00949
  1          MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   =======================================
 13            Monday, February 21, 2005
 14           Oakbank United Church
 15             Oakbank, Manitoba
 16   ========================================
 17   
 18                Volume  5
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00950
  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 Consulting
      Mr. John Osler     - Intergroup Consulting
 15   Mr. David Morgan   - TetrES Consulting
      Mr. George Rempel  - TetrES Consulting
 16   Mr. Robert Sinclair -  KGS
      Ms. Marci Friedman-Hamm - 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
00951
  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   
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00952
  1               INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
  2   Presentation by James Bezan          1068
  3   Cross-examination of Floodway Authority
  4   
  5   Cross-examination by Mr. Currie        967
  6   Cross-examination by Mr. Millman       1099
  7   Cross-examination by Mr. Stinson       1125
  8   Cross-examination by Mr. Arkley        1189
  9   Cross-examination by Ms. Fuga          1200
 10   Questions by Reeve Strang              1218
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00953
  1                  INDEX OF EXHIBITS
  2   
  3   48     Errata for EIS                       963
  4   
      49     Response by SCN Lavalin on Feb 21,   963
  5          2005
  6   
      50      Department of Agriculture and       967
  7          Conservation, Water Control and
             Conservation Branch, Red River
  8          Floodway, Inlet Controls works,
             Memorandum on Preliminary Design,
  9          July 28, 1962
 10   
      51     Red River Floodway Expansion        1081
 11          Concerns Raised by the People of
             Selkirk-Interlake. Presentation to
 12          the Clean Environment Commission.
             By: James Bezan, Member of
 13          Parliament, Selkirk-Interlake
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00954
  1                INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS
  2   UNDERTAKING NO.                               PAGE
  3   No undertakings given
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
00955
  1   MONDAY FEBRUARY 21, 2005
  2   UPON COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M.
  3   
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Good morning, ladies
  5   and gentlemen.  Could we come to order, please.  I
  6   would just like to remind you, before we get
  7   going, I would like to remind people who weren't
  8   in attendance at all last week, that I'm a maniac
  9   about two things; cell phones and conversation in
 10   the audience while hearings are going on.  So
 11   please turn off your cell phones and please don't
 12   engage in any side conversations when others are
 13   trying to make their presentations or answer
 14   questions.
 15               I would like to welcome you all to the
 16   second week of our hearing.  I would like to
 17   welcome a lot of people in the audience who are
 18   here today for the first time, and I would like to
 19   welcome back all of the participants who were here
 20   last week and seem to be very keen to get back at
 21   it.
 22               On the agenda this morning, Mr. McNeil
 23   informs me he has some undertakings to respond to
 24   off the top.  That will be followed by what I
 25   believe is the final cross-examination from a
00956
  1   participant group, and that's Mr. Currie on behalf
  2   of the three municipalities.
  3               Following Mr. Currie's
  4   cross-examination we will allow members of the
  5   general public who might have questions of the
  6   Floodway Authority to do so at that time.  Then we
  7   begin with presentations.  The first presentation
  8   this morning, later this morning will be by the
  9   Cook Creeks Conservation District.  The local
 10   member of parliament, Mr. James Bezan, has also
 11   asked for an opportunity to make a brief
 12   presentation which we will hear sometime this
 13   morning, and then following that, whether it is
 14   morning or afternoon, we will get into the
 15   presentation on behalf of the three
 16   municipalities.
 17               So, first order of business, Mr.
 18   McNeil.
 19               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Chairman, I would
 20   like to clarify, with your permission, we have
 21   three housekeeping items we would like to take
 22   care of.  One is an errata on the EIS and some
 23   groundwater statements that Dr. Morgan would like
 24   to speak to.  Then Mr. McNeil has a number of
 25   clarifications from the record of last week, and
00957
  1   then Mr. Smith would like to respond to an
  2   undertaking that he gave with regard to inlet
  3   structure bedrock quality.  So with your
  4   permission, we would like to do those three items
  5   now.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.  I think you had
  7   received an errata sheet and memo.  This is for
  8   page 514 of the EIS.  This section on existing,
  9   the existing groundwater quality in the EIS states
 10   that while data along the Red River at the
 11   floodway inlet and at the Selkirk bridge on the
 12   Red River may show influence of river water in
 13   wells along the river.  This description of
 14   variation water quality is actually meant to refer
 15   to the Red River water quality and not the water
 16   quality data.
 17               There is an errata in appendix M which
 18   makes the correction, and an EIS sheet.
 19               Just to be clear, that this discussion
 20   on the existing situation along the Red River does
 21   not change the effects assessment in any matter.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. McNeil.
