared to allow
 17   questions, general questions in respect of the
 18   Z-Dyke because expansion and improvements to the
 19   Z-Dyke or the West Dyke are a part of this
 20   application but I don't know that federal
 21   screening reports on past projects are relevant to
 22   this proposal.
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  It's directly relevant
 24   in that these folks have done work in partnership
 25   with the federal government unlicensed, breaking
00806
  1   the federal law and prophesying that 778 was
  2   always in the works.  778, I'm going to get to it,
  3   but 778 was impossible because there was a
  4   failsafe built into the original design.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  But we're not here to
  6   review all of the flood protection projects in
  7   Southern Manitoba and around the City of Winnipeg,
  8   past ones in particular.  We're here to review the
  9   proposal that's before the Commission.  And the
 10   proposal before the Commission does indeed include
 11   changes to the West Dyke.  But how past changes to
 12   those dykes were done is not anything that's
 13   relevant to our hearing.
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  This pictorial shows the
 15   West Dyke going to Brunkild, okay.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  During 1997.
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  No, no, now.  This is a
 18   1 in 700 year flood protection.  This is what I'm
 19   representing here, okay.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  These folks, Manitoba,
 22   with federal dollars, extended the dyke to
 23   Brunkild.  Now Floodway Expansion Authority has
 24   taken over the project since then and they are
 25   saying we are just building existing.
00807
  1               Sir, I want it under the record that
  2   they illegally extended the West Dyke to Brunkild.
  3   Now, Mr. McNeil says all we have to do now is top
  4   up the dyke to accommodate for free board and --
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Why don't you ask
  6   Mr. McNeil directly whether or not the work that's
  7   been done on the West Dyke in the last few years
  8   was done legally or not.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. McNeil, from the
 10   records from the Western Economic Diversification
 11   website, it shows that $6 million went into
 12   enhanced flood protection for the City of
 13   Winnipeg.  Do you know if the West Dyke was
 14   extended and elevated legally?.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Mr. Chair, it's Rick
 16   Handlon again.  My concern is if the question is
 17   to authorization and that type of question, I mean
 18   that's fine if it's within the purview of this
 19   hearing.  But to answer a question legally or
 20   non-legally is a matter of opinion.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  You're correct of
 22   course, Mr. Handlon.
 23               And perhaps we might reword it,
 24   Mr. Clifton, to under what authorization,
 25   something to that effect.
00808
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  I am not a funded
  2   participant.  I don't have a lawyer sitting beside
  3   me.  I have --
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  We're offering you some
  5   advice, a very experienced lawyer to your left and
  6   a less experienced lawyer at the table.
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. McNeil, you are
  8   aware of the requirements under the Canadian
  9   Environmental Assessment Act if Canada is to
 10   partner with this project.  Do you know if past
 11   work in enhancing the City of Winnipeg's flood
 12   protection was done appropriately?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  My understanding is that
 14   the province 100 per cent funded work to the West
 15   Dyke following the 1997 flood and that the
 16   province followed appropriate protocols and
 17   received appropriate approvals for that work.
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  Now I have a
 19   problem and I want to seek clarification.
 20   Mr. Bruce Webb is right behind me.  The retired
 21   Larry Strachan is further behind me likely.  These
 22   people were told to stop, cease and desist.  And
 23   they packed up their tools and went home.
 24               Now my problem is, is we have gone
 25   from a 768 floodway inlet to 778 and I'm exploring
00809
  1   how we got there so I can get an understanding of
  2   how to present on the following Friday.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think you may have
  4   heard this morning in response to questions that I
  5   was asking in particular about the floodway inlet,
  6   that they noted that it has always been designed
  7   to a 778.5; is that correct?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  .3.  Mr. Chair, if I may,
  9   I'm going to read from a document.  The title at
 10   the top of the document is "Manitoba Department of
 11   Agriculture and Conservation, Water Control and
 12   Conservation Branch, Red River Floodway Inlet
 13   Control Works, Memorandum on Preliminary Design."
 14   It was produced by HG Acres And Company of Niagara
 15   Falls, Canada and it's dated July 28, 1962.
 16               I'm now turning to page 2 of that
 17   document, section 2 titled "Hydraulics."  Section
 18   "A" Design Requirements.  And let me read
 19   paragraph III.
 20               "The work should be capable of
 21               restricting the discharge passing
 22               downstream through the City of
 23               Winnipeg so that water levels at
 24               Redwood Bridge would not exceed
 25               elevation 755.5 feet under conditions
00810
  1               of maximum Assiniboine contribution up
  2               to the stage at which upstream water
  3               levels have been increased to
  4               elevation 778.3 feet above sea level."
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  So I take it from that,
  6   Mr. Clifton, that it has always been 778.
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  You know, we're going to
  8   be here a few hours because the engineers of the
  9   day that designed this that studied from 1953 --
 10   '50 to '53 under the Red River Base Investigation
 11   and '57 and '58 under the Royal Commission of
 12   Flood Cost Benefit took very seriously the rights
 13   of people upstream.  And I want to explore that.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  You are making
 15   statements.  And as I said earlier, this is not
 16   the time to be making statements.  You will have
 17   an opportunity next week during your presentation.
 18   You will have a final opportunity during closing
 19   statements the following week to make any
 20   statements that you wish.  At this time, you
 21   should be asking questions only of the Floodway
 22   Authority and in relation, direct relation to the
 23   matter before us, the application for a licence to
 24   build a floodway or to expand the floodway.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  I'm going to flip to my
00811
  1   interrogatory questions.  I had said earlier on
  2   that these people are improperly editing my
  3   representations so I don't have their answers but
  4   I have my questions.  I'm going to ask my
  5   questions one at a time systematically and I'm
  6   going to expect that they give me answers then.  I
  7   had questions 1 through 9 and the first.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Again, if they tell me
  9   that they are not prepared to answer those
 10   questions any differently than they did in the
 11   interrogatory or information request process, then
 12   I can't allow them because they have already been
 13   asked and answered.
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  They have not been
 15   answered, sir.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  I will allow you to
 17   point out how they have not been answered, as long
 18   as it's not a rambling preamble.  You find your
 19   questions, point out how you feel that the answers
 20   are deficient and I will allow that.
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  The premise on floodway
 22   expansion is to maintain the natural under rule
 23   number 1.  Outside the purview of this assessment
 24   is how the natural is calculated.  The Manitoba
 25   Water Branch undertook Acres Consultants to do a
00812
  1   recomputation of the natural.  And is there any
  2   credit for the Assiniboine River reduction,
  3   Mr. McNeil, from the way the natural was
  4   calculated by Acres in that is there credit for
  5   the Assiniboine River Diversion and the Shellmouth
  6   Dam for any residents upstream of the City of
  7   Winnipeg?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  No.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  So the Shellmouth Dam
 10   and the Portage Diversion were built by Canada and
 11   Manitoba for Winnipeg residents only?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.  They are
 13   in conjunction with the three major flood control
 14   works including the Red River Floodway to protect
 15   Winnipeg.  Shellmouth, the reservoir, and Portage
 16   Diversion also have benefits to the residents
 17   along the Assiniboine River downstream of both of
 18   those structures as well.  And the people north of
 19   Winnipeg, and this was demonstrated yesterday,
 20   between Winnipeg and the lake also benefit from
 21   Shellmouth and the Assiniboine in that those water
 22   levels will always be below natural.
 23               So it was more than just Winnipeg but
 24   it was taken into consideration as part of the
 25   major flood control works for Winnipeg.
00813
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  So then, Mr. Bowering, I
  2   think you are sworn in.  And Mr. Bowering was very
  3   very frugal with information over the last six
  4   years.  There is a chart up there.  I wish he
  5   could help explain to commissioners.  There's one
  6   in front of you there as well.  These people are
  7   misrepresenting the natural.  They are not
  8   providing credit for upstream, for a facility,
  9   both the Portage Diversion and the Shellmouth Dam
 10   that was built by Canada and Manitoba.  And when
 11   it was finished, it was turned over to the
 12   Province of Manitoba.  So I wonder, could you help
 13   me with that, Rick?
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  What is the source of
 15   these diagrams?
 16               MR. BOWERING:  I am the source of
 17   those diagrams.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 19               MR. BOWERING:  What is shown on there,
 20   but the upper one is the -- in both the upper and
 21   lower one, the upper one is the water, the peak
 22   water elevation at the floodway inlet.  The lower
 23   one is peak level in the City of Winnipeg.  For
 24   each year, there is three bars.  The left bar is
 25   using recorded Assiniboine which is what
00814
  1   Mr. Clifton is suggesting we should be doing.  The
  2   middle bar is the actual peak level that happened,
  3   both of the City of Winnipeg, the recorded peak,
  4   and at the floodway entrance.  And the right hand
  5   is using the natural Assiniboine River levels.
  6               Now, as Doug McNeil explained, when
  7   the floodway was designed, natural basically meant
  8   without flood control works in place.  So natural
  9   has always consistently, from before the floodway
 10   was built right up until today, been computed as
 11   the level that would occur at the floodway
 12   entrance if there were no flood control works in
 13   place.  That means if there was no Shellmouth Dam,
 14   no Portage Diversion or no floodway.
 15               And so that is the yellow bar on the
 16   right-hand side.  By the way, the yellow bar is
 17   computed based on the new relationships developed
 18   by Acres in 2004.  Of course, in those earlier
 19   years, we were using a different relationship.
 20   The relationship was developed when the floodway
 21   was first constructed.  So those aren't the
 22   naturals that we were targeting back in the
 23   earlier years, those are somewhat different.  But
 24   we don't need to get too many bars on here.
 25               Really the point that Mr. Clifton is
00815
  1   making is he would say that by operating the
  2   Portage Diversion in Shellmouth, you already have
  3   reduced flows coming down the Assiniboine River
  4   and so there is already less flow north of
  5   Winnipeg.  And so why not apportion the other
  6   advantages of just say there's less flow on the
  7   Assiniboine.  Whereas what we do is we compute
  8   what the natural flow would have been on the
  9   Assiniboine if those flood control works were not
 10   there.
 11               And so, as some of the residents in
 12   the valley see it, that's kind of a double whammy
 13   to the people in the valley.  It really goes back
 14   to what natural is.  And the concept that we have
 15   consistently held since before I started working
 16   on this is that natural is what would have
 17   happened in the absence of the three flood control
 18   works, and then of course the dykes in the city as
 19   well.
 20               But we're talking about the three
 21   flood control works that were built for flood
 22   protection to Winnipeg and natural is what would
 23   have occurred.
 24               Now if you look at these spikes, you
 25   see that the blue ones are a little bit lower than
00816
  1   the yellow ones on the upper graph.  Of course on
  2   the lower graph, it's vice versa.  And so what
  3   this shows is that if you just use the recorded
  4   flow on the Assiniboine instead of the computed
  5   natural flow on the Assiniboine, you would be able
  6   to -- the natural would be a little bit -- I don't
  7   know if it would be called natural anymore but the
  8   level we would target south of the city would be a
  9   little bit lower than what we are currently
 10   targeting south of the city.
 11               Obviously, we could target almost any
 12   kind of a relationship of sharing of the benefit
 13   of the flood control works between the residents
 14   south.  That's really what Councillor Rutherford
 15   was talking about in her questions yesterday.
 16   Can't we let the levels go a little bit higher in
 17   the city if it's not really high in the city and
 18   provide a little bit advantage south of the city.
 19   Any of those things are possible; however, the
 20   flood control works were built for the City of
 21   Winnipeg.  And the fact is when you look at
 22   economics, there's so many people living in the
 23   City of Winnipeg that I think if you did it on
 24   economics at least, you would never be able to
 25   justify a change in the operating rules from these
00817
  1   current rules.
  2               So just to summarize then, what this
  3   graph shows, the top graph shows that the floodway
  4   inlet, the recorded level is the middle one, what
  5   we use for natural based on the new relationship
  6   is the right-hand one.  The blue left-hand spike
  7   is what the levels would be as a slight benefit to
  8   the people south of the city if we used a
  9   different definition of natural.  And then the
 10   James Avenue one at the bottom, it just shows what
 11   effect that would have at levels in the City of
 12   Winnipeg.
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you,
 14   Mr. Bowering.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  I wonder if you
 16   can help me one more question then, Mr. Bowering.
 17   I understand the project is in the range of $660
 18   million.  And it's a federal and provincial cost
 19   share agreement to do it 50/50.  I'm a resident of
 20   Canada, living upstream.  I pay provincial and
 21   federal taxes.  What portion of federal and
 22   provincial taxes will I be paying for floodway
 23   expansion as compared to the City of Winnipeg
 24   resident?
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, let me answer
00818
  1   that.  We haven't calculated that specifically.
  2   If any particular resident of Manitoba or Winnipeg
  3   or RM wanted to know that, we could do a rough
  4   calculation if you wished, but we don't have that
  5   number.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm not sure that it's
  7   relevant.
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, it's clearly
  9   relevant, Mr. Chair, in that they are offering up
 10   reducing our flood protection from 1 in 160 is
 11   what it used to be, in that range, down to 120
 12   year flood frequency protection.  City of Winnipeg
 13   resident gets 1 in 700.  But yet I understand that
 14   there's no negotiated arrangement for people that
 15   are to suffer as a result of this project.  And
 16   I'm just seeking clarification.  Is there any sort
 17   of negotiated arrangement to pond water upstream,
 18   Mr. McNeil?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  First of all, Mr. Chair,
 20   their level of protection, the flood of 160 year,
 21   which the floodway was originally designed to as
 22   we indicated yesterday, the frequency of that
 23   event has become more frequent.  It's now a 100
 24   year event.  The federal and provincial
 25   governments did spend money in the valley, over
00819
  1   $3,000 per capita to provide a 100 year level
  2   protection.  And there is no agreement.  But what
  3   the province has undertaken to do is that in the
  4   rare occurrence that people are artificially
  5   flooded, that there is the Red River Floodway Act
  6   that will provide for flood compensation for
  7   artificial flooding.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. McNeil.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Is there any arrangement
 10   to offset the annual right to pond water upstream
 11   by a flood easement agreement or a flood
 12   compensation agreement?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I'll just
 14   repeat myself.  What the government has done is
 15   created legislation called the Red River Floodway
 16   Act basically to restore claimants to their
 17   pre-flood position if they are artificially
 18   flooded.
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay, Mr. McNeil.  The
 20   figure in front of you, it shows a huge "C".  And
 21   you talked earlier that the artificial flooding
 22   propagates right down to Morris.  Have you
 23   quantified the numbers of people, the numbers of
 24   adults, the numbers of children, the numbers of
 25   homes that are in that area?  Is there a unique
00820
  1   phenomena that happens?  I'll let you answer the
  2   first ones first.  Have you quantified the number
  3   of people, the number of women, children and homes
  4   that are in that area?
  5               MR. J. OSLER:  If you were to look at
  6   the Environmental Impact Statements under table
  7   8.6-1 found on page 8-88, it lists the population
  8   flood study region municipalities and First
  9   Nations compared to Manitoba in 2001 which does
 10   provide the population base from which we did the
 11   assessment.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  How rigorous was your
 13   assessment?  In my writings, I asked about
 14   developable lots -- developed lots.  And so over
 15   the life of the floodway, what numbers are people?
 16   Because what you're essentially doing by offering
 17   up this project is you're limiting development in
 18   the valley, thereby the salvation of the City of
 19   Winnipeg.  And I'm wondering how rigorous was your
 20   assessment or did you just go from census numbers?
 21               MR. J. OSLER:  As table 8.6-1 points
 22   out, the numbers are based on the 2001 Statistics
 23   Canada information and the 2001 Manitoba Health
 24   population report.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  I want to go
00821
  1   further because you are on the mic, John, and this
  2   is all strictly just trying to get information.
  3               You were involved in stakeholder
  4   meetings generally throughout the valley, were you
  5   not, including key person interviews of key
  6   persons in the valley along the way?
  7               MR. J. OSLER:  My personal involvement
  8   with the -- I have been involved in stakeholder
  9   meetings and discussions with regards both to this
 10   environmental assessment process and I think you
 11   are alluding to an earlier Ste. Agathe floodway
 12   expansion study process that was carried out as a
 13   precursor to this.
 14               As for key person interviews related
 15   primarily to this environmental assessment
 16   process, I was not involved in that process but
 17   others within our firm were and those are
 18   contained within chapter 8 of the EIS which
 19   relates to socio-economic effects.
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  Did you, Mr. McNeil, and
 21   others attend, because you tend to think that
 22   you've done so well on the public consultations.
 23   Did you attend meeting number 2 at the Howden
 24   Community Hall where there was in the range of 100
 25   to 75 or so people there.  Were you in attendance
00822
  1   there?
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  I was.  And in fact, I
  3   was the main presenter.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  Did you and the
  5   Floodway Expansion Authority generally answer any
  6   questions presented by the public at those public
  7   consultation discussions?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  We answered every
  9   question that was raised to us.  Whether or not it
 10   was satisfactory, that will be up to the person
 11   who raised the question.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Osler, do you
 13   recognize the name, and this is an e-mail address
 14   bmcgurk@intergroup.ca?
 15               MR. J. OSLER:  That's Brett McGurk who
 16   is a research analyst with our firm.
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Was he managing a
 18   meeting at the Ste. Agathe hall for meeting number
 19   3 as a stakeholder meeting?
 20               MR. J. OSLER:  He was present at that
 21   meeting.
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Did you have
 23   correspondence from three residents upstream about
 24   the accuracy of the minutes provided from that
 25   hearing?
00823
  1               MR. J. OSLER:  The process, for the
  2   sake of the Commission, when we conduct the public
  3   consultation meetings and you will recall from my
  4   presentation on Tuesday, I took you through what
  5   the process was and the various methods of
  6   consultation we used.  One of those methods was a
  7   series of stakeholder meetings where we had an
  8   opportunity to talk in further depth with
  9   particular interested parties.
 10               The process was that we would organize
 11   the meetings and individually invite various
 12   parties or representatives from different groups
 13   such as Mr. Clifton or representatives at the Ste.
 14   Agathe meeting included the North Ritchot Action
 15   Committee, the Ritchot Concerned Citizens
 16   Committee.  And then we had an opportunity to
 17   present the information in a little bit more
 18   detail than you otherwise would see in, say, an
 19   open house format.
 20               Questions were received and answers
 21   were provided and they were noted in instance by
 22   Mr. McGurk and they were reviewed subsequently.
 23   We shared the draft form of those notes with the
 24   participants in the meeting.  Because as you look
 25   at section 1 of the supplementary filing, which is
00824
  1   in volume 4, the notes from that particular
  2   meeting, once they had been finalized with the
  3   community or, sorry, the interested parties became
  4   part of the record and that became part of our
  5   filing.
  6               So in response to Mr. Clifton's
  7   question directly, as a result of that meeting
  8   that took place in June during round 3 inasmuch as
  9   we've had experience with other meetings like
 10   this, you had comments that came in from various
 11   parties and I believe there were three, Paul.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  And I know it's a
 13   tough thing for you to say seeing as how you work
 14   for the folks next to you, but would it be
 15   accurate to say that two members of two community
 16   groups left the meeting early?  One member of the
 17   community group left the meeting early and the
 18   current vice-president of the Manitoba Floodway
 19   Expansion Authority left the meeting early citing
 20   "This is all BS"?
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Where are you going
 22   with this, Mr. Clifton?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  The Floodway Expansion
 24   Authority is saying that we ventured out and we've
 25   done extensive consultations.  They have barely
00825
  1   ventured out into this area and the consultations
  2   have not been very good.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  I mean they have
  4   provided a fairly thick document, documenting
  5   their consultation process.  I suppose it's a
  6   matter of opinion as to whether or not the
  7   consultations were adequate.  But where are you
  8   going with your line of questioning?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Do you feel, Mr. Chair,
 10   that from what you've heard so far, that the
 11   representations of these folks in the valley have
 12   adequately explained the adverse effects of this
 13   project?
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I'm not in a
 15   position to answer any questions at this time.
 16   Our role is to come to some conclusions after the
 17   hearings are completed.
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  I'm trying to present to
 19   you that there's grievous harm in this project and
 20   there's likely better ways.  But anyway, I'll
 21   carry on with just questions as directed here and
 22   prove along the way that they haven't answered
 23   questions here.
 24               Cumulative effects.  There is a
 25   general disagreement in how these folks calculate
00826
  1   cumulative effects.  This is or was a low head dam
  2   and we are going to now a high head dam.  Is there
  3   any illusion, Mr. McNeil, if we were trying to
  4   license this with the current environmental
  5   assessment environment as a new project, that you
  6   would ever undertake to be able to get licence for
  7   this project?
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  That's pure
  9   speculation.
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  How is the proponent to
 11   determine the cumulative effect of the revised
 12   project because as I see it, there's five
 13   components, the City of Winnipeg's flood
 14   protection infrastructure, there is the West Dyke,
 15   there is the program operation for the floodway,
 16   there is the control structure and the channel.
 17               Through a letter from Mr. Gilroy to
 18   the former Director of Environmental Approvals, he
 19   requested and was granted the removal of the City
 20   of Winnipeg's flood protection infrastructure from
 21   the project assessment.  How are we ever going to
 22   know how this thing is going to operate over all
 23   ranges of it be it summer, be it emergency summer,
 24   be it recreational summer or being spring which
 25   the Government of Canada bought into, Mr. McNeil?
00827
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  The simple answer is that
  2   the program of operation includes now four rules
  3   and those are hard and fast rules and they will be
  4   followed and they are not changing from the
  5   existing floodway to the expanded floodway.
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. McNeil, you are
  7   obviously quite aware that I have been seeking
  8   documents from your supposed partner in this all
  9   the way along.  And that was really because I
 10   wasn't getting the facts as presented by you
 11   folks.  But I do find there's 54 federal cabinet
 12   confidences in the floodway file.  But I also find
 13   an undertaking in October of 2002 that
 14   committed --
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  The question.
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  Let me find it, please,
 17   and I'll get the question.  The question,
 18   Mr. Chair.  Under the Red River Floodway Expansion
 19   Project, proposal for a framework agreement
 20   between the Government of Canada and the
 21   Government of Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg
 22   dated October 30th, 2002, why, in this proposal,
 23   are we not undertaking what was detailed in that
 24   and also included operation of the floodway, it
 25   included the food protection infrastructure within
00828
  1   the City of Winnipeg.  Why are we not doing what
  2   Canada, Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg agreed
  3   to do in this project?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  I believe that the
  5   document you are referring to was an agreement, a
  6   work in progress.  That was a draft.  It was never
  7   finalized.  The agreement that pertains to this
  8   project is the Canada and Manitoba agreement on
  9   Red River Floodway expansion and is dated
 10   December 8th, 2003 and of which we provided you a
 11   copy with, Mr. Clifton.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Do you have agreement
 13   from your federal counterparts that the way you
 14   are undertaking this is going to meet the
 15   requirements under cumulative environmental
 16   effects past, present and future right into
 17   decommissioning?  Will they be in agreement with
 18   the way you are going here?
 19               MR. REMPEL:  That's yet to be
 20   determined, Mr. Clifton.  The federal authorities
 21   are going to be informed from this hearing.  They
 22   are reviewing the EIS and they will conduct their
 23   screening report.  They will make that report
 24   available for public review.  They will review
 25   those comments and then they will make a report
00829
  1   with the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency
  2   and the federal minister responsible for
  3   approvals, they will make their determination at
  4   that point.  So at this point, there is no
  5   assurance, no decision, no determination has been
  6   made at this point.
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  Thank you.  They are
  8   becoming informed daily as we speak here.
  9               Back to my questions.  Paul Clifton,
 10   question number 3.  I had asked that the Floodway
 11   Expansion Authority provide me relevant documents
 12   as it relates to the 1958 Royal Commission on
 13   Flood Cost Benefit.  I asked them to provide me
 14   page 7, page 71, 72 and 82.
 15               I am going to ask on page 7 of that,
 16   they talked about flood insurance.  And they also
 17   talked about money in a kitty in a sense, a
 18   contributed for future flood damage compensation
 19   to folks.  Was that ever undertaken; and if not,
 20   why not?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Clifton, I am just
 22   not in a position to comment on that.
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  The difficulty with all
 24   this, and this leads into why there is ongoing
 25   court cases, why there is difficulties right now,
00830
  1   and I'll get into it in a minute, that we don't
  2   follow the rules and we don't have money.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Question?
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  The question -- 71,
  5   floodway design, they talked about one foot of
  6   freeboard against the primary dykes in the City of
  7   Winnipeg.  The top page of 41 talks about in 1980
  8   it changed and they undertook two feet of
  9   freeboard.  What studies or documentation are in
 10   place to support that change, and what recognition
 11   was there made at that time for additional waters
 12   held upstream?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm going to ask
 14   Mr. Bowering to try and respond to that question.
 15               MR. BOWERING:  I am going on
 16   recollection here, Paul, but I think it would be
 17   generally agreed that one foot of freeboard is a
 18   pretty small amount of freeboard.  And the general
 19   standard that we've used throughout the valley is
 20   two feet of freeboard, so we've flood proofed to
 21   the 1997 flood plus two feet, and some would
 22   suggest that two feet is not even enough
 23   freeboard.  And in critical structures like the
 24   West Dyke, we've done specific studies, the
 25   Floodway Authority has done specific studies.  But
00831
  1   it was generally, it was generally recognized that
  2   one foot of freeboard was really inadequate and
  3   two foot makes more sense.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Further on that, on the
  5   Royal Commission of Flood Cost Benefits.  Many,
  6   many times we find through looking at the historic
  7   records that good recommendation were made and
  8   they have not been followed.  In it they talk
  9   about operation, and in order to evaluate the
 10   operation they looked at one method of operation
 11   or the second method of operation.
 12               I ask the question, which method of
 13   operation do you use, method number 1, method
 14   number 2, or a third method not detailed in the
 15   report?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Clifton, I think
 17   what's relevant to this project is the operation
 18   rules that are in place today, which were approved
 19   by Manitoba and Canada in the year 2000 and which
 20   are not changing for the project that is being
 21   assessed.
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. McNeil, to counter
 23   that, I read from Mr. Reg Alcock's --
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Question.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Question?
00832
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  No debate at this time,
  2   you'll have your opportunity to make your case.
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  Question number 4, I had
  4   asked the question to see records of writings as
  5   it relates to the operating rules from public that
  6   were requested by Minister Oscar Lathlin as it
  7   related to the operating rules review committee.
  8   Were the 80 letters provided to me, and if not,
  9   why not; and was the letter provided to Paul
 10   Clifton provided in its entirety?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  Okay.  So, the IRs, Paul
 12   Clifton question number 4, the response from the
 13   Floodway Authority was and I quote,
 14               "Mr. Bowering was contacted regarding
 15               release of the submissions.
 16               Mr. Bowering will conform with the
 17               department's freedom of information
 18               advisor to determine if he can release
 19               the submissions from private citizens.
 20               Mr. Clifton can be advised to contact
 21               Mr. Bowering directly."
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  The question was in two
 23   parts, and it comes back to, are you properly
 24   undertaking to represent what might be an adverse
 25   opinion here.  But two questions.  First off,
00833
  1   actually that hit on the first part of mine, was
  2   the Paul Clifton letter presented in its entirety
  3   from the Water Branch?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  I can't comment on that
  5   question.
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Bowering is right
  7   there, maybe he could comment.
  8               MR. BOWERING:  Presented to who,
  9   Mr. Clifton?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  The proponent here is
 11   Manitoba.  There is a linkage between the Floodway
 12   Expansion Authority and the Water Branch.  You are
 13   the operator, you are the proponent, so you guys
 14   are sharing information.  I don't know what you're
 15   doing, but you're supposed to be working together
 16   because you're Manitoba.
 17               MR. BOWERING:  Correct.
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  The record -- Doug
 19   Peterson -- was represented as four pages.  Was it
 20   a four page letter or not, and why wouldn't you
 21   represent the fifth page that obviously was there?
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Where you going with
 23   this?
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  Executive
 25   responsibility.
00834
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  But what does that have
  2   to do with the application for an environmental
  3   licence?
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  These folks --
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Clifton, I realize
  6   that you have a number of concerns about how the
  7   province has dealt with your issues over the last
  8   few years, and I sympathize with you, but many of
  9   them are outside of our mandate.  We're quite
 10   prepared to be fairly flexible in defining our
 11   mandate, but when it gets far outside our mandate,
 12   then I really do have to draw a line.
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  Question number
 14   5, I believe there is inaccurate information given
 15   to me by the Floodway Expansion Authority and I am
 16   seeking clarification.  Do you folks knowingly
 17   know that the request of whether or not there was
 18   federal funds in the West Dyke extension?  And the
 19   response by Mr. Dan McNaughton of the Canadian
 20   Environmental Assessment Agency was inaccurate
 21   when he provided it back to me.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't know that he
 23   can answer for Mr. McNaughton who is not a party
 24   to these hearings.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Question number 6 talks
00835
  1   about preparedness and the ability to run pumps,
  2   because all of us have some sort of emergency
  3   flood protection.  There has been an extensive
  4   flood proofing program throughout the valley.  Has
  5   there been an undertaking to flood proof the power
  6   utility's infrastructure in the valley to give
  7   people that are trying their "darndest" to save
  8   their livelihoods, from loss of power?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  The power utility,
 10   Manitoba Hydro, I know since the 1997 flood had
 11   undertaken a lot of work themselves to protect
 12   their substations.  That is part of their duties
 13   and responsibilities as owners, operators and
 14   maintainers of their infrastructure and their
 15   plant.
 16               As you know, through this process we
 17   are assessing any cumulative effects of this
 18   project, and in the south, and I mean south of
 19   Winnipeg, there is a slight benefit with the
 20   expansion of this project in that there will be
 21   less frequent and severe flooding as a result of
 22   this project.
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  So you're saying to me
 24   there has been no undertaking by the Floodway
 25   Expansion Authority, you're leaving it to the
00836
  1   utility to deal with as they may.  Because case in
  2   point is just at Marchand Road, the St. Norbert
  3   substation.  Everybody in the immediate upstream
  4   area rely on that.  Are you undertaking to flood
  5   proof that with monies from the Manitoba Floodway
  6   Expansion Authority?
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  No, that's outside the
  8   scope of this project.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Electrocution hazard.  I
 10   had a question in to Mr. Paul Anderson, assistant
 11   deputy director or something of Manitoba EMO, that
 12   hasn't yet been answered.  But people are not
 13   going to leave the valley.  Are you going to
 14   undertake to elevate lines in the valley so that
 15   we don't kill people through electrocution through
 16   your project?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  We're not undertaking any
 18   changes to power lines that are outside the scope
 19   of this project.
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  In the public
 21   consultation meetings that were minuted by
 22   Mr. Terry Duguid, they weren't hearings, they were
 23   public consultation, and so people didn't swear an
 24   oath to speak but they spoke on the top four.  And
 25   interestingly, they were minuted in the Hansard
00837
  1   records of, the legislative Hansard as a project
  2   on the Red River Floodway.  So in 2002, folks had
  3   already undertaken to expand the floodway.  And I
  4   suggest to you that it was even earlier, like as
  5   in 1997 in June.  But they dealt with
  6   compensation, terms of reference of the KGS
  7   report, operation of the Red River Floodway, and
  8   other flood protection options.
  9               What have you done as far as measuring
 10   your mitigation plan of this project to be
 11   adequate as viewed by the people that are going to
 12   avail it?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Could you be a little
 14   more specific on specific effect?
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  The proposal is, I flood
 16   you, I promise, I promise, I promise I'll pay.  By
 17   June 30th, I'll tell you if we are artificially
 18   flooded, and I promise, I promise, I promise I'll
 19   pay.  What measure would you folks have in place
 20   to assure we have people satisfied with the
 21   payment they get for being put under by the
 22   Government of Manitoba and the Government of
 23   Canada?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Clifton, I will refer
 25   you to section 7 of the EIS supplementary filing.
00838
  1   It gives an update on the Red River Floodway Act.
  2   It talks about the criteria under which
  3   compensation would be provided.  It talks about
  4   the administration of that Act, and it also talks
  5   about the public process that the Act went
  6   through, and I refer you to section 7.5.  And it
  7   states in there that there was a public meeting on
  8   June 7, 2004 which you attended.  And the
  9   committee listened to the public comments, and
 10   they did make changes to the proposed legislation
 11   with respect to appeals, which I think is where
 12   you are heading with this.
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  No, it's not, sir.
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  Okay, I am sorry.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  You answer the
 16   questions, sir, and I'll put my own thoughts in my
 17   own head.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  Anyway, Mr. Clifton, the
 19   bottom line is the update on the Red River
 20   Floodway Act that was provided in section 7 of the
 21   supplementary filing is still valid today in terms
 22   of where the Act is and how it will deal with
 23   compensation and claims and appeals.
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  Do you, are you aware
 25   that Hansard records are around for almost ever?
00839
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes.  And the Hansard
  2   records for that public meeting are on the
  3   province's website.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  I bring to your
  5   attention that I, as recorded by Hansard, was
  6   petitioning for a federal/provincial judicial
  7   review.  Do you believe in the Canadian
  8   Constitution, sir, in your undertakings with the
  9   Floodway Expansion Authority?
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I don't think
 11   that is quite relevant.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Am I to understand on
 13   the control structure the wing walls, the upper
 14   wing walls, the vertical section before they go
 15   diagonally are at 771.0 or thereabouts, as your
 16   best guess, Mr. McNeil?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, I believe that's
 18   correct.
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  For 35 years as the
 20   floodway has existed, the riprap protection on
 21   that upper face has been adequate, but now in your
 22   proposal it's no longer adequate.  How could that
 23   be?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Carson will answer
 25   that question.
00840
  1               MR. CARSON:  I guess the answer lies
  2   in the criteria that were used nearly 40 years ago
  3   to design that riprap coverage.  They have evolved
  4   over the years.  And what we were concerned about
  5   was the underlying material and whether it could
  6   be drawn out between the large stones, the riprap.
  7   And that really is the issue.  The riprap itself
  8   is quite capable of withstanding the velocities of
  9   flow that would go past it.  So it was really
 10   upgraded standards that led to the recommendation
 11   for upgrading.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  I am terribly troubled.
 13   I've got a couple of reports authored by you
 14   folks, KGS Group.  And in one, you are honest and
 15   you detail to the United States and Canada that
 16   the upstream level for design was 771.25, and now
 17   you're telling me it's 778.  We've gone from
 18   771.25 to 778.  I am conflicted with that and I
 19   wonder if you can help me, Mr. McNeil?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  Which two reports are you
 21   referring to, Mr. Clifton?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  There was the
 23   task force report to the IJC, and it was
 24   Mr. Halliday, Mr. Larry Whitney, Mr. Doug McNeil
 25   and Mr. Maurice Sydor of Environment Canada.  And
00841
  1   on page 4 they talk about the Red River Floodway,
  2   the 1962 to '68 design, and they show in it that
  3   the water level upstream of the inlet is 770.25.
  4   But yet a year later, or pardon me, two years
  5   later, we have the Canada/Manitoba/City of
  6   Winnipeg report, the main report, and we now have
  7   an insertion here that it says 778.0 water level
  8   upstream of inlet for emergency operation.  That
  9   line doesn't exist in this one.  So we were
 10   truthful to the United States and Canada, but in
 11   this one we're not truthful to Manitobans.  And
 12   I'm conflicted here.  When did it change and why?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Clifton, we're
 14   truthful in those reports and every report since
 15   then.  The difference there is that 770.25 refers
 16   to the water level upstream when the floodway has
 17   reached its capacity, design capacity of
 18   60,000 cubic feet per second, the associated water
 19   level at the inlet control structure would be
 20   770.25.