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  Thank you, Mr. Rempel.
 24   Mr. Chairman, I have got, I believe four things to
 25   bring to your attention this morning.  First of
00958
  1   all we were in error when we mentioned last week
  2   about summer operation.  It is not 22 times in 36
  3   years, had we the ability to operate in the summer
  4   in the past.  Manitoba Water Branch had indicated
  5   to me late Friday that that was incorrect.  They
  6   are working on the new numbers and we will get
  7   back to you in the next couple of days on that.
  8               Page 699 of the February 17
  9   transcript, line 8, indicated that the inlet
 10   structure was not designed to 778, in fact, that's
 11   an error, it should have been quoted as the inlet
 12   structure was designed to 778.
 13               Also Manitoba Water Stewardship
 14   advises that in spring operation, contrary to what
 15   I indicated, they do in fact operate the gates,
 16   both on the rising and receding limbs of the
 17   hydrograph, in other words, when the gates are
 18   being raised and when the gates are being lowered
 19   during spring operation they mimic nature in terms
 20   of the rate of rise and fall as much as possible.
 21   I had indicated last week that they couldn't do
 22   that on the rising limb.  In fact they do.
 23               You were asking us about our
 24   environmental management system last week and we
 25   are preparing some information that will report in
00959
  1   the next couple of days on that item.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Just on that item, Mr.
  3   McNeil, subsequent to my asking those questions, I
  4   did learn there is an ISO 1400 or 1401 that sets
  5   out environmental management systems criteria.
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  That's true, and we will
  7   make a presentation generally that follows that
  8   process.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  And the last thing, and I
 11   will ask Mr. Rick Carson to report on the
 12   undertaking to discuss the application of the
 13   Canadian Dam Association Guidelines with respect
 14   to the floodway.  Mr. Carson.
 15               MR. CARSON:  Yes.  As you recall, the
 16   question regarding the dam safety issue was what
 17   portions of the Canadian Dam Association
 18   Guidelines were used and what portions were not
 19   used.  And as we said on Thursday, the company
 20   that did the dam safety review was SNC Lavalin, and
 21   we thought that we would be able to bring them in
 22   to speak to that question, so that it would be the
 23   original authors of the appendix that would be
 24   giving you the answer.  But unfortunately, on
 25   short notice they were not able to have a
00960
  1   representative here.  But we came to a compromise,
  2   that they wrote a document here that I have in
  3   front of me, and they asked that I read it out to
  4   you.  I have hard copies if you would like to see
  5   them while I read it?
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Please.
  7               MR. CARSON:  The response that SNC
  8   Lavalin provided is as follows:  The dam safety
  9   review carried out for the floodway expansion
 10   project was generally based on the Canadian Dam
 11   Association Dam Safety Guidelines, herein called
 12   the CDA guidelines, as indicated in annex C,
 13   section 3.1.1.1 of the preliminary engineering
 14   report.  As indicated in paragraph 4, section 1.1,
 15   scope and applicability of the CDA guidelines, it
 16   states that the CDA guidelines are intended to
 17   cover the majority of normal requirements for dam
 18   safety.  However, it is recognized that other
 19   requirements could exist for a particular dam
 20   site, and the responsible engineer must identify
 21   considerations not included herein, and determine
 22   the appropriate dam safety requirements.
 23               That's a direct quotation from the CDA
 24   guidelines.
 25               Now this principle was applied to the
00961
  1   dam safety investigations for the floodway
  2   expansion as there are characteristics of the
  3   project that require appropriate interpretation of
  4   the CDA guidelines to meet the intent of the CDA
  5   guidelines.  Examples with respect to the floodway
  6   expansion project include;
  7               Number 1:  A dam safety review
  8   typically covers investigation of existing
  9   facilities.  The dam safety review for the
 10   floodway expansion project covered both, (a), a
 11   review of the existing facilities and procedures
 12   in the context of the proposed operation after
 13   completion of the project, as well as (b), a
 14   review of preliminary designs for components of
 15   the project, such as the west dyke, which are
 16   planning to undergo substantial upgrades.
 17               Number 2:  The water retaining
 18   structures for most dams are subjected to
 19   continuous submergence of the upstream slopes and
 20   hydrostatic loading from the impounded reservoir.
 21   The water retaining structures for the floodway
 22   are only subjected to intermittent and relatively
 23   short term loading during major floods.  This
 24   reduces the significance of factors such as 10.4,
 25   sedimentation and silting.
00962
  1               Number 3:  Section 6, called Floods
  2   from the CDA guidelines, indicates that the
  3   magnitude of the inflow design flood to be used
  4   for evaluation of the design or safety evaluation
  5   of the dam should increase with increasing
  6   consequences of failure.  This aspect of the CDA
  7   guidelines is based on the fact that the
  8   consequences of failure of water retaining
  9   structures, in most dams, typically increase with
 10   increasing flood magnitude, and increasing
 11   upstream water levels.
 12               In the case of the floodway, the
 13   maximum difference in water level across the
 14   structures and the highest consequences of failure
 15   would occur for floods of relatively modest
 16   magnitude.  Both the difference in water level
 17   across the structures and the consequence of
 18   failure would decrease very substantially with
 19   floods approaching the probable maximum flood, due
 20   to prior inundation of areas downstream of the
 21   structures.
 22               In order to meaningfully apply the
 23   intent of the principles of dam safety for the
 24   floodway project, it was necessary to adapt the
 25   templates provided in the guidelines for flood
00963
  1   passage requirements during extreme events.
  2               SNC Lavalin's interpretation of the
  3   application of the CDA guidelines to appropriately
  4   reflect the specific characteristics of the
  5   Floodway Expansion Project was guided by the
  6   chairperson for the working group responsible for
  7   preparation of section 6 of the guidelines called
  8   Floods.  He was also a member of the working group
  9   for preparation of section 7 of the CDA guidelines
 10   called Discharge Facilities.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 12               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, since
 13   there is a small break I would like to enter the
 14   errata as exhibit 48, and the response from SNC
 15   Lavalin as exhibit 49.
 16   
 17               (EXHIBIT 48:  Errata for EIS)
 18   
 19               (EXHIBIT 49:  Response from SNC Lavalin
 20               Feb 21, 2005)
 21   
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Rempel.
 23               MR. REMPEL:  We would like now to
 24   proceed with Mr. Bert Smith commenting on the
 25   bedrock issue.
00964
  1               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, this is in
  2   response to your question regarding the bedrock
  3   conditions at the inlet structure.  And we had
  4   discussed both the inlet and outlet structure and
  5   the question was really related to is there a
  6   difference there.  We reviewed some of the
  7   original reports and information that is
  8   available, and I have here a report on the
  9   memorandum on preliminary design dated July 28,
 10   1962, by H.G. Acres, on the inlet control works.
 11   And this was an investigations and preliminary
 12   design for the structure.  And I will read a few
 13   of the pages here just for the record.
 14               In fact, just to address the question
 15   on the upstream water level of increased elevation
 16   of 778.3 for -- so this was in the design work,
 17   and it is on page 2 of this report, item 3 at the
 18   bottom of the page.  So that's just to clarify
 19   that that was in the design planning from the
 20   early stages.
 21               On page 9 of the report, there is a
 22   statement that the bedrock surface ranges from
 23   elevation 683 to 690.  This is at the proposed
 24   site for the inlet structure.  It is flatlined,
 25   fine grained massive dolomite which exhibits
00965
  1   little effect of solution or leaching in the cores
  2   recovered from the most recent exploration
  3   drilling.  They drilled holes 20 feet in depth.
  4               Further along in the same report on
  5   page 24, they indicate that in the event that any
  6   clay seams or solution channels are uncovered in
  7   the excavation, that if such a condition should
  8   exist, a moderate decrease in foundation level or
  9   provision of a shear check may be required.
 10   Solution cavities, if found, would be excavated
 11   and filled.  In fact, during the design the inlet
 12   structure was countersunk six feet below the
 13   bedrock surface as a requirement for the type of
 14   gate that was used.  So it was well -- it was well
 15   set into the bedrock, and there were minimal
 16   seepage conditions observed during construction.
 17               I spoke to the design engineer in
 18   charge of that structure at the time, and he
 19   indicated there was no grouting beneath the
 20   bedrock structure and it was not required.  And he
 21   did add that there was a 20-foot thick clay
 22   blanket built on the upstream side of the
 23   structure covering the bedrock in the river bottom
 24   as a further protection against any seepage under
 25   the structure.
00966
  1               So, I guess in summary, we certainly
  2   don't see any concerns with the bedrock integrity
  3   at the inlet structure site, and I would not
  4   anticipate that a problem could have developed
  5   in -- the groundwater conditions at that site are
  6   primarily of a saline nature coming from the
  7   southwest of Manitoba, very high dissolved solids,
  8   so very limited potential for a solutioning, and
  9   as well a very flat gradient across the structure.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Smith.
 11   Could you make copies of the relevant parts of
 12   that report available to us, please, later on
 13   today or --
 14               MR. SMITH:  Yes.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 16               MR. MORGAN:  We do have copies of
 17   those pages and the whole report that we can
 18   submit to you.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Does that
 20   conclude your introductory comments?