 21               As you know in 1997, we went into rule
 22   2, and the floodway flow was actually 65,000 cubic
 23   feet per second, and it corresponded to a water
 24   level at the inlet of 771 and a half.  The 778 is
 25   the ultimate capacity of the system, and a flood
00842
  1   of 225 years, one in 225 year return period would
  2   basically result in a water level at the inlet
  3   control structure of 778.  With the expanded
  4   floodway, the 700 year level, one in 700 year
  5   flood will result in an elevation at the inlet
  6   control structure of 778.0 feet above sea level.
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  So clarify for me
  8   Mr. McNeil, if we had a flood of 1826 in 1997,
  9   would we have seen 778 at the floodway inlet?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, we would have,
 11   because 1826 flood is a one in 290 year event.  So
 12   once you have exceeded that one in 225 year event,
 13   or 778 at the inlet, you cannot allow the water
 14   level to go higher, you start lowering the gates.
 15   And so there would have been a lot of flooding in
 16   Winnipeg because all the additional flow would
 17   have been routed through Winnipeg.
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. McNeil, you're an
 19   engineer, aren't you?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.  I have
 21   both a bachelors and a masters degree from the
 22   University of Manitoba, and I studied under one of
 23   the best water resources engineers in this
 24   province, Mr. Ed Kuiper, and also Mr. Cas Booy.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Good for you.  The water
00843
  1   would have gone around and flooded into St.
  2   Norbert on the LaSalle River system, would it not,
  3   and you would have been incapable, because the
  4   West Dyke wasn't there, as it is shown here now,
  5   and you would have been incapable of coming to 778
  6   at the floodway inlet?
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  I was just conferring
  8   with Mr. Carson.  As we did in 1997 to extend and
  9   raise the West Dyke temporarily for that event, if
 10   we were faced with an 1826 flood with the existing
 11   system, again, it would have to be raised and
 12   extended.  And mostly for freeboard.  In terms of
 13   this project, raising and extending the West Dyke,
 14   it's not to accommodate a water level higher than
 15   778 at the inlet, it's entirely for wind and wave
 16   concerns.  And if you will recall from 1997, that
 17   was a very big concern, that if we would have had
 18   wave, wind, significant wind from the south and
 19   wave uprush and the setup, that the West Dyke
 20   could have been overtopped and could have resulted
 21   in catastrophic flooding.  And that is why there
 22   was a great deal of effort to put in the temporary
 23   means in 1997.  And with this project we are going
 24   to eliminate the need for temporary works because
 25   we're going to do it permanently.
00844
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  I'm not going to argue
  2   the point, I am trying to seek clarification, but
  3   I do note my friend from the CBC is here, and you
  4   topped up the dyke I believe five and a half feet
  5   since, and I'll deal with that by chance because I
  6   have slides that will depict that, but I'm going
  7   to go into my next question.  And it really
  8   relates to Mr. Farlinger's very good report, and
  9   it talks about until such time as an agreement on
 10   emergency operation is reached, any future
 11   negative impacts of residents south of the
 12   floodgates caused as a result of deviating from
 13   the public's program of operation or the floodway
 14   in order to protect the City of Winnipeg should be
 15   the responsibility of the City of Winnipeg.
 16               Do we have in place presently an
 17   agreement for emergency operation of the floodway?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  I don't know exactly what
 19   you are getting at.  That statement in the
 20   Manitoba Water Commission study was, I believe, an
 21   interim measure that was recommended by the
 22   Manitoba Water Commission until the operating
 23   rules were reviewed.  And I recall too, and I
 24   forget the page, later on in that same document,
 25   the Manitoba Water Commission indicated that it
00845
  1   was prudent the way the floodway was operated in
  2   1997.
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  I'm going to have
  4   to flip to the infamous 197 and 198.  These are
  5   two records that were withheld, very diligently
  6   withheld for six years or so, and they are
  7   dovetailed in with my correspondence.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Question.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  There will be a
 10   question, sir.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Quickly.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Bowering, do you
 13   operate the floodway by the rules in a legal sense
 14   of the requirement of operating rules?
 15               MR. BOWERING:  Well, we do operate
 16   according to the operating rules.  I don't know
 17   what the last part meant, but we do follow the
 18   operating rules when we operate the structure.
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  I've submitted extensive
 20   records, and it's on my CD, and it is called Prime
 21   Minister Jean Chretien and the Provincial Water
 22   Branch.  And I read the paragraph, and I want to
 23   get clarification, please.  This is record 198,
 24   and it talks about the requirement on the front
 25   end of it about getting federal approval of the
00846
  1   operating rules.
  2               "I present that this floodway isn't
  3               licenced at this time.  We have made
  4               the point of operating rules are
  5               really guidelines.  They are not rules
  6               in the legal sense of the regulations.
  7               We have rule curves for all our
  8               reservoirs and control structures.  We
  9               use them as guidelines.  An engineer
 10               would be irresponsible to knowingly
 11               allow Winnipeg to flood by rigidly
 12               holding to the operating rules."
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  Whose words are you
 14   reading?
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Bowering's words to
 16   Mr. Maurice Sydor of Environment Canada, and that
 17   was in response to a question of the PMO's office.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Bowering, do you
 19   have comment on that?
 20               MR. BOWERING:  Yes.  That was just my
 21   personal opinion as an engineer, and it was
 22   recommended to be withheld through Freedom of
 23   Information by our lawyer, because it was really
 24   me making legal judgments, I suppose, on things
 25   that engineers don't make legal judgments on.  It
00847
  1   was just my view that engineers have operating
  2   rules and rule curves for lots of structures which
  3   really generally are used as guidelines.
  4               However, as we have proceeded down
  5   this road and as we have reviewed and approved the
  6   operating rules, the operating rules of course are
  7   far more than guidelines.  So for a small dam out
  8   in the country, we would have what we call a rule
  9   curve which is something we generally follow and
 10   decide whether to open and close the gate.  But
 11   when it comes to the operation of the Red River
 12   Floodway, now that we've finalized the rules, we
 13   do follow those much more than guidelines, we do
 14   follow them as rules.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Bowering, you'll
 16   likely recognize this as page 41 of your report.
 17   In this it talks about operating rules and whether
 18   or not the Water Branch can take advantage of
 19   having all the homes up on hills.  And it talks
 20   about whether or not we should operate by the
 21   rules or deviate from the rules and take advantage
 22   of that.  I'm going to read here, and I wonder if
 23   you could help me.
 24               "During the 1997 flood concerns were
 25               expressed in the valley south levels
00848
  1               would rise too quickly."
  2   And it goes on and talks about whether or not the
  3   City of Winnipeg could take advantage of this
  4   intended ponding to alleviate sewer backup
  5   damages.
  6               "However, the operation could lead to
  7               numerous disputes and a system would
  8               have to be in place to compensate the
  9               resulting minor damages and a
 10               bureaucracy required to administer it
 11               would be unwieldy.  Therefore, the
 12               committee decided against including in
 13               the operating rules a provision for
 14               deviation from the computed natural
 15               level when water levels within the
 16               City of Winnipeg are not threatening
 17               to over top the primary dykes."
 18   Is it possible to over top the primary dykes in
 19   the City of Winnipeg other than spring flooding?
 20               MR. BOWERING:  No.
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  Would you say by this
 22   that we are in dispute?
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  That's not relevant to
 24   our consideration today.  I have already noted
 25   that, we all recognize that you have a conflict
00849
  1   with the province in respect of a number of
  2   issues, but that's not before us.
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  Could we look at
  4   this.  I'll show you first, Mr. Chair --
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm familiar with that
  6   document.
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  You are.
  8               Okay, Mr. Bowering, does this
  9   accurately reflect the inlet at the present time?
 10   Like given that it's not flooding, is the
 11   restriction in front of the floodway channel, as
 12   we see there, as it is now?
 13               MR. BOWERING:  There are some
 14   differences.  The two notches have been cut into
 15   the outside embankment, and there also has been
 16   some flood proofing work, in particular, what is
 17   locally referred to as the Cloutier dyke which is
 18   extended on the end of the Turnbull dyke.
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Is it not true,
 20   Mr. Bowering, that there is a restriction to the
 21   inlet of the floodway control structure, because
 22   not only is the Turnbull dyke there, but now there
 23   is a Cloutier dyke extension that extends and
 24   compromises the inlet further than the Turnbull
 25   dyke?
00850
  1               MR. BOWERING:  We examined that when
  2   we were doing the study, the initial studies for
  3   putting the notches in.  We had the Canadian
  4   Hydraulic Centre look at that issue, and they
  5   determined that it has a fairly minor effect.  And
  6   particularly as further studies have showed, once
  7   you put the notches in, then more and more water
  8   goes through the notches as water levels get
  9   higher.
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  You would recognize the
 11   TAC, Mr. Bowering, what that means, the acronym,
 12   TAC?
 13               MR. BOWERING:  All right, technical
 14   advisory committee.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct.  So you
 16   recognize that.  Are you aware that PFRA, who was
 17   a partner with you at the time, had significant
 18   concerns about the Water Branch partnering with
 19   Cloutier dyke farms in extending known and obvious
 20   impediment to flow into the floodway, so actually
 21   you were aggravating it?
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't know that
 23   that's relevant to our consideration.
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  It's got to go, sir,
 25   we're talking for minor floods, if that --
00851
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  But whether or not
  2   Mr. Bowering is aware that PFRA has some concerns
  3   about it is not something that we can deal with.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  It's not addressed in
  5   the project, but there is an impediment.  These
  6   folks say that the notches in the east embankment
  7   are good for folks.  They are only good for folks
  8   that live to the east.  The people to the west
  9   derive no, zero benefit from the notches.  Help me
 10   out here, Mr. Bowering.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  People to the west of?
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  West of Red River Drive,
 13   and on the west of the Red River, the notches are
 14   far too far to the east to provide any sort of
 15   relief, and even in a good year the relief might
 16   be in the range of 8 inches.  Is that not true,
 17   Mr. Bowering?
 18               MR. BOWERING:  I think you'd have to
 19   ask that of the engineers who did the further
 20   study of the notches and the effects.
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  We talk about the
 22   insignificance of flooding the valley, and the
 23   Manitoba Floodway Expansion Authority proposed
 24   that the residual effects in the valley are of
 25   very short duration and thus not significant.
00852
  1               Can I get you to explain the not
  2   significance of flooding the valley, Mr. McNeil?
  3               MR. C. OSLER:  I think --
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  And I'll reference it,
  5   it's section 8, pardon me, chapter 8, section
  6   8.3.4.
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. John Osler will take
  8   this question, Mr. Chair.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  It is chapter 8, 8.3.4.
 10               MR. J. OSLER:  Mr. Clifton, you are
 11   referring to page 8-41.  It summarizes the
 12   residual effects and significance and resource
 13   use?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  No, I read it as 8.3.4,
 15   in that you sort of state in there that the flood
 16   is of very infrequent and is of short duration,
 17   i.e. you folks put the water over my dyke, it
 18   fills my home full of water, and it's not that
 19   significant.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  Are you referencing the
 21   same document?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, I get this from my
 23   October 14th, 2004 submission, and it was titled
 24   "Comments on the Red River Floodway Expansion
 25   EIS."
00853
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Is this the
  2   supplementary filing or --
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  No.  I'll get to the
  4   supplementary filing a little later, but that was
  5   the EIS.  Am I wrong, John?
  6               MR. J. OSLER:  I can't find a
  7   reference.
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  What page number are you
  9   asking about, Mr. Clifton?  Can you point us right
 10   to the specific --
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  I'm sorry, I can't.  If
 12   you remember, you folks for economic reasons
 13   didn't provide me an EIS, and so I was without an
 14   EIS reviewing this stuff.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, Mr. Chair, we
 16   provided all interested participants, the funded
 17   participants got CD's, and Mr. Clifton also got
 18   CD's of the entire documentation.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  It is so voluminous, Mr.
 21   McNeil.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  We are trying to be
 23   environmentally friendly.  You know by looking
 24   behind you how many reports there are, so we put
 25   most of them out to the public in CD format.
00854
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  You know, I think I have
  2   been at this quite a long time, and I needed the
  3   EIS myself, Mr. Chair.
  4               But, anyway, you say in a sense, and
  5   somewhere in that document it says that flooding
  6   of your home, Mr. Clifton, is infrequent and is
  7   not significant.  And I wonder how you justify
  8   that?
  9               MR. J. OSLER:  First of all, if you
 10   recall the discussions that took place yesterday
 11   that talked about cumulative effects assessment,
 12   and we as part of that assessment looked at what
 13   was a baseline and what was perceived at the time,
 14   particularly with an example upstream of the
 15   control structure, what was a natural.  And we
 16   noted that the difference between the two for the
 17   example, I believe which was water levels, talked
 18   to artificial flooding.
 19               Independent of what we've spent a lot
 20   of time this afternoon actually talking about,
 21   things that contribute to where we are today, what
 22   has happened in the past.  The focus of this
 23   project, of this environmental assessment is on
 24   the environmental effects, and what you refer to
 25   as the residual effects, as those effects,
00855
  1   environmental effects after application and
  2   mitigation.
  3               We are focused here today on project
  4   related environmental effects, and that will be
  5   the difference between where we would be today and
  6   in the future without this project, and where we
  7   would be today or where we will be in the future
  8   with this project.
  9               When we talk about the effects on
 10   residents and homes south of the inlet control
 11   structure, particularly as it relates to
 12   socioeconomic conditions, the things that we
 13   looked at in chapter 8, the definition of
 14   environmental effect means that it has to follow
 15   from a change in the biophysical or physical
 16   environment as an environmental effect.  And as we
 17   have talked yesterday in the presentation to the
 18   Commission, and we've had some discussion today,
 19   given that for all flood scenarios, all the
 20   descriptions that Dr. Morgan and Mr. McNeil
 21   referred to the different flood scenarios, that
 22   water levels are expected to be equal to or lower
 23   than for all flood scenarios that were considered.
 24   And as a result, the impacts, or the environmental
 25   effect, or the associated environmental effect on
00856
  1   people, from my perspective, is that they are not
  2   significant.  There is not a likely significant
  3   adverse environmental effect from this project,
  4   the Floodway Expansion Project.
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Osler, do you live
  6   upstream of the floodway by chance?
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Not relevant.
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  I'm sorry, I had to
  9   throw that in.
 10               I'm going to bring reference further
 11   on about the representation by the Manitoba
 12   Floodway Expansion Authority at public
 13   consultation hearings, and specifically a
 14   starboard of the program of operation.  And I'm
 15   going to just seek clarification in that you folks
 16   are generally engineers, and you generally do work
 17   by contract, and one of the fundamentals is you
 18   don't pay the contractor for doing his work until
 19   such time as he's complied with all the statutory
 20   requirements or specification requirements and
 21   that.  And I find that Canada and Manitoba
 22   undertook an agreement to build the floodway.  But
 23   Canada didn't -- Manitoba did not comply to
 24   Canada's requirements, but Canada paid anyway.
 25   And it was only 33 years later that they actually
00857
  1   got federal approval.  But in your starboard, I'm
  2   just confused, you say that the Province of
  3   Manitoba owned the floodway operating rules.  Do
  4   Province of Manitoba own the damages that result
  5   from floodway operation as well, or do they share
  6   that with Canada?  And that's specific to the
  7   Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requirement
  8   that Canada mitigate the adverse effects if you're
  9   partnering on a job.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  That is a matter --
 11   Mr. Clifton is arguing, he's not asking a
 12   question.
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  I agree.
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  The 1962
 15   agreement required that the program of operation
 16   be submitted before the construction was complete.
 17   Did that happen, Mr. McNeil?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  I can't answer that
 19   question Mr. Clifton.
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Bowering, can you
 21   help me, please?
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  How is that relevant?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  It's relevant because
 24   they are saying, sir, that operation is carved in
 25   stone, okay, they are saying that operation is
00858
  1   carved in stone, okay.  We are not going to deal
  2   with any other operation but the way they say they
  3   operate, we're not dealing with the natural
  4   because we're going to deal with what I say is
  5   natural, you know.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  They are saying that
  7   they have adopted new rules in -- well, that
  8   report was December 1999, I believe they were
  9   adopted about a year later by the government.
 10   Rule 4 came into effect this past November.
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  How, sir, could we
 12   live -- how could we live, sir, upstream of a dam
 13   that these people could just throw in a rule, have
 14   public hearings and say, yeah, we've got this new
 15   rule.  You know, this floodway was built to flood
 16   protect from spring flooding.
 17               The International Joint Commission --
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm not here to debate
 19   with you, Mr. Clifton, I just don't see the
 20   relevance of whether or not the rules were
 21   formally adopted by Canada in 1962.  It's my
 22   understanding that whether the rules were adopted
 23   or not, the rules have been more or less
 24   consistently followed since 1969 when the floodway
 25   first operated.  There was a change subsequent to
00859
  1   the 1997 flood.
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  No, sir, the record
  3   doesn't clearly say that.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm not here to debate
  5   with you.
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  No.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  I want you to
  8   demonstrate to me the relevance of this whole line
  9   of questioning.
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  What is happening here
 11   is, I'm going to explain.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  We --
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  I'm going to explain.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Future operations of
 15   this floodway are clearly within the purview of
 16   our review.  Past operations, you'll have to show
 17   me how it's relevant.
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  I am going to show you
 19   how it is relevant.
 20               The thing was, the operating rules, as
 21   were approved by Minister David Anderson over
 22   there, said that thou shalt not operate the
 23   floodway unless there's an imminent threat of over
 24   topping from the primary dykes.  That is what the
 25   rules say, that's page 41.  Is that the most
00860
  1   current rules, Mr. Bowering?
  2               MR. BOWERING:  What you are referring
  3   to there is the parts that I think you put in red,
  4   which was a discussion of a modification of rule 1
  5   that had been suggested by the RM of Ritchot that
  6   we modify rule 1, that while the water level is
  7   rising we could deviate from natural if there was
  8   a reason to.  And the decision there is all in
  9   context of operation during rule 1.  The decision
 10   there was that we would not.  And so this is the
 11   rule that we put in as far as rule 1 goes.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  You were the
 13   operator of the floodway, Mr. Bowering, okay.  The
 14   City of Winnipeg derives benefit.  Now I'm just a
 15   layman sitting out in the valley, but let's say
 16   June 18, 2002, how did it happen that the floodway
 17   was operated on June 18, 2002?  Did the city phone
 18   you and say, hey, put that floodway in operation?
 19               MR. BOWERING:  Well, it was a matter
 20   of discussion and considerable concern with storms
 21   coming and the levels already quite high.  There's
 22   a different situation as -- a different situation
 23   with summer floods because of the problem of
 24   intense thunder storms happening.  Intense thunder
 25   storms are very rare during a spring flood, and so
00861
  1   the city can sustain somewhat higher levels
  2   without risking extensive sewer backup.  But in
  3   the summer, at very high river levels, they -- if
  4   there was a thunder storm happening, there would
  5   be -- the sewers would back up.  And so that's why
  6   we came up with this -- we did the emergency
  7   operation in the summer of 2002.  And at that time
  8   we thought of it as a one time operation.  Then we
  9   found in the summer of 2004 we had a very similar
 10   situation, and so then we operated again.  At that
 11   point we had to recognize that, well, if we are
 12   going to continue to operate, we'd better have a
 13   rule of how we're going to do this.  So that's why
 14   we developed the rule 4.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I would just
 16   remind the Commission that the decision to -- or
 17   sorry, the Federal Government approved the
 18   existing operating rules 1, 2 and 3 in 2000.  The
 19   Federal Government passed responsibility for those
 20   rules to the province in 2003, and then the
 21   province chose to operate the floodway to protect
 22   against basement flooding, significant potential
 23   basement flooding damage and risk to public health
 24   in that operation, both in 2002 and 2004.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. McNeil, are you
00862
  1   saying that in future any modifications to the
  2   rules is solely within the purview of the
  3   province?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Chair, I seek
  7   clarification, because there's very few people
  8   that have actually experienced, viewed basement
  9   flooding.  Basement flooding generally is viewed
 10   from a boat, and generally is from the
 11   manipulation of gates from some unlicensed
 12   facility.  And you see the water come up so high
 13   it goes into the basement windows.
 14               Mr. McNeil, do you see that in the
 15   City of Winnipeg when you say basement flooding or
 16   does that basement flooding percolate -- because
 17   it comes into flood lift pumps, sir.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  But, again, how is this
 19   relevant to the review before us?  I understand
 20   your concern, and as I said earlier, I am
 21   sympathetic towards it, but it just doesn't come
 22   into the purpose that we are here this week and
 23   the next couple.
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay, sir.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  Furthermore, you know,
00863
  1   you shouldn't be debating or even expressing
  2   opinions.  Backgrounds that lead into relevant
  3   questions are acceptable, but they should be
  4   relevantly brief.
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  The International
  6   Joint Commission did extensive study of Red River
  7   Valley flooding, and it was undertaken by Canada
  8   and Manitoba.
  9               On page 29 it recommends that
 10   modification of sewer and land drainage systems be
 11   undertaken to better flood protect the City of
 12   Winnipeg.
 13               Is there any modifications to the
 14   sewer and land drainage systems to be undertaken
 15   in this project?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  No, none at all.
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  How many flood lift
 18   pumps are going to be upgraded in the next while?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  I couldn't answer that
 20   question, you'd have to ask an employee of the
 21   City of Winnipeg.  And they do however have an
 22   ongoing program to upgrade their sewer and their
 23   flood protection infrastructure, but the details
 24   of which you'd have to ask a city representative.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  I want to talk
00864
  1   then about legislated flood protection levels.
  2   And we live in the Province of Manitoba, some of
  3   us upstream of the works, some of us within the
  4   flood protection of the works, and some
  5   downstream.  Are the flood protection levels
  6   within the City of Winnipeg covered by some sort
  7   of legislated mechanism, Mr. McNeil?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, there are clauses in
  9   the City of Winnipeg Act that pertain specifically
 10   to the flood protection level.  And pursuant to
 11   the City of Winnipeg Act, there's Manitoba
 12   regulation 266/91 that refers to the flood
 13   proofing criteria that development within the
 14   floodway or the flood plain must adhere to.  And
 15   the design level is 27.8 feet at James Avenue
 16   equivalent.
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Would you know if the
 18   800 or some homes between the river and the
 19   primary dykes are within that guise of the
 20   legislated flood protection level?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  I would guess that 99 per
 22   cent of the homes that you are referring to, the
 23   800 homes that needed sandbag protection in 1997,
 24   were built prior to the legislation, and the
 25   legislation was passed in 1980, specifically
00865
  1   Manitoba regulation.  And that most of those homes
  2   were actually built prior to the 1950 flood.  Any
  3   homes built in the flood plain of Winnipeg's Red,
  4   Assiniboine and Seine Rivers since 1980 have had
  5   to adhere to the flood proofing regulations.
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  But I don't care
  7   about grandfather or whatever.  Where is the
  8   protection lying for the City of Winnipeg as it
  9   relates to the legislated Flood Protection Act
 10   that's in place and detailed under the City of
 11   Winnipeg Charter Act?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  Manitoba regulation
 13   refers to flood risk maps.  There are two copies.
 14   One is situated now at Manitoba Water Stewardship,
 15   and one is situated with the City of Winnipeg, and
 16   additional copies are with the planning branch,
 17   the Water and Waste Department, et cetera.  So
 18   that everybody is aware of, any time there is
 19   development in the flood plain, that those
 20   regulations must be adhered to.
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  Would it be true to say
 22   that in the '57 and '58 report on Royal Commission
 23   on Flood Cost Benefit, that the Commissioners of
 24   the day saw that there was going to be losses when
 25   there was a flood of record, and those losses
00866
  1   would be those homes between the primary dykes and
  2   the secondary dykes in the City of Winnipeg?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I
  4   can't answer that question.
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Bowering, can you
  6   answer that question?
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm not sure that it's
  8   relevant.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  But it is, sir, because
 10   we're shifting, I'm trying to get an understanding
 11   of where this shift came from for a low head dam
 12   to a high head dam?
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  Can you explain what
 14   you mean between a low head dam and a high head
 15   dam?
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  The Commissioners in
 17   1957 and '58 and '50 to '53 looked at two options.
 18   They looked at the Ste. Agathe retention option,
 19   and there's a high ridge at Ste. Agathe.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  And they also had the
 22   floodway as an entity, and they could not in their
 23   day get a handle on how you would annually offset
 24   the right to flood a bunch of people, so they came
 25   with the floodway.  And they looked at, let's
00867
  1   build a 60,000 CFS floodway channel because
  2   Winnipeg is going to grow from 350,000 to, they
  3   projected in 25 years, 700,000 people.  But they
  4   never knew how to annually offset the right, how
  5   they would ever pay those people.  So the deal was
  6   that they would never ever exceed the natural.
  7   That's where the term natural came in.  So if we
  8   don't ever exceed the natural, then we don't have
  9   to have a compensation agreement.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  That is at 768 by the
 12   report of the Royal Commission of Flood Cost
 13   Benefit.  I'm going to be asking later, how do we
 14   get from 768 to 770.25 in the United States and
 15   Canada, and then we go from that to a high head
 16   dam of 778.  The facility, until we extended the
 17   West Dyke illegally, was incapable of that.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Why don't you ask that
 19   question now?
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  How did we go,
 21   Mr. Bowering, from the intent of being a low head
 22   dam, never exceeding natural, and never having the
 23   necessity to acquire the right to flood, to what
 24   we're now looking at and quite aggressively trying
 25   to seek a better way?
00868
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I'd like to
  2   answer this question, but give a real life
  3   example.  Mr. Clifton is referring to the Royal
  4   Cost Benefit Study.  That was a study that was
  5   part of a process.  I quoted from the memorandum
  6   on preliminary design, which was the final
  7   document that said the design level was 778.  Let
  8   me give you an example in today's situation.
  9               We have preliminary documents that say
 10   that for this project we're going to widen and
 11   deepen six and a half feet.  And now today we're
 12   saying we're not widening at all.
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  You're not deepening at
 14   all.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Oops, correction for the
 16   record.
 17               We're not deepening, I repeat no
 18   deepening of the floodway.  And if you were to
 19   compare the concept report, the flood protection
 20   studies for Winnipeg report, and at the end of the
 21   day as constructed drawings for this project, it
 22   would be like comparing the Royal Commission
 23   report to this design memorandum.  Things change.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Clifton.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  The Minister, the
00869
  1   Federal Minister of the Environment had the intent
  2   to include residents of the valley when there
  3   would be any review of operating rules for the
  4   floodway.  The International Joint Commission very
  5   clearly and independently heard from people, and
  6   they on page 31 of the report, say clearly the
  7   protection of Winnipeg must be given high
  8   priority, but it is equally clear that proposals
  9   for additional flood protection for the City of
 10   Winnipeg or alterations to the operating rules of
 11   the floodway must take into full account social
 12   human costs of other areas that would be affected
 13   by such measures.
 14               Has that been done in the undertakings
 15   to expand the floodway, reduce the upstream flood
 16   protection level from 1,160 or so down to 1,120?
 17   And I'll let you answer that question and then
 18   I'll come into the next one, please.
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  I guess what I can add,
 20   Mr. Chair, is that since 1997, governments have
 21   recognized the risk of flooding in the valley, and
 22   I repeat myself by saying that they provided over
 23   $110 million to increase the level of flood
 24   protection for communities and for individuals,
 25   and also when this project is complete, there is
00870
  1   another increased level of protection over and
  2   above what existed in 1997.
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  Help me out then.  What
  4   would it cost, because you did look at the cost,
  5   what would it cost to build a project to provide
  6   one in 700 year flood protection for everybody in
  7   the valley, including the City of Winnipeg?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  We did some very, what we
  9   call back of the envelope calculations, very, very
 10   rough, and I think it was about, in addition to
 11   the 3,000 plus dollars per capita to provide the
 12   protection to the hundred year plus two feet, it
 13   was another $3,000 or $4,000 per capita for the
 14   areas that needed 700 year protection.  And I say
 15   the areas that needed it.  Once you go south of
 16   Morris, because the hydraulic grade line flattens
 17   out considerably and is not much higher than the
 18   smaller floods, that Morris, for example, would
 19   need very little additional protection, as would
 20   Emerson.  Letellier needs maybe a foot.  But the
 21   area that really needs additional protection is
 22   the area from Morris to Winnipeg, but it averages
 23   out to over $3,000 per capita.  And there is
 24   presumably about 30,000 people there.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  So about 190 to a
00871
  1   hundred million dollars, ballpark.
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, very rough ballpark
  3   figure.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Clifton.
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  I have got
  6   another question, and I'm wondering who in this
  7   room representing the proponent would be the most
  8   senior and be able to speak for the Premier in the
  9   absence of the Premier.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't think that
 11   that's relevant.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  The Premier isn't on
 14   the stand today.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  What I am going to ask
 16   then is, who undertook to immediately, because the
 17   City of Winnipeg came so close to being lost, who
 18   undertook to immediately advance floodway
 19   expansion in May of 1997, May -- or June, June or
 20   so of 1997?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  There was no activity,
 22   and I can speak to this because I was involved in
 23   most, if not all of the committees and studies and
 24   whatnot since the flood of 1997.  It wasn't until
 25   the IJC studies, the first that KGS undertook for
00872
  1   the IJC task force in 1999, wherein they reviewed
  2   40 -- or sorry, 20 options for greater flood
  3   protection for Winnipeg after determining that
  4   Winnipeg was at risk of flooding in the future.
  5   And then -- well, the story goes from there,
  6   Mr. Chair, that I included in my presentation on
  7   Tuesday.
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  I talked at the
  9   very start of this about destruction of records,
 10   inadvertent, but I submitted in my interrogatories
 11   question number 9.  And it relates to Minister
 12   Swarthy's flood prevention initiative.  And they
 13   are looking to garner support under an MU between
 14   the Government of Canada and the Government of
 15   Manitoba.
 16               Did that include advancing Red River
 17   Floodway expansion immediately post 1997 flood?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I
 19   am not aware of this document and I don't have a
 20   Paul Clifton question number 9, so I can't answer
 21   that question.
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Can somebody please
 23   explain to me -- I work throughout the Province of
 24   Manitoba, I had difficulty getting downtown to
 25   make representations, but I represented in the
00873
  1   range of 54 pages relating to background records
  2   and questions -- and how this gets so convoluted
  3   that not only are my questions not posted, but the
  4   answers aren't there either.  My question clearly
  5   was detailed in here about Mr. Swarthy's
  6   undertaking, and I'm trying to have an
  7   understanding of what Mr. Swarthy's undertaking
  8   was --
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  How is that relevant to
 10   the issue before us?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  There was $50 million
 12   additional came into the province, okay.  And in
 13   that homes were elevated in the valley under a
 14   flood proofing program, okay.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  Now, the province
 17   either took an initiative on their own, through
 18   Water Branch, without executive controls, or under
 19   the direction and guise of the Government of
 20   Canada to advance floodway expansion then.  This
 21   dyke is there now.  And so what I'm trying to
 22   understand is, what executive level made these
 23   decisions to advance this now?  Because they
 24   needed to do a number of things.  They needed to
 25   extend the West Dyke and top it up.  They needed
00874
  1   to change the operating rules.  They needed to
  2   modify the inlet gates, and then all that's left
  3   is the channel widening.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I'd point out
  5   that Mr. Swarthy has left politics a number of
  6   years ago.  Any executive decisions made in 1997,
  7   that government is no longer in office and they
  8   are not here to answer for that, and furthermore,
  9   I just don't see how it's relevant to the matter
 10   before us.
 11               You know, we're not here to decide
 12   whether or not the floodway expansion should go
 13   ahead, we're here to decide whether, as proposed,
 14   it can go ahead without causing any significant
 15   environmental, socio-economic, et cetera.
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  We know it can't, sir,
 17   we know it can't.  It can't go ahead because it
 18   significantly affects a bunch of people.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, that's your
 20   opinion.
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  And you --
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  The mandate that the
 23   three of us have up here is to listen to all of
 24   the evidence that's relevant, and come to some
 25   decisions in that regard in a few weeks.
00875
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  Okay.  Can I carry on
  2   with my questioning, and I'll try to be as civil
  3   as I can?
  4               People that live outside the moat of
  5   the City of Winnipeg tend to find that it's common
  6   knowledge that as far west as Killarney or farther
  7   west, the Province of Manitoba, through their
  8   Water Branch, has put in a number of municipal
  9   drains, secondary drains, various stages of
 10   drains.  And these drains bring the water into the
 11   Red River.  And in most years it's not a
 12   significant concern.  But in flood years, these
 13   provincial drains that are owned and operated by
 14   the province, and maintained by the province,
 15   significantly contribute more water into the
 16   upstream area.  What benefit is there in these
 17   drains to the people in the immediate upstream,
 18   and if there's no benefit, what is the adverse
 19   effect as far as timing?
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm not entirely sure
 21   that that's relevant.  I mean, we know that it
 22   affects the amount of water in the Red River, but
 23   how does that affect the issue before us, the
 24   expansion of the floodway?
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Were these drains put in
00876
  1   with any sort of plan?  Is there any sort of plan
  2   in -- like we're doing things in some of a
  3   piecemeal fashion.  You know, and then somebody
  4   has decided that Winnipeg is more important than
  5   anybody else, let's discount everything else and
  6   let's just go with this project.
  7               You know, these drains are in place.
  8   There's a significant problem with the Seine River
  9   Diversion, and it was reported by the Manitoba
 10   Water Commission.  It was noted, you know.  And
 11   how does that timing of those drains affect the
 12   level that piles up south of the City of Winnipeg?
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I'm not a water
 14   engineer and I don't work for the Department of
 15   Water Stewardship, but I could recognize that it
 16   would affect the amount of water flowing into the
 17   Red River, but I just can't imagine how that
 18   affects the issue of the expansion of the
 19   floodway.
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, it relates to the
 21   natural.  There's lots of stuff that you had been
 22   told by government that you will not deal with.
 23   You will not deal with how the province calculates
 24   the natural.  That's out of the purview of what
 25   you will do.
00877
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  I haven't told the
  2   province that, but I think you're probably right,
  3   it probably is outside our purview.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, you see, that's
  5   fundamental, the natural.  Why should I not get
  6   better than the natural?  If we're spending
  7   $660 million --
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Clifton, please,
  9   you're debating with me and that's not what we are
 10   here for this afternoon.  And if you don't sort of
 11   get back onto relevant direction, I may have to
 12   cut off your cross-examination, which I don't
 13   particular want to do, as long as it is relevant.
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  I find in the federal
 15   record that Mr. David Anderson, when he on April
 16   21, 2001, provided approval, his approval was
 17   interim approval, with the belief that if floodway
 18   expansion were to go ahead, that the project would
 19   have to be licensed with federal funds under the
 20   Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
 21               Do we not, as the Floodway Expansion
 22   Authority, accept that that was an interim
 23   approval only?
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  I would -- I can't
 25   speak for Mr. Anderson or the federal process, but
00878
  1   I would suspect that he gave his interim approval
  2   at that time, and the fact that they have advanced
  3   monies since then would indicate that they have
  4   given more formal approval.  But that still
  5   doesn't take away from the other premise in
  6   Mr. Anderson's letter that it's subject to
  7   provincial and federal licensing, which is part of
  8   what we're going through right now.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  But Mr. Anderson said
 10   clearly, and I will find it here, clearly, the
 11   operating rules will be reviewed.  He
 12   recommended -- now this is a provincial issue
 13   okay, and Mr. Anderson recommended strongly to
 14   Manitoba that they consult with the residents of
 15   the valley that would be adversely affected by
 16   this.
 17               Now, it's not within the purview of
 18   the Federal Government to tell the provinces what
 19   to do, because it's a provincial responsibility,
 20   but a Federal Minister who is funding this thing
 21   strongly talks to Manitoba, Manitoba should
 22   listen, and that's my point.  He recommends
 23   strongly as advocated by the International Joint
 24   Commission that the rules be reviewed.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  And we know that the
00879
  1   rules have been reviewed.  You pointed to us a
  2   cover of a document that did review the rules.
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  No, sir.  Those rules
  4   were reviewed and they were signed off with
  5   Manitoba in December of 1999.  They went to the
  6   Federal Minister and they were signed off in
  7   April 26 of 2001.  And in his letter he writes.
  8               "In granting approval, I strongly
  9               recommend, as advocated by the
 10               International Joint Commission,
 11               Manitoba undertake consultations with
 12               the citizens on the rules of operation
 13               of the floodway and flood protection
 14               measures at the earliest possible
 15               opportunity."
 16               To my understanding, that hasn't
 17   happened, sir.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I'm not going to
 19   debate that point.  Mr. Clifton, we are
 20   approaching the time for an afternoon break.  I'd
 21   like to ask you how long do you think you will
 22   continue in your cross-examination?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  I have some
 24   supplement -- this was my questions that were from
 25   my filing, and then there is supplementary
00880
  1   questions that these fellows haven't answered, not
  2   at all.  I understand that environmental approvals
  3   and the Government of Canada decided that the
  4   supplementary questions were not that onerous that
  5   we couldn't proceed to public hearings.  So, you
  6   know, give me 45 minutes more I think.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I'm going to be
  8   probably even a little less tolerant in respect of
  9   irrelevant issues after the break.  So please try
 10   to have direct, brief questions to the Floodway
 11   Authority.
 12               We will take a break now and we'll
 13   come back at 3:15 sharp.
 14   
 15               Proceedings recessed at 3:00 and
 16               reconvened at 3:15 p.m.)
 17   
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Can we come back to
 19   order, please.
 20               Mr. Clifton, as I noted before the
 21   break, please be brief and relevant.  We have at
 22   least a couple of other parties who would like to
 23   engage in some cross-examination today, if at all
 24   possible.  Mr. Clifton.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
00881
  1   I'm going to talk further on operating rules.  And
  2   as I said before, it has only been when studies
  3   from outside of the province have been done that
  4   there has been some real credible representations
  5   as far as reporting.  Mr. Farlinger certainly
  6   heard that if the operating rules are to be
  7   reviewed, they should be reviewed with City of
  8   Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba, Government of
  9   Canada, municipalities and residents of the
 10   valley.  I see Mr. Bowering is gone but --
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  He is coming in now.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  On the first of
 13   February, 1999, many many constituents had bent
 14   Mr. Bowering's ear and they suggested to Mr.
 15   Bowering that we need to have resident
 16   participation on the operating rules review,
 17   because it is critically important to them.  My
 18   affiliation is with a community group that's
 19   unfunded, but has for a number of years made
 20   credible representations, there are the North
 21   Richot Action Committee.  But in requesting
 22   resident participation, Mr. Bowering wrote to his
 23   department to say I'm getting a lot of people
 24   asking for participation on the operating rules
 25   review.  And subsequently folks wrote back to Mr.
00882
  1   Bowering, and he articulated to the rest of the
  2   folks, unfortunately the department has turned
  3   down the requests.  The reasons given is the
  4   addition of the North Ritchot Action Committee
  5   could complicate the deliberations and get us off
  6   the rails.  The department much prefers using an
  7   interim report in March followed by public
  8   meetings.
  9               Has there ever been an interim report
 10   on the operating rules?  Has there ever been a
 11   public meeting, and have residents themselves had
 12   any participation on the review of the operating
 13   rules that we talked about earlier?  Mr. Bowering
 14   or Mr. McNeil.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  I don't think it is
 16   relevant to these proceedings.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  But it is the process
 18   as to how those operating rules were achieved that
 19   Mr. Clifton is asking.  The rules of the floodway
 20   are certainly relevant, but how they were
 21   developed, I'm not sure that it is terribly
 22   relevant.
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  Sir, the one thing that
 24   I'm going to add here, I'm going to ask
 25   Mr. McNeil, were you with the City of Winnipeg on
00883
  1   December 13, 1997, Mr. McNeil?
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm not sure that's
  3   relevant.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  It is directly relevant,
  5   sir.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Please tell me how?
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  Ritchot was petitioned
  8   by all of the residents not to sign the operating
  9   rules because they are hurtful for us.  They don't
 10   consider our considerations, and there was five
 11   points that Ritchot provided to Mr. McNeil by
 12   facsimile.
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  Sorry, that's not
 14   relevant to the matter before us.  Please move on,
 15   Mr. Clifton.
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  Summer operation in my
 17   view is more destructive than spring operation
 18   with the exception of inundating homes.  We had
 19   summer operation in 2002.  Do you folks have any
 20   quantitative studies as to the amount of land that
 21   is flooded, the amount of animals that are
 22   dislodged from burrowing dens.  In my
 23   supplementary filing I talk about fox, I talk
 24   about deer and rabbits and the like.  Has there
 25   been any environmental assessment on what grievous
00884
  1   harm you are doing to the environment through
  2   summertime operation?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  With respect to wildlife,
  4   not to date.  But as we indicate in section 8.3, I
  5   believe of the supplementary filing there are --
  6   sorry, 8.2, we propose together with Manitoba
  7   Water Stewardship to look at specifically section
  8   8.2.3 of the supplementary filing we talked about
  9   the current and future investigations related to
 10   river banks, fish passage, wildlife and the
 11   adaptive management approach to those assessments.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Does it also include the
 13   shrubbery and trees -- stuff along the river bank
 14   tends to get its feet wet in the springtime when
 15   it is not fully in leaf, but it is a different
 16   story when things are fully in leaf and they sit
 17   for weeks.  Are you intending to study not only
 18   the fauna but the flora as well?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm not sure at this
 20   point.  But it is still a plan to undertake these
 21   studies, so it is certainly potential that we
 22   could.
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  If you lose the trees on
 24   the river bank, you lose the root system and that.
 25   Will you be studying how aggressive the things
00885
  1   will cascade over time through summer operation?
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  I would imagine that the
  3   river bank study will include those kinds of
  4   considerations.
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  Are you aware that the
  6   municipality of Ritchot had asked the minister of
  7   Water Stewardship to please help us study river
  8   bank erosion?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm not.
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  So you wouldn't be aware
 11   that the Minister of Conservation, Steve Ashton,
 12   said that river bank erosion and stability is a
 13   very expensive undertaking and we don't have a
 14   budget for that sort of thing?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm not aware of that
 16   correspondence.
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Would you be aware that
 18   Mr. Steve Topping had wrote after summertime
 19   operation 2002, suggesting that the municipality
 20   through municipal dollars should be moving roads
 21   away from the river by acquiring land with
 22   municipal dollars?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  Again, I'm not aware of
 24   correspondence.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Would you help me out,
00886
  1   Mr. Bowering, in that Mayor Stefaniuk had the
  2   point that you are not licensing or allowing
  3   further homes in the valley.  What legislative
  4   mechanism are you disallowing building of new
  5   homes that meet the flood protection level within
  6   the RM of Ritchot, and by that way affecting our
  7   tax base in the Rural Municipality of Ritchot?
  8               MR. BOWERING:  This is not really my
  9   area of expertise.  I know it goes on in Water
 10   Stewardship, there is a group that administers --
 11   what is it called -- the designated flood area,
 12   and decides if projects meet the requirements of
 13   that.  Beyond that I'm not aware of the specific
 14   case.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  But his question of you
 16   yesterday was that even though people are
 17   undertaking to meet the criteria, they are unable
 18   to get permits to build.  Could you follow-up on
 19   that?
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Clifton, Mayor
 21   Stefaniuk mentioned that yesterday as a statement.
 22   Again, that's not relevant to the consideration
 23   before us.
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  You need to depopulate
 25   the valley if you are going to build this project,
00887
  1   sir.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that's a bit of
  3   a provocative statement, but --
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Provocative?  Summer
  5   operation is provocative operation.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  No, your statement was
  7   that you need to depopulate the valley.
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Or acquire the right to
  9   flood through legislation, through negotiation.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Please move on to
 11   relevant questions.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  You know, sir, I'm going
 13   to give other people time.  With all due respect
 14   to everybody here, I've asked a few questions and
 15   I thank you for your time, sir.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
 17   Mr. Clifton.  We will give Mr. Clifton a moment to
 18   clear his materials.
 19               The next, going in alphabetical order,
 20   the next party that has indicated that they wish
 21   to engage in cross-examination at this time, is
 22   the Cooks Creek Conservation District.
 23               Could you please introduce yourselves
 24   for the record and proceed.
 25               MR. BUHLER:  My name is Jake Buhler
00888
  1   with the Cooks Creek Conservation District.  I
  2   would like to introduce legal counsel for the
  3   district, Daryl Chicoine.  And engineer for the
  4   district is Jon Stefanson, engineer.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  6               MR. BUHLER:  Mr. McNeil, you have
  7   indicated in your submission as part of the
  8   Floodway Expansion Project improvements will be
  9   made to the drainage system.  Can you explain to
 10   us how these improvements will be expended?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  Could you just explain a
 12   little bit more detail?
 13               MR. BUHLER:  Yes.  We have had some
 14   discussions with you people with the Authority,
 15   and we have come to the conclusion that in your
 16   expansion plans and in your submission you refer
 17   to improvements to the drainage systems.  We were
 18   wondering at what phase you are at?  Is it in a
 19   planning aspect at this point?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  Mostly for the benefit of
 21   the Commission, because Cooks Creek and the
 22   municipalities are aware that we have had several
 23   discussions with them through the predesign
 24   process.  We haven't yet undertaken final design
 25   of the drainage drop structures, but what we have
00889
  1   agreed to with the municipalities that are
  2   affected by drainage drop structures and the Cooks
  3   Creek Conservation District that because we have
  4   to replace most of these structures any how
  5   because of widening, then we will endeavour to
  6   incorporate a capacity improvement into the design
  7   such that they then can make improvements into the
  8   future.  And what still has to be decided is
  9   exactly what amount of capacity and improvement we
 10   will be doing, so we will need to continue to work
 11   with these groups to try to accommodate their
 12   needs in a realistic and cost effective manner.
 13               MR. BUHLER:  We understand that that
 14   means that the structures will be replaced under
 15   the expansion program?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, they have to be
 17   because we are going to be widening beyond them.
 18               MR. BUHLER:  In that case then, have
 19   you determined to what lip elevations those
 20   structures may be built to?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  Not yet.  As you know,
 22   you are proposing one elevation and we've, in a
 23   cursory manner, conceptual manner, looked at
 24   another elevation.  And we have to decide together
 25   what the common ground is for that elevation of
00890
  1   the weirs.  And by the way for clarification to
  2   the Commissioners, Cooks Creek Diversion or drop
  3   structure, we are not widening at that location,
  4   we happen to be widening on the opposite side of
  5   the floodway, but there is some repair which is
  6   required which would be normally the
  7   responsibility of the owner, which is the Cooks
  8   Creek Conservation District, but while we are
  9   there we will undertake those repairs.
 10               MR. BUHLER:  Then there will be more
 11   discussions regarding the -- and maybe an
 12   agreement as to how and to what level they may be
 13   reconstructed to?
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry?
 15               MR. BUHLER:  With the district?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  Can you say that again,
 17   Jake?
 18               MR. BUHLER:  I'm wondering if that
 19   means we will have further discussions, and
 20   agreements, some form of agreement then that we
 21   will both be happy with in regards to setting
 22   those lip elevations.
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, there will be some
 24   form of agreement.  First we have to agree.
 25               MR. BUHLER:  I will pass it over to
00891
  1   Jon then.
  2               MR. STEFANSON:  Just a couple for
  3   clarification.  The capacity, the capacities that
  4   you have chosen for the drop structures, they are
  5   the one percent return frequency return capacity,
  6   I understand.  And my understanding is that these
  7   are chosen for reasons other than to service the
  8   agricultural surface water management systems,
  9   they are more of a flood protection standard.
 10   But, of course, they are in excess of anything
 11   that the agriculture system would require, is that
 12   a fair statement?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes.  Just for the
 14   Commissioner's benefit, the original drop
 15   structures were designed to a one percent event
 16   for the hydrology of the day.  And what we did is
 17   we assessed the condition of the drop structures
 18   to determine if in fact they met that requirement.
 19   And then looked at whether or not -- what it would
 20   cost to increase their capacity to that one
 21   percent standard with the hydrology of today.  And
 22   that's what we are committing to, is to that one
 23   percent for the structures themselves.  But I
 24   believe we are using a two percent for the channel
 25   within our right-of-way that leads from the drop
00892
  1   structure to the property line.  But that's still
  2   preliminary.  And that will be decided during
  3   detailed design in consultation with Cooks Creek
  4   and the other municipalities.
  5               MR. STEFANSON:  Capacity is one
  6   aspect.  The other main aspect is -- first of all,
  7   it has been stated in a number of places that
  8   these structures will be designed so that they
  9   will not constrain future development of the
 10   agricultural systems.  Capacity is one that has
 11   basically been taken care of, if we follow through
 12   with the one percent.  And the other is the
 13   elevation of the structures to allow lowering of
 14   the incoming channels in the future.  Now, in
 15   response to Jake's question you indicated that you
 16   had, and I note you use the word cursory,
 17   evaluation of what that difference in elevation
 18   may be of the new structures as opposed to the
 19   old.
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  I used the same level
 21   analysis that you people did.
 22               MR. STEFANSON:  You mean the willy
 23   nilly?  Sorry, Mr. Chairman, that's a private
 24   joke.
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  Preliminary,
00893
  1   pre-conceptual.
  2               MR. STEFANSON:  So, in other words,
  3   you have -- what sort of analysis did you do to
  4   come up with the cursory elevations that you did
  5   come up with?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  I guess, I can't speak to
  7   those details at this time.  UMA Engineering under
  8   contract with us during predesign undertook the
  9   analysis, and you have seen the report and
 10   reviewed it yourself.
 11               MR. STEFANSON:  Yes.  To tell you the
 12   truth, I don't recall that aspect of it, but we
 13   will leave that.  Do you have an idea of the cost
 14   of constructing the new drop structures more or
 15   less in a typical or average basis, and further
 16   can you tell me what portion of that, or if that
 17   includes some additional cost to provide those
 18   lower elevations?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  Okay.  The predesign
 20   report that I was referring to is appendix D, and
 21   now I'm looking at page 4-13, and in response to
 22   your question, table 4-3, floodway local drainage
 23   structures estimated costs for rural drains,
 24   improvements and gabling weirs, and you want just
 25   the total, is for the Ashfield, Skholny
00894
  1   Springfield, North Bibeau and Centreline drains is
  2   1.6 million.  That's what we would need to do just
  3   to replace those structures.  And to lower those
  4   structures, I'm looking at table 4.5, and the
  5   total then ends up being 3.6 million.  So, we
  6   don't have to increase the capacity of these
  7   structures as part of this floodway project.  But
  8   due to the concerns and the issues raised by the
  9   municipalities and Cooks Creek Conservation
 10   District, we have committed to improving the
 11   capacity of them since we are going to replace
 12   them while we are there.  It is a while you are at
 13   it kind of thing, and to be good neighbors.  And
 14   so it is going to cost us approximately
 15   $2 million.
 16               Now those are very preliminary figures
 17   at this point, again because this is predesign
 18   numbers.  And this will be determined, both the
 19   design and the final costs will be determined
 20   later during detailed design which will be coming
 21   up shortly.
 22               MR. MOTHERAL:  I wonder if I can make
 23   a comment.  This is on the assumption that
 24   increased drainage is good?
 25               MR. STEFANSON:  We will deal with that
00895
  1   in our presentation on Monday.  It will take too
  2   long to answer that question right now.  So the
  3   difference of $2 million, that refers to the
  4   increase in capacity as well as the lower end
  5   elevation?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes.
  7               MR. STEFANSON:  So, you wouldn't have
  8   a figure that refers to the lowering of the
  9   elevation?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  No.  Just a minute.  You
 11   know, Jon, all of these things are in the report
 12   that you have, right?
 13               MR. STEFANSON:  I guess I will have to
 14   read it.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think he wants it on
 16   record.
 17               MR. STEFANSON:  Could we strike that
 18   from the record?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  When you read mine, I
 20   will read yours.
 21               MR. STEFANSON:  Mine is much shorter.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  No, I have nothing to
 23   add.
 24               MR. BUHLER:  As mentioned previously
 25   in some of the meetings that we have had with the
00896
  1   authority, Mr. McNeil, has the MFA considered
  2   adding additional drop structures to the floodway
  3   channel to facilitate more efficient drainage in
  4   the areas where the floodway channels intercept
  5   the natural?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  We have not.  That was
  7   looked at in the predesign and it was determined
  8   that the efficient drainage can still be
  9   accommodated with the same number of structures
 10   that exist today.
 11               MR. BUHLER:  Is there any concern that
 12   the additional -- that the addition of
 13   agricultural drainage discharge into the floodway
 14   may overwhelm the capacity of the existing?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, I'm laughing
 16   because the amount of drainage going into the
 17   floodway from the drainage system pales in
 18   comparison to the capacity of the existing and the
 19   expanded floodway.  And, in fact, you know that
 20   little channel at the bottom called the low flow
 21   channel, it is designed to handle 95 percent of
 22   the discharge from summer events through that
 23   channel.  And that's not even touching the bottom
 24   of the channel.
 25               MR. BUHLER:  Thank you.
00897
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much.  I
  2   don't see anybody from the Manitoba Metis
  3   Federation or Manitoba Wildlands or North Ritchot
  4   Action Committee.  Peguis Indian Band has
  5   indicated that they don't wish to cross-examine at
  6   this time.  Ritchot Concerned Citizens?
  7               MS. CLIFTON:  I will be brief.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could you introduce
  9   yourself?
 10               MS. CLIFTON:  My name is Maxine
 11   Clifton.  I'm a member of the Ritchot Concern
 12   Citizens.  I'm a resident upstream of the
 13   floodway.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Proceed.
 15               MS. CLIFTON:  Honestly I didn't know
 16   how to proceed with the voluminous documents, so
 17   if it is all right with the Chair, I took quotes
 18   from the presentations that I heard on the 15th.
 19   I hopefully rightly attributed these quotes to
 20   those individuals, and it will be to those people
 21   that I address my questions.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  That's perfectly
 23   acceptable.
 24               MS. CLIFTON:  I have gone through the
 25   documents, found the quotes, highlighted them to
00898
  1   make sure that I have them in context.  If someone
  2   from the Floodway Expansion wants me to find the
  3   quotes, it will take me a few minutes to go
  4   through the papers again.  My first question came
  5   from Mr. Gilroy in his opening address.  May I ask
  6   a question on that?
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  You may ask a question
  8   and if Mr. McNeil is able to answer, we will ask
  9   him to do so.
 10               MS. CLIFTON:  Mr. Gilroy in his
 11   opening address, a quote from him was that with
 12   the floodway expansion we would avoid -- we would
 13   avoid the longer term damage by mold which would
 14   be horrific.  Is this to mean that this is a
 15   recognition by the Floodway Expansion Authority of
 16   mold damage resulting from wet homes or basements
 17   as being a horrific longer term damage?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm going to answer that
 19   by saying that through that presentation that I
 20   made following Mr. Gilroy, I showed a map of what
 21   Winnipeg would look like in a 700 year flood with
 22   the existing floodway.  And you saw that a third
 23   of the city was affected by overland flooding.
 24   And the same third of the city would obviously be
 25   affected by basement flooding.  But an additional
00899
  1   third of the city would be affected by basement
  2   flooding.  So that statement was based on the
  3   knowledge of the occurrences following the 1997
  4   flood and then multiplied several times over by
  5   the almost 200,000 houses that would be affected
  6   by basement flooding.
  7               MS. CLIFTON:  Sorry, that doesn't
  8   answer my question, Mr. McNeil.  Should I
  9   rephrase?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  Please do.
 11               MS. CLIFTON:  I still want to use
 12   Mr. Gilroy's quote, though, he wanted to expand
 13   the floodway to avoid the longer term damage by
 14   mold which would be horrific.  I'm asking is there
 15   a recognition from the Expansion Authority that
 16   mold and mold damage is a long term impact from
 17   flooding, river flooding?
 18               MR. J. OSLER:  I might be able to cast
 19   some light on this.  RCC IR54 a response to a
 20   question that was raised on mold, in regards to
 21   socio-economic impacts of the initial flooding.
 22   And the response that was provided says that the
 23   proponent acknowledges that mold was a serious
 24   health concern during flooding in 1997, and
 25   further mold prevention would be a key
00900
  1   consideration in responding to future flood
  2   events.  But mold effects are a flood event --
  3   sorry, mold effects after a flood event are
  4   generally related to the degree and duration of
  5   flood water inundation.  And as we have discussed
  6   today and in previous days, we anticipated
  7   primarily upstream of the floodway inlet control
  8   structure, that water levels will be for all flood
  9   scenarios no higher than, and in some instances
 10   lower than, what is experienced with the existing
 11   floodway.  So the pathway follows that mold
 12   effects as a result of that connection to changes
 13   in water levels, although negligible, would be no
 14   worse.  So we did not find a significant adverse
 15   environmental effect to be likely there of the
 16   floodway expansion.  Thank you.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mrs. Clifton.
 18               MS. CLIFTON:  Can I rephrase that
 19   differently or do we consider it asked and
 20   answered?
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  It is asked and
 22   answered.
 23               MS. CLIFTON:  The second part of that
 24   question is how does the Manitoba Floodway
 25   Authority know this?
00901
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that Mr. Osler,
  2   in his response, basically answered that question.
  3   He accepted it as a potential aftermath or a
  4   potential effect of flooding.
  5               MS. CLIFTON:  I am not sure where this
  6   quote came from but I heard it several times on
  7   the first day about the extensive public
  8   consultation that was done in preparation for
  9   these hearings.  The Expansion Authority knows
 10   this, but I will mention it again.  That at one of
 11   our consultation meetings, round three, I believe,
 12   was a pretty contentious meeting out at Ste.
 13   Agathe.  And it was discussed at the meeting that
 14   although MFA politely heard our concerns, that
 15   there was actually no mechanism in place to
 16   address them.  So we as a committee asked Mr.
 17   McNeil, so where do we take our concerns?  And we
 18   were advised to take them to Steve Topping,
 19   Director of Water Resources.  My question is, is
 20   this still the position of the Floodway Authority
 21   that our concerns are addressed with Mr. Topping?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  Do you have a specific
 23   issue that you want to speak to?
 24               MS. CLIFTON:  The issues were
 25   artificial flooding upstream, the natural level
00902
  1   studies, lack of input on the compensation, lack
  2   of discussion on baseline, and a disagreement that
  3   we had with -- I forget.  There is four for you,
  4   those were the concerns.
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes.  And I made that
  6   statement because those things are under the
  7   responsibility of Water Stewardship and outside
  8   the scope of this project.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that one or two
 10   of the items that Ms. Clifton listed are within
 11   our mandate.  Could you repeat again, you had
 12   about four items?
 13               MS. CLIFTON:  The concerns that were
 14   addressed at that meeting recorded by Mr. Osler,
 15   were artificial flooding, natural level study,
 16   lack of input on the compensation, what was in
 17   scope or out of scope, and the baseline used.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that the
 19   baseline that they used for their environmental
 20   impact is certainly within the purview of this
 21   review.  And I would also think that the issue of
 22   artificial flooding in so far as the expansion
 23   effects, that is certainly --
 24               MS. CLIFTON:  It was our opinion that
 25   it certainly belonged at the meeting, sir.
00903
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  And I agree with the
  2   chair.  And I believe that I answered those
  3   questions at that meeting that were related to the
  4   scope of this project.
  5               MS. CLIFTON:  So, it is still the
  6   position of the Expansion Authority that our
  7   concerns should be taken to Mr. Topping at the
  8   director of water resources?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  In terms of compensation
 10   for previous occurrences, yes.
 11               MS. CLIFTON:  We weren't discussing
 12   that at the meeting, Mr. McNeil.
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  I recall that we were.  I
 14   think I explained to the attendees at that meeting
 15   the status of the Red River Floodway Act at that
 16   time.  You said it was round three.  I thought
 17   that was round two.  What round was it?
 18               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Osler can comment.
 19   He has some notes in front of him.
 20               MR. J. OSLER:  The discussion that we
 21   are having right now pertains to supplemental
 22   filing section 1, page 1-17, and it references a
 23   response to a question that was raised by the
 24   North Ritchot -- actually it was the Ritchot
 25   Concerned Citizens Committee.  And the question
00904
  1   was, who should the organization contact to
  2   address their concerns on the consultation
  3   processes with respect to the compensation
  4   legislation, and summer operations.  And the
  5   response that was provided by Mr. McNeil was Steve
  6   Topping, Direct of Water Branch, Department of
  7   Water Stewardship was identified as the person to
  8   whom these concerns should be directed to.  The
  9   question that Ms. Clifton is referring to is the
 10   discussion that took place as well on the baseline
 11   conditions which were a topic of that meeting as
 12   well, but they are not contained in this
 13   particular question.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Compensation in so far
 15   as it is a mitigation of impacts caused by this
 16   expansion project is within the purview of our
 17   consideration.  The matters in respect of the Red
 18   River Floodway Act is really something -- it is
 19   enacted legislation already, and I don't think it
 20   is in our purview to offer any recommendations in
 21   respect of that.
 22               MS. CLIFTON:  So my answer is yes for
 23   that question right now?
 24               MR. J. OSLER:  Yes.  Maybe Mr. McNeil
 25   should answer it, but the question you asked was
00905
  1   related to a variety of topics.  The response is
  2   provided in two items, that related to
  3   compensation and summer water levels, not in
  4   regards to baseline and scope, I think was the
  5   other point that you were making.
  6               MS. CLIFTON:  I was annoyed by this
  7   yesterday or the day before, but there might be
  8   some good come of it.  It was possibly because the
  9   room was full of media crowding around, but my
 10   original question was when did the stakeholder
 11   groups suddenly become special interest groups?  I
 12   did see that there was front page coverage with
 13   that term, so it served its purpose.  But I was
 14   thinking about it and I thought Mr. McNeil or any
 15   one from the Floodway Authority knows who I am and
 16   who I represent.  May I ask them if I'm a special
 17   interest group, what is my special interest?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  First of all, if I'm
 19   talking to anybody, and I don't have your
 20   permission to use your name, I will refer to you
 21   as a participant or special interest group, or a
 22   stakeholder, whatever the case maybe, and I
 23   apologize if I'm not allowed to use those
 24   interchangeably.
 25               MS. CLIFTON:  Thank you.  My question
00906
  1   is what is the opinion or the thoughts of the
  2   Expansion Authority on what exactly my special
  3   interest might be?  And I'm asking this not to
  4   antagonize anyone, but I have been working daily
  5   on this issue for eight years, and I would hope
  6   that there would be some idea what it is we are
  7   about.
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  Are you asking me to
  9   repeat what the mandate is of the North Ritchot
 10   Action Committee?
 11               MS. CLIFTON:  I'm not a member of the
 12   North Ritchot Action Committee.
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, Ritchot Concerned
 14   Citizens Committee?
 15               MS. CLIFTON:  Yes.  Just explain to
 16   the Commission what you believe is our special
 17   interest.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  Won't it be far better
 19   off if you explain to the Commission what your
 20   mandate is and what your special interests are?
 21               MS. CLIFTON:  The question is
 22   answered.  Thank you.
 23               This question comes from Mr. McNeil's
 24   presentation.  The existing floodway -- and I'm
 25   not going very far in here -- avoided
00907
  1   environmental damages.  Are you aware whether or
  2   not the existing floodway has ever caused
  3   environmental damages through its operation?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  The statement is meant to
  5   indicate that if we get a 700 year flood with the
  6   existing floodway and there is a third of the city
  7   flooded, it will flood the sewage treatment
  8   plants, it will flood the railway yards, it will
  9   flood other chemical holding facilities, and the
 10   list is endless.  And when those flood waters
 11   recede, they will take with them pollutants and
 12   contaminants and end up in the Red River and end
 13   up in Lake Winnipeg.  And with this project we
 14   avoid that environmental damage.  So with the
 15   operation of the floodway to date by avoiding
 16   flooding of Winnipeg, we have avoided those
 17   environmental damages.
 18               MS. CLIFTON:  My question was through
 19   the operation of the existing floodway, has that
 20   operation of the floodway ever caused
 21   environmental damage?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  I don't know
 23   specifically, Mrs. Clifton.  I would say that we
 24   are aware that in 1997 certain lagoons in the
 25   valley were over-topped, Morris, for example,
00908
  1   right near the golf course.  There were propane
  2   tanks and things like that that floated away.
  3   Whether that's directly attributable to the
  4   natural water level or the artificial level, I
  5   couldn't say.  As you know from my presentation,
  6   the artificial flooding caused by operation of the
  7   floodway in 1997 was a vertical two feet at the
  8   inlet control structure, and it ran out at Ste.
  9   Agathe.  And I would hazard a guess that it didn't
 10   add too much to the total flooded area.  So
 11   whether or not some of those environmental
 12   situations occurred, I couldn't say for sure.
 13               MS. CLIFTON:  So MFA's answer is you
 14   don't know?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.  But what
 16   I do know is it did avoid, the operation in 1997,
 17   a tremendous amount of environmental damage if
 18   Winnipeg had flooded.
 19               MS. CLIFTON:  When you speak of wind
 20   or wave setup against the west dyke, would you
 21   think that might apply to the individual mounds
 22   that homeowners are on upstream?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, it could.  You are
 24   asking whether or not a free board of two feet --
 25   sorry, I presume you are asking --
00909
  1               MS. CLIFTON:  Yes, go ahead.
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  That a free board of two
  3   feet on ring dykes and individual houses would be
  4   sufficient.  It all depends on where you are in
  5   the reservoir.  Certainly if there is a concern
  6   about wind and wave uprush with the community ring
  7   dykes or the individual houses, they now have a
  8   good base of permanent protection to '97 plus two,
  9   which would provide the base for raising
 10   temporarily with either clay fill or sand bags,
 11   which would be the cost effective approach to that
 12   situation.  I understand as well, Mr. Chair, that
 13   some people in the valley, I don't know how many,
 14   I couldn't quantify, I could probably find out,
 15   did in fact take advantage of the flood proofing
 16   program and some of them did in fact protect
 17   themselves to levels higher than 1997 plus two
 18   feet, possibly because of concerns of wind and
 19   wave or possibly because of concerns for larger
 20   floods.
 21               MS. CLIFTON:  Or possibly because some
 22   people finally learned about the 778 rule that we
 23   didn't know before, Mr. McNeil.
 24               And since that's brought up, if the
 25   Commission doesn't know it by now, they sure will.
00910
  1   This 778 rule is a very, very big problem for the
  2   residents that live upstream.  Mr. McNeil just
  3   referred to us as "depending on where you live in
  4   the reservoir."  I want to --
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  In fairness, I think he
  6   meant that there was different wave actions in
  7   different parts the reservoir.
  8               MS. CLIFTON:  I want to know what year
  9   the community that I live in was declared a flood
 10   zone?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  I can't answer that
 12   question, if in fact that was even a declaration
 13   that was made.
 14               MS. CLIFTON:  With the capital region,
 15   municipality and planning, the area that I live in
 16   has now been declared or called a flood zone, and
 17   building permits have since been restricted.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:   What I am aware of,
 19   because I was responsible for flood plain zoning
 20   and regulation in the City of Winnipeg, the
 21   Province and Mr. Bowering referred to it earlier,
 22   there is a flood plain management Zoning Act or
 23   whatever the case may be, that has always been in
 24   existence, at least since the 1979 flood and,
 25   therefore, the regulation required that people in
00911
  1   that zone be protected to '79 plus two feet.  And
  2   then because the 1997 flood was a larger flood and
  3   higher water levels in '79, following certainly
  4   the IJC recommendations, the province did amend
  5   that regulation to say that development within
  6   that, within the zone must meet '97 plus two feet.
  7   And that's a prudent action by Government to
  8   protect residences that develop in those areas.
  9               MS. CLIFTON:  Since you brought it up,
 10   at the time that the '97 plus two flood protection
 11   level was being implemented post the '97 flood,
 12   was there anyone or any group from the upstream
 13   areas express concern that this level would not be
 14   high enough in light of the 778 rule?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm not aware of that
 16   because I wasn't involved in the changes and
 17   amendments that were made to that legislation.
 18               MS. CLIFTON:  Then I will answer your
 19   question; there was vigorous concern expressed.
 20               This is a question out of curiosity.
 21   I'm told the 778 rule has been in place for some
 22   time.  And I'm curious, if the flood protection of
 23   the City of Winnipeg came within inches in '97 of
 24   being lost, why weren't the gates held up higher
 25   to 778, if necessary?
00912
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  It wasn't necessary, the
  2   gates were raised to the point to maintain that
  3   two feet below the primary dykes.  And due to the
  4   flow that was coming at the city, which resulted
  5   in going to -- in order to maintain the flow two
  6   feet below the primary dykes, it was necessary to
  7   go into rule 2, and because of the amount of flow
  8   coming or flowing down the Red River, it was only
  9   necessary to go to 771 and a half.  That was the
 10   resultant water level upstream with the given
 11   flow.  And that was a 100 year event.  If it was a
 12   225 year event, that year, in order to maintain
 13   the water level two feet below the primary dykes
 14   in Winnipeg, then the water level upstream would
 15   have gone to 778.
 16               MS. CLIFTON:  I'm curious as to why
 17   you would have taken such a risk if there was such
 18   a fear and it was so close and it was such -- it
 19   was within inches.  I'm surprised you wouldn't
 20   have operated the gates higher and not have taken
 21   such a risk with lives and property in the city.
 22   Why wouldn't you have operated the gates to even
 23   775?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  We were following rule 2.
 25   We were following the operation rules in existence
00913
  1   at the time.
  2               MS. CLIFTON:  The operation of the
  3   existing project, I think there was a slide -- no,
  4   I won't cover that.  We have been told in the
  5   approval or in this process -- I don't know what
  6   it is called, process -- repeatedly that summer
  7   time operation is not being looked at.  And it was
  8   a brand new term to me two days ago, non-spring
  9   operation, autumn operation, summer emergency
 10   operation.  I have honestly never heard any of
 11   these terms before.  So I just need a
 12   clarification.  What exactly are we looking at in
 13   terms of summer or non-spring operation here?
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  Originally, when they
 15   operated in the summer of 2002, the primary
 16   objective was to avoid significant basement
 17   flooding damage and risk to public health.  The
 18   reason that the province operated then is because
 19   in 1993, with elevated river levels, I think it
 20   almost reached James 17 equivalent, almost
 21   spilling into the floodway naturally.  There were
 22   significant rain storm events.  In the course of
 23   two weeks from late July to early August, there
 24   was two hundred year return period rain storms
 25   followed by a ten year that ran off like a hundred
00914
  1   year, and the ensuing damage in Winnipeg was
  2   estimated to be about $140 million paid out by
  3   insurance companies.
  4               MS. CLIFTON:  What year was that?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  1993.  The province
  6   operated in 2002 because a situation was
  7   approaching that was very similar to the actual
  8   situation in 1993 when they didn't operate.  And I
  9   would say the majority, probably $100 million of
 10   that 140 was directly related to the high river
 11   levels.  There was damage related to the
 12   inadequate capacity of some of the sewers higher
 13   up in the districts, far away from the rivers,
 14   just because of the amount and intensity of the
 15   rainfall.
 16               MS. CLIFTON:  I read the report, Mr.
 17   McNeil.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  So in 2002, with elevated
 19   river levels, and I believe that the river was
 20   about 16 James and there was forecasts of
 21   significant rainfall events, the province decided
 22   to operate for the same -- for prevention of
 23   basement flooding and sewer backup and risk to
 24   public health with respect to fecal coliforms in
 25   basements.
00915
  1               Following that the province promised
  2   to study that situation and a report was prepared
  3   which was released last fall, in November actually
  4   of 2004.  And the report specifically -- sorry,
  5   the report covered off the situation of emergency
  6   summer operation, but the province has also
  7   considered the recreational aspects of summer
  8   operation, i.e. keeping the water level below the
  9   Forks and allowing boat traffic and water taxis
 10   and the like.  That has caused a lot of concern by
 11   residents like yourself and others with respect to
 12   that recreational component.
 13               However, in 2004 the same situation
 14   arose again, and the province operated again.  I
 15   believe the river reached James 14 or 15, there
 16   was forecast significant summer rain storms, so
 17   the province operated again.  Again, the primary
 18   purpose was to prevent sewer backup, basement
 19   flooding and risk to public health.
 20               Because of the concern while we are
 21   going through this environmental process and the
 22   predesign, we had indicated very early on that
 23   there would be no summer operation for
 24   recreational purposes, and that is now a future
 25   possible project.  In fact, it is out of the scope
00916
  1   of this project, as I illustrated in my
  2   presentation.
  3               However, Government reserves the right
  4   to consider the potential basement flooding
  5   damages and risk to public health if there is a
  6   high river level event in the summer, or possibly
  7   if it was to occur in the fall with coincident
  8   significant rain storms.  So government adopted
  9   rule number 4 for the floodway operation, and to
 10   differentiate between the summer operation that
 11   would be associated with recreation and a summer
 12   operation-- and I keep using the word summer
 13   because that's what we have been using all
 14   along -- an operation that's specifically related
 15   to emergency, then the new rule is referred to as
 16   non-spring because it could happen in the fall as
 17   well, as well as summer, emergency operation for
 18   the prevention of sewer backup.
 19               MR. REMPEL:  I would just like to add
 20   a comment.  As we explained in the introduction to
 21   the approach of the EIS, under either definition
 22   that Mr. McNeil has made of the summer operation,
 23   that summer operation is not an effect of this
 24   expansion of the project.  The summer operation
 25   can happen, as has been demonstrated in 2002 and
00917
  1   '04, the expansion of the project does not make it
  2   any easier or less easy to do summer operation.
  3   So it is not an effect of this expansion project.
  4               MS. CLIFTON:  Just to make sure I
  5   understand you, I'm hearing that this new rule on
  6   summer operation has been adopted, it is a
  7   surprise to us by the way, and you have told us
  8   earlier that if that rule had been in place since
  9   the floodway was built we would see summer
 10   operations -- what was it, 22 out of 35 years; is
 11   that right?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, 22 out of 36 years
 13   in the past.  You could project that for the
 14   future if we had the same weather conditions over
 15   the same period of time.
 16               MS. CLIFTON:  But because it is
 17   existing we are not going to get a chance to
 18   review it; is that what you are telling us?
 19               MR. REMPEL:  I am saying in the EIS we
 20   did not assess summer operation, it is not a part
 21   of this expansion project.
 22               MS. CLIFTON:  I heard you say that the
 23   city's current flood protection levels are not
 24   currently at the legislated flood protection
 25   level.  The province, through MFA, is continually
00918
  1   threatening a cost to the taxpayers if there is
  2   any delay in this project.  I'm wondering if they
  3   also have any estimates on what is the cost to the
  4   upstream community if the city takes 20 years or
  5   longer to upgrade their infrastructure, including
  6   sewer and flood protection?
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  I refer you to section 11
  8   titled "City of Winnipeg Flood Protection
  9   Infrastructure," and specifically section 11.1 of
 10   the supplementary filing.
 11               It could possibly take the city 20
 12   years or longer, it all depends on how much money
 13   is approved for the program.  What my concern was,
 14   if it does take that long, we get a 700 year flood
 15   after the floodway is expanded, can the city be
 16   protected temporarily?  We have looked at that in
 17   detail, we have had discussions with the city, and
 18   we've indicated in here that the city can in fact
 19   be protected to the 700 year, two feet above the
 20   700 backwater within the city.
 21               Certainly there is some risk with
 22   temporary works versus permanent works, that was
 23   our experience in 1997, but the reality is that
 24   the level of effort that goes into raising those
 25   primary dykes is about a tenth of the level of
00919
  1   effort that the city put into all of the earth
  2   moving projects, raising dykes, et cetera, both
  3   primary and secondary during the 1997 event.  And
  4   it is about a tenth of fill that's required.  And
  5   we feel that the city could easily do that in a
  6   week's time, prepare the primary dykes.
  7               As well, the city has a flood
  8   protection manual that addresses all of the needs
  9   and all of the activities that are required with
 10   its existing flood protection infrastructure,
 11   whether that be the flood pumping stations, or
 12   gate chambers, or sealing manholes, or whatever
 13   the case may be.
 14               MS. CLIFTON:  Thank you.  As a comment
 15   that may or may not indicate a general feel in the
 16   city, I have heard it twice, once at work, once
 17   socially, that if we built this new floodway,
 18   thank God we will never have to sand bag again.
 19   And on both occasions, of course, I questioned
 20   them.  And the thought was that when this floodway
 21   goes through it will remove the need to ever have
 22   to throw another sand bag.  I don't know how wide
 23   ranging that opinion might be, but just to let you
 24   know it is out there.
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  So these are residents of
00920
  1   the City of Winnipeg?
  2               MS. CLIFTON:  City of Winnipeg, yes.
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  Well, I don't know where
  4   they live, but I can tell you that in addition to
  5   the $110 million that was spent in the valley to
  6   improve its flood protection infrastructure, that
  7   the 800 houses that were at risk of flooding in
  8   1997, which by the way are on the wet side of the
  9   primary diking systems and would account for about
 10   1 percent of the houses in City of Winnipeg, they
 11   all required some form of temporary protection.
 12   That was where 8 million sand bags were needed --
 13   $11 million has since '97 has been spent in the
 14   city to provide permanent dykes at many of those
 15   locations.  I would hazard to guess that 300
 16   houses or dwelling units, because we also include
 17   condominiums, have received funding assistance and
 18   built permanent flood protection, but it wasn't
 19   cost effective to bring them all the way up to
 20   27.8.  Lord Avenue was at 22 equivalent; Kingston
 21   Crescent is 24.5 equivalent.  So it was deemed to
 22   be more cost effective to provide them with
 23   permanent works to those elevations, but also
 24   provide a solid base from which they can build up
 25   a temporary sand bag dyke if need be for a repeat
00921
  1   of a 1997 or larger flood.  So it is all part of
  2   the plan, it is all built into the flood manual,
  3   and they will be notified if need be.
  4               MS. CLIFTON:  You have to understand,
  5   Mr. McNeil, the people in the rural residential
  6   area that I live in hear things like it is not
  7   cost effective to raise this flood protection
  8   level in the city, or it is not cost effective, or
  9   the money is not available.  And so they believe,
 10   rightly or wrongly, that the flood waters are held
 11   higher upstream of the city, and it is no comfort
 12   to them when they hear it is not cost effective to
 13   do these things.  The tremendous sacrifice that's
 14   being asked of these people, they are wondering
 15   why the city does not appear to be doing their
 16   part?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  Well, I'm going to defend
 18   the city, they are doing their part.  I believe
 19   they have spent about $22 million since 1997 on
 20   their flood protection infrastructure to upgrade
 21   it.  I believe they have about another 12 million
 22   in the five year capital budget from 2004 to 2009.
 23   So they are doing their part, as they try to
 24   apportion their funding for other kinds of
 25   priorities in the City of Winnipeg.  And the
00922
  1   bottom line here is that the rules will be
  2   followed.  And so when the water level goes to
  3   24.5 at James, or 25.5 in St. Norbert, those
  4   permanent dyking locations will need sand bags,
  5   the city will supply them, and hopefully
  6   volunteers will be there to build them up, and the
  7   rules will not be varied -- or there will be not
  8   be a variance from the rules with respect to the
  9   city's state of readiness, unless we are into rule
 10   2, which the rules allow for.
 11               MS. CLIFTON:  I could never argue with
 12   you, Mr. McNeil, but what I did say was it
 13   appears, and sometimes the perception cannot be
 14   reduced with all of the numbers that you could
 15   produce.
 16               After the summer operation of 2002, it
 17   was widely publicized in the media that there
 18   would be full compensation paid for all damages
 19   related to summer time operation.  Assurances were
 20   provided.  Is this in fact true, Mr. McNeil?
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that's beyond
 22   the scope of this hearing.
 23               MS. CLIFTON:  Fair enough.  I think
 24   Paul covered that.
 25               If we agree with using 778 above sea
00923
  1   level as a baseline, which we in the upstream area
  2   strenuously and vigorously do not, what would
  3   be -- this is to Mr. Carson -- what would be the
  4   annual cost in the upstream area from damages to
  5   holding to this level?  Does that make sense?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Mrs. Clifton, do you mean
  7   if we get a flood bigger than --
  8               MS. CLIFTON:  No, if with the expanded
  9   floodway water levels are held upstream to a level
 10   of 778 above sea level, what would be a
 11   calculation of the annual damage to the upstream
 12   area?
 13               MR. CARSON:  Yes, we studied that, not
 14   as part of this recent activity that we
 15   participated in, but I guess back in 1999 and
 16   2000.  And what we were looking at was if the
 17   operation were to be held at the state of nature
 18   throughout all floods, whether they are one in 700
 19   years, one in a 1,000, or one in 100.  And we
 20   tried to estimate exactly the number that you
 21   referred to.  And the average annual damage, I
 22   believe it was about $40 million.
 23               MS. CLIFTON:  $51 million on page 28
 24   of the KGS report.
 25               MR. CARSON:  Sorry, I'm corrected
00924
  1   then.
  2               MS. CLIFTON:  So that's an annual cost
  3   to the upstream area of $51 million if 778 is
  4   used?
  5               MR. CARSON:  Well, I should qualify
  6   that that was based on the data database we had on
  7   elevations of various ring dykes and pads for
  8   increased height for houses and so on.  And that
  9   may have changed since the database was developed
 10   in 1999.  So it could be less than 51, but we
 11   haven't studied it since then.
 12               MS. CLIFTON:  Would it be more than
 13   $45 million?
 14               MR. CARSON:  I don't know.
 15               MS. CLIFTON:  So we will use the $51
 16   million until we have new data; is that fair?
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  It is fair.
 18               MS. CLIFTON:  That's a heck of a cost
 19   for an upstream community to bear on an annual
 20   basis?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I guess I
 22   can't believe that would be the average annual
 23   cost.  This graph shows that --
 24               MS. CLIFTON:  Neither can we, sir.
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  -- at this stage of the
00925
  1   game, after 110 million has been spent in the
  2   valley.  What this graph shows is the 700 -- I
  3   will just point to the red line which is the 700
  4   year flood, whether it is the existing floodway or
  5   the expanded floodway.  And this is the elevation
  6   of the top of the dykes for all of these
  7   communities.  So Emerson is approximately two feet
  8   above the 700 year level, Letellier is right about
  9   equivalent, and St Jean is two, two and a half
 10   feet, Morris is two feet, et cetera.
 11               So the communities that would be at
 12   risk for the 700 year flood are then the ones
 13   between basically Avonlea Corner at Ste. Agathe
 14   and the inlet.  So we are talking about an
 15   infrequent event.  So even now after the 110
 16   program, the communities immediately upstream of
 17   the city should be, and are, based on the
 18   legislation, at least two feet above the 1997
 19   level that occurred in -- the actual 1997 flood
 20   level, and even higher above the 1997 flood if it
 21   is repeated for the expanded floodway.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 23               MS. CLIFTON:  Am I wearing out my
 24   welcome, Mr. Chair?
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm just wondering how
00926
  1   much longer you expect to go, because I have one
  2   more participant who would like to go today.
  3               MS. CLIFTON:  I'm trying to keep my
  4   questions short, Mr. Chair.  Some of the answers
  5   are longer than I would rather have.
  6               The KGS report discusses additional
  7   engineering work but doesn't specify what it is
  8   that would be required if summertime operation was
  9   to become part of the floodway expansion.  Is this
 10   work then being done?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  Those are the studies
 12   that I referred to earlier, river banks, fish
 13   passage, wildlife access, that will be done over
 14   the next few years.  Again, I point to section 8.2
 15   that talks about those studies for summer
 16   operation.
 17               MS. CLIFTON:  My questions are kind of
 18   bouncing around, but that's the way it came out in
 19   the transcript.  It is back to the upstream
 20   levels, the regulations of '97 plus two that were
 21   vigorously questioned at the time.
 22               The province knows, or knew that those
 23   levels were going to be inadequate.  Was it a
 24   question of economics that there wasn't funding to
 25   get those houses up where they need to be, or was
00927
  1   it a question of inability to do so because of
  2   engineering difficulties, or was there just blind
  3   following of some rule in terms of '97 plus two
  4   or -- we didn't actually ever get an answer to
  5   that.
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  So, Mrs. Clifton, are you
  7   asking prior to the '97 flood why was the flood
  8   proofing criteria '79 water level plus two, and
  9   why didn't the government make it higher?
 10               MS. CLIFTON:  Those questions were
 11   asked after '79.  I'm asking for after '97, when
 12   we finally realized -- we didn't know about 778
 13   prior to the '97 flood.  When we found out and we
 14   saw what was happening in our community, there was
 15   this rigid sticking to this '97 plus two rule in
 16   the face of what we knew at that time was going to
 17   be inadequate.
 18               I'm wondering what entered into the
 19   decision to -- and for the benefit of the
 20   Commission, the flood level in my neighborhood is
 21   between 773 feet above sea legal, 773.5 and 774,
 22   depending on where you are.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  The '97 flood level?
 24               MS. CLIFTON:  Yes.  And it was very
 25   frustrating at the time that we could not seem to
00928
  1   get any answers as to why there wouldn't be either
  2   adequate flood protection prescribed, or ordered,
  3   or buyouts for those that wanted them.
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Bowering will take
  5   that question.
  6               MR. BOWERING:  As you are suggesting,
  7   Mrs. Clifton, there is really not a clear precise
  8   answer to this.  The standard that we have used,
  9   and the only standard that we have used for many
 10   years is the highest flood plus two feet.  And
 11   there was discussion of the special situation of
 12   the area in Ritchot, and discussion of whether
 13   there should be a variance there, and after
 14   discussion went round and round, the policy
 15   decision made by senior management was stick to
 16   the standard, which is 97 plus two feet.
 17               MS. CLIFTON:  Several of the homes in
 18   my area are on the third raising now.  I would
 19   suggest, if I'm going to suggest anything, that
 20   the last flood plus two feet is not working.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  We are getting into
 22   debate.  Questions.
 23               MS. CLIFTON:  Sorry, Mr. Chair.
 24               Mr. McNeil, publicly it has been said,
 25   and I quote,
00929
  1               "The Z-dyke will eventually be
  2               somewhere near Brunkild."
  3   I live outside of the perimeter, and somewhere
  4   near Brunkild could just about be anywhere.  I'm
  5   wondering, is the dyke going to be eventually
  6   somewhere near Brunkild or is it there now?
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  The official west dyke
  8   ends on Highway 305 about a mile east of Brunkild,
  9   Manitoba.  And if you just bear with me, I will
 10   bring up my presentation.  So Brunkild is
 11   generally at the intersection of Highway 3 and
 12   305, and the existing west dyke ends about a mile
 13   east on that Highway 305.  There is Highway 305.
 14   And the plans are to extend the dyke north along
 15   Mile Roads, and crossing Highway 3, and then west
 16   and then north and then west to high ground in
 17   consideration of the new design for the 700 year
 18   plus 100 year wind.  And the reason that we picked
 19   this zigzag pattern in this area is that it is
 20   generally following the boundary between two
 21   drainage districts.  And the reason that's
 22   important is that the water in this area flows
 23   away from the dyke generally, and the water in
 24   this area flows away from the dyke, and there is
 25   no crossing of the dyke, and therefore introducing
00930
  1   holes in the dyke with culverts and gates and the
  2   whole bit.
  3               MS. CLIFTON:  My point, Mr. McNeil,
  4   was for the people listening to the hearings, and
  5   possibly even the Commissioners, somewhere near
  6   Brunkild just isn't good enough when you have
  7   people on the wet side of that dyke.
  8               Speaking of the west dyke, it barely
  9   saw any water, as we know in '97, except up near
 10   the floodway inlet.  Moving it south, extending
 11   it, never mind raising it, it has got to have an
 12   impact on local water levels when you are
 13   operating in all the operating ranges of the
 14   floodway, including 773, 775, 778.  What studies
 15   have been done that will indicate local impacts
 16   from water at higher ranges against that dyke?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  So you are suggesting
 18   that because of the existence of the west dyke,
 19   this wall if you want to call it that, that water
 20   levels in this region will be higher than if the
 21   dyke didn't exist; is that what you are
 22   suggesting?  Anyway, let me finish my thought
 23   because I think it is pertinent to the question.
 24   The dyke in this area is also generally following
 25   the drainage, the boundary of the drainage
00931
  1   district between the Red River and the La Salle
  2   River.  And the 700 year flood -- or sorry, the
  3   1997, I'm not sure about the 700 year, but the
  4   1997 flood for sure without the west dyke would
  5   barely get across that natural high level
  6   boundary.
  7               MS. CLIFTON:  Before you go on, Mr.
  8   McNeil, I will save you the trouble, speaking as a
  9   lay person --
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  It is okay, sorry.
 11               MS. CLIFTON:  Speaking as a lay person
 12   behind our dyke during '97, I observed a cat
 13   clinging to go a tree branch, as this tree branch
 14   was going very fast from west to east.  And I
 15   believe, as I went out in a boat and looked later,
 16   that it was caused by an increased velocity of
 17   water off that west dyke.  And my question is, if
 18   water levels are even higher than '97 levels up
 19   against the dyke, would not that have an impact,
 20   if not on higher water levels, perhaps velocity?
 21   And has there been studies?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  I think the simple answer
 23   is no, not really.  I know we answered this
 24   question, I think through the CEC information
 25   request process, so we will look for that answer.
00932
  1               Generally the reason is, the landscape
  2   is flat, and just because there is six feet or
  3   12 feet of water on it doesn't necessarily mean
  4   that the water is moving at a greater clip,
  5   whether the dyke is there, the west dyke is there
  6   or not.  And I know that we've answered that
  7   question because through our 2D analysis of both
  8   the embankment of the floodway and the west dyke
  9   for wind and wave setup, we look at velocities.
 10               MS. CLIFTON:  Mr. Osler --
 11               MR. CARSON:  Before we go any further,
 12   could I correct something that I said earlier in
 13   response to that question about the damages
 14   upstream?
 15               MS. CLIFTON:  No, it is on the record,
 16   sir.
 17               MR. CARSON:  Well, I would like to
 18   correct what I put on the record because it was
 19   absolutely wrong.  I was depending on my memory
 20   which is not the greatest, and it was based on
 21   information that I was trying to recall that we
 22   did almost five years ago.  But it is in the
 23   report that we refer to as the safe study report,
 24   and it is on page 154, and the average annual
 25   value that would represent the damages upstream if
00933
  1   the water level was raised above the state of
  2   nature are actually shown in a graph there as
  3   $450,000.  And the present value in 2001 dollars,
  4   it says right here on page 154, is $9.7 million.
  5               MS. CLIFTON:  Now, you are talking
  6   about just the property value?
  7               MR. CARSON:  Well, this would have
  8   been based on or procedure that was used at the
  9   time to estimate potential damages to residences
 10   and commercial establishments and roads and so on.
 11               MS. CLIFTON:  So property and
 12   infrastructure, but no other costs that might be
 13   involved?  Evacuation, for example?
 14               MR. CARSON:  Yes, evacuation would be
 15   included, yes.
 16               MS. CLIFTON:  And what did you come up
 17   with as the average annual cost?
 18               MR. CARSON:  For the difference
 19   between operating above the state of nature and
 20   not the state of nature is the present value as
 21   stated in the report of $9.7 million.
 22               MS. CLIFTON:  No.  My question was, if
 23   the water is held to 778 above sea level, the
 24   annual cost -- not above nature.  There is a
 25   difference.
00934
  1               MR. CARSON:  Well, I don't understand.
  2   We didn't analyze that.  That has no relationship
  3   to the existing rules.
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  I guess, Mr. Chair, does
  5   it really matter what the result is of this
  6   question?  Because with floodway expansion, it
  7   doesn't change anything with respect to the 700
  8   year, whether it is existing or expanded floodway
  9   it is the same water level profile.
 10               MS. CLIFTON:  To some citizens of
 11   Manitoba and Canada, this means absolutely
 12   everything, Mr. McNeil.  I have given a copy of
 13   the KGS report which Mr. Carson has authored, I
 14   have showed him the chart on page 28 and asked him
 15   to explain.
 16               MR. CARSON:  Yes, I must say that I
 17   was looking at our appendix B of the safe study
 18   report, which was describing the analysis for an
 19   one in 700 year floodway, whereas you are
 20   referring to a table in the main report that
 21   refers to the comparison for a one in 500 year
 22   floodway.  And the difference there was not 9.7
 23   that I quoted, but $13 million, the difference
 24   between state of nature only and operation above
 25   state of nature to as high as 778 feet.  That was
00935
  1   the $51 million that you quoted.  But if you
  2   operated only to the state of nature, it would be
  3   $38 million.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  I can't see how this is
  5   relevant to the consideration before us.  Nobody
  6   is arguing that there aren't significant costs, or
  7   there would not be significant costs.
  8               MS. CLIFTON:  My final question,
  9   Mr. Chair, with your thanks and your patience, it
 10   goes again on the options for Winnipeg city
 11   protection, and Mr. Carson was quite eloquent on
 12   this point in terms of -- and you have the report,
 13   correct me if I'm not accurate -- whether or not
 14   it was socially acceptable to sacrifice one group
 15   of citizens for the salvation of another.  I
 16   believe this came up four times in the report, Mr.
 17   Chair; am I right, Mr. Carson?
 18               MR. CARSON:  I must say it was four
 19   years ago, I believe there were some references to
 20   that but I can't recall.
 21               MS. CLIFTON:  My final question is
 22   that if we assume that this is socially acceptable
 23   to do, does at any time the protection of the city
 24   require the sacrifice of the homes and properties
 25   upstream of the inlet structure?
00936
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  The only way to answer
  2   that is to say that under rule 2, when the flood
  3   is large enough, the water level in the city will
  4   be held constant two feet below the primary dykes,
  5   and then there will be flooding artificially
  6   upstream of the inlet control structure.  And for
  7   a '97 event with today's floodway, the extent of
  8   that artificial flooding would be to Ste. Agathe.
  9   And for a 700 year event, the extent of that
 10   flooding would be to Morris.
 11               MS. CLIFTON:  Would that require the
 12   sacrifice of homes and properties of residents
 13   living upstream?
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm sorry, I'm not going
 15   to answer that question with respect to the word
 16   "sacrifice."
 17               MS. CLIFTON:  Thanks for your time,
 18   Mr. Chair.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Ms. Clifton.
 20               Rivers West I believe is the last
 21   group that wishes to do a bit of a
 22   cross-examination today.
 23               MR. FRANK:  My name is Jeff Frank, I'm
 24   a consultant working on behalf of Rivers West and
 25   the Red River Floodway Trail Coalition.  I
00937
  1   appreciate the time and I will be very, very, very
  2   brief.
  3               I guess just by way of background, our
  4   motivation with regard to the intervention in
  5   these proceedings is to advocate on behalf of
  6   recreation.  We have heard from the Floodway
  7   Authority that recreation is currently not part of
  8   these proceedings, and we will be arguing that
  9   later on -- so not to get into that.  But with
 10   regard to the EIS on page 4 -- I'm sorry, section
 11   4 page 140 I believe is a schedule of activities.
 12   Within that schedule of activities it appears to
 13   indicate that there is a significant amount of
 14   construction that's contemplated immediately upon
 15   the issuance of the environmental license.  Part
 16   of that construction, as illustrated in the EIS
 17   includes the immediate start of construction on
 18   two bridges, PTH 59 south and the Trans Canada
 19   Highway.
 20               So question one, is that still the
 21   general schedule for that construction?
 22               MR. THOMSON:  Jim Thomson.  Those
 23   schedules are still fairly preliminary.  Actually,
 24   another one of the rail bridges is also scheduled
 25   at the present time to start at that same time,
00938
  1   the Emerson sub also starts in that same time
  2   frame.
  3               MR. FRANK:  So you are well advanced
  4   in construction documents, I mean, this is ready
  5   to tender presumably?
  6               MR. THOMSON:  No, we are still in the
  7   early stages of final design.  We are pushing very
  8   hard to have the engineering completed in time to
  9   get tenders.  Actually we are now looking at
 10   probably tenders in July, work start up in
 11   September on the bridge works.
 12               MR. FRANK:  Again, our motivation is
 13   with regard to recreation.  Do these bridges
 14   currently include provision for bicycle and
 15   pedestrian crossings?
 16               MR. THOMSON:  The TransCanada bridge
 17   has a 1.5-meter widening on the roadway structure
 18   to allow for bicycles.  No sidewalks if that's
 19   part of your question on either structure.  I
 20   think 59 also, but I'm not certain of that.  We
 21   can advise you of that.
 22               MR. FRANK:  Okay.  In the event that
 23   recreation does return to the table as part of an
 24   obligation of the licence, is there ample time to
 25   include those provisions, if they are deemed to be
00939
  1   necessary, in the construction of those
  2   facilities?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  Doug McNeil speaking.  At
  4   the current time, because Rivers West has
  5   highlighted which is bridges it is interested in
  6   pedestrian and cycling crossings, we are reviewing
  7   the safety aspect of those proposals and we will
  8   be getting back to Rivers West, your group, very
  9   shortly.  And if the answer is yes, that those
 10   will be provided for, there is still time.
 11               MR. FRANK:  So there is still time to
 12   include those?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  That's why we are dealing
 14   with this now, yes.
 15               MR. FRANK:  That was a concern of ours
 16   and that's why I'm asking the question, so I
 17   appreciate the answer, thank you.
 18               My other question, and this just
 19   occurred to me, I guess, Mr. McNeil, with regard
 20   to something that you mentioned to Cooks Creek,
 21   talking about the drainage structures.  And I'm
 22   not familiar with what they all entail, but you
 23   referred to them, and I think I quote correctly,
 24   as a value added component to the project.  That
 25   is that you don't really have to enlarge these
00940
  1   culverts or weirs, I'm not sure what the exact
  2   component is, but you are electing to do so
  3   because it adds value to some component for the
  4   public purposes.  Is that a fair statement?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Sure.  I didn't use the
  6   word value added, but certainly we have to remove
  7   these things anyway, and there is always
  8   improvements to drainage systems, so we will try
  9   and accommodate their requests for an increase in
 10   capacity.
 11               MR. FRANK:  Thank you.  Are there
 12   other such components of the project?  The cost
 13   estimates that's in the EIS is rather general, so
 14   I'm curious if there are other so-called -- I
 15   think you used the value added but I am not
 16   sure -- but nevertheless, things of that same
 17   nature in the project?
 18               MR. THOMSON:  Again, on the bridge
 19   works, we are adding a number of, I will call them
 20   safety features.  Starting with St. Mary's Road
 21   the plan is to renew that bridge on a new
 22   alignment taking out substandard curves at both
 23   the north and south ends of that structure, as
 24   well as improving the sight lines from Courchene
 25   Drive, the road that comes across the inlet
00941
  1   control structure.  That approach is too close to
  2   the bridge on St. Mary's Road and it is very poor
  3   visibility, so we are moving that to the north, so
  4   improving that.  The TransCanada Highway, we are
  5   going to make changes to the ramps.  Let me get my
  6   directions here.  When you are northbound on the
  7   Perimeter Highway to go eastbound on the
  8   TransCanada, again taking out substandard curves
  9   on that ramp.  And both the east and westbound
 10   structures will become three laned, there will be
 11   an acceleration/deceleration lane on both the east
 12   and westbound directions.
 13               MR. FRANK:  Those all sound like
 14   prudent safety measures.
 15               MR. THOMSON:  They are.  And then
 16   Highway 15 we are twinning again, because it is
 17   at, the present capacity on the two lane structure
 18   is exceeding standard, so we are bringing it to a
 19   four lane structure.
 20               MR. FRANK:  So everything else is kind
 21   of prudent safety measures.
 22               MR. THOMSON:  Bringing the existing,
 23   again the existing structures to the standard of
 24   today.
 25               MR. FRANK:  So no other so-called
00942
  1   value added components that are part of the
  2   project, everything is just going to straight, you
  3   know, what is required for this project with a
  4   prudent, safety component to it; is that correct?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Is it a public safety
  6   component, is that what you are asking?
  7               MR. FRANK:  No, I was curious about
  8   this whole value added concept.  I mean, obviously
  9   we are going to discuss recreation as a value
 10   added concept.
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  I was wondering when you
 12   were going to get there actually.
 13               MR. FRANK:  Were you really?
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  I didn't think you were
 15   really interested in drainage structures.  It has
 16   been a long day, sorry.
 17               MR. FRANK:  Yes, I know, and I am
 18   really impressed with the work that you guys have
 19   to do up there, I have to tell you.  But this
 20   concept of value added is obviously something that
 21   we are going to pursue in our approach.  And the
 22   discussion of drainage as a value added feature,
 23   I'm wondering what other value added features are
 24   in the project.  For example, you mentioned
 25   drainage, it has been publicized in the media, the
00943
  1   virtual reality tour of the floodway at some cost,
  2   which I would argue is a valued added feature and
  3   certainly something that's worth considering.  Are
  4   there other features of the project that would
  5   fall into that kind of category?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  With respect to
  7   recreation?
  8               MR. FRANK:  No, with respect to the
  9   overall project?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  Why don't we just jump
 11   straight to recreation?
 12               MR. FRANK:  Recreation is not part of
 13   the project as far as --
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  What I will say
 15   Mr. Frank -- because it is almost 5:00 o'clock,
 16   and I'm tired and I think everybody else is, and I
 17   would like to be able to answer your questions --
 18   is that what we have said publicly, first of all,
 19   all of the recreation concepts are just that, they
 20   are concepts, they are work in progress.  And one
 21   thing that I wanted to add is that we are not
 22   going to accept any recreation proposal that might
 23   have a significant adverse effect to the
 24   environment.  So we have carved it off of there.
 25   We have, however, under a budget line called
00944
  1   special projects, included -- and it is no
  2   specific funding amount for this -- but we have
  3   included funding for moving dirt twice to
  4   accommodate whatever recreation proposal, and the
  5   trails certainly seem to be one of the stronger of
  6   the proposals, to move dirt to provide a base for
  7   the trails or provide a base for the parking lots
  8   or what have you.  And the reason that -- that's a
  9   premium, so it is valued added.  We don't have to
 10   do that, as you know.  And we can't do it with the
 11   kind of equipment that we are going to excavate
 12   the channel, we have to bring in smaller more
 13   appropriate equipment.  So it has to be moved
 14   twice no matter what.  So we are not too excited
 15   about getting your plans finalized, because it is
 16   in a sense like a landscaping feature on this
 17   flood protection project to be able to incorporate
 18   something like a trail for whatever use.  And what
 19   we have said publicly, despite some of the
 20   comments yesterday that people are getting mixed
 21   messages, what we said publicly is that whatever
 22   proposal comes along, the proponent of that
 23   recreation or economic proposal will be
 24   responsible for whatever approvals, will be
 25   responsible for public consultation, because as
00945
  1   you know, some of the municipalities are very
  2   concerned about promoting recreation and causing
  3   vandalism and fires and the whole bit, and will be
  4   responsible for funding the development of that
  5   proposal.
  6               And we see that as a longer term
  7   project, and it is no different with the existing
  8   floodway, whatever is being proposed could be
  9   incorporated in the existing floodway, it has no
 10   impact on the expansion of the floodway.  And I
 11   know some of the landscape architects have come up
 12   with a squiggly design for the floodway, but ain't
 13   gonna happen, the design for the capacity
 14   upgrading, because the primary purpose of this
 15   project is flood protection, the design and shape
 16   of this project are not going to change.
 17               MR. FRANK:  As you know, we have
 18   acknowledged all of that, Mr. McNeil, so there is
 19   nothing new there.  And as you know, we disagree
 20   with you, and we will make presentations to
 21   explain that disagreement.
 22               All I'm trying to get at is, and you
 23   mentioned the special projects fund, that's really
 24   all I was trying to get at, is that there appears
 25   to be money within the project that is not
00946
  1   specifically allocated for specific technical
  2   requirements of the project, but rather for these
  3   so-called value added or special projects.  And
  4   that's all I was trying to get at, is what the
  5   range of those things are.  And I appreciate that
  6   there is money to move dirt twice, that's great.
  7               Thank you very much.  Thank you, Mr.
  8   Chairman.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Frank.
 10   Not bad timing, that brings us to 5 to 5:00 and we
 11   are finished today's business.  We meet again on
 12   Monday morning, 9:00 o'clock in Oakbank at the
 13   Oakbank United Church.  I'm not familiar enough
 14   with Oakbank to know where it is, but give
 15   yourself five or ten minutes extra to find it.
 16               On Monday we will continue -- order
 17   please -- on Monday we will commence with a
 18   continuation of the cross-examination.  The three
 19   municipalities -- order please -- and the
 20   Coalition for Flood Protection North will be
 21   conducting a cross-examination on Monday morning.
 22   Later on, on Monday we have a couple of
 23   presentations -- or one presentation by Cooks
 24   Creek Conservation District, as well as by the
 25   Member of Parliament for Selkirk Interlake, and
00947
  1   then the start of presentation by the three
  2   municipalities.
  3               Four days, and we are all still
  4   standing, so have a good weekend.
  5               (Adjourned at 5:00 p.m.)
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00948
  1                  OFFICIAL EXAMINER'S CERTIFICATE
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   I, CECELIA REID, a duly appointed Official
  6   Examiner in the Province of Manitoba, do hereby
  7   certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct
  8   transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken by me at
  9   the time and place hereinbefore stated.
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13                       ----------------------------
 14                       Cecelia Reid
 15                       Official Examiner, Q.B.
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25