 21               MR. REMPEL:  Yes, it does.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Before I turn it over
 23   to Mr. Currie, we were much more popular this
 24   morning than we anticipated.  We have people
 25   crowding in the back door and setting up chairs
00967
  1   around the doorway.  Maybe we could get everybody
  2   to move up in this corner along the side and make
  3   a bit more room available, please.  There is
  4   plenty of chairs over there, if we could just
  5   move.
  6               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, if we
  7   could add the report of memorandum on preliminary
  8   design as exhibit number 50.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 10   
 11               (EXHIBIT 50:  Department of
 12               Agriculture and Conservation, Water
 13               Control and Conservation Branch, Red
 14               River Floodway, Inlet Controls works,
 15               Memorandum on Preliminary Design, July
 16               28, 1962)
 17   
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay, thank you for
 19   that.  We will come back to order now.  We are
 20   proceeding to cross-examination by Mr. Currie on
 21   behalf of his clients, the municipalities of East
 22   St. Paul, St. Clements and Springfield.  Mr.
 23   Currie.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 25   I guess as to the panel, the first few questions
00968
  1   that I would like to ask are sort of general in
  2   scope.  And the first question that I would ask
  3   is, probably whoever wants to jump in and discuss
  4   it, is in your proposal, can you tell us exactly
  5   what are you expecting to have licensed here?  Are
  6   you in fact going to have the whole project
  7   licensed, that is stem to stern, for lack of a
  8   better word, or are you proposing to have only the
  9   new infrastructure licensed?
 10               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Currie, the
 11   application under the Manitoba Environment Act was
 12   filled out for the expansion of the project and it
 13   includes the inlet structure, the outlet
 14   structure, the bridges, the entire project is
 15   being proposed for licensing under the Manitoba
 16   Environment Act.  And in doing this there will be
 17   approvals required from Canada.  So, when the
 18   Government completes their screen report, we would
 19   expect that the approvals associated with
 20   fisheries, habitat alteration, Navigable Waters
 21   Protection Act approvals -- and what else is
 22   there -- any other approvals associated with the
 23   Federal legislation would also flow.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  I understand that you
 25   have other approvals that you have to seek and you
00969
  1   have just listed those approvals for me which
  2   relate to the Federal level.  But what I'm asking
  3   you specifically today is, is it your anticipation
  4   that your project will license this floodway from
  5   the beginning of the inlet to the outlet, and not
  6   just the changes?
  7               MR. REMPEL:  There would be a licence
  8   for this expanded project and its operation.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  And was your
 10   application designed or did it exclude out the old
 11   floodway?
 12               MR. REMPEL:  The application did not
 13   exclude the existing floodway.  It made an
 14   application for the expansion project.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Now, the next question
 16   that I want to move forward to is the authority
 17   itself.  At this point in time, when do you
 18   anticipate the authority to come to an end, or is
 19   this something that's going to exist so far as we
 20   know forever?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  Doug McNeil speaking.
 22   The Floodway Authority was proclaimed as a Crown
 23   corporation on November 1, 2004, and it is not
 24   expected to come to an end, because as part of the
 25   Floodway Authority Act, the Floodway Authority is
00970
  1   responsible not only for expansion of the floodway
  2   but for long term maintenance as well.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  And I take it that you
  4   have distinguished that, from what I can read in
  5   the transcripts, I wasn't here for the hearings,
  6   but what I understood was you distinguished
  7   maintenance and construction from operation, am I
  8   correct?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 10   Government decided to let operation remain with
 11   Manitoba Water Stewardship because they have the
 12   resources, the knowledge, the expertise in
 13   operating the floodway in addition and in
 14   conjunction with the Shellmouth dam and reservoir
 15   and the Portage diversion.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  With regards to the
 17   assessment of mitigation factors, whose
 18   responsibility will that be?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  The Manitoba Floodway
 20   Authority, as part of this expansion project and
 21   the environmental assessment, is also responsible
 22   for mitigation of any impacts.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Is that answer to mean
 24   that both parties?
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  I repeat, the Manitoba
00971
  1   Floodway Authority has the responsibility for
  2   expanding the floodway, and is also responsible
  3   for mitigating any impacts.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  As I understand it, you
  5   have $11 million for these mitigation strategies?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  The $11 million
  7   environmental mitigation fund is for unpredicted
  8   events that may occur during construction.
  9   Through this project, and the EIS clearly states,
 10   that after mitigation this project will have no
 11   significant adverse effects.  But the fund -- and
 12   so we are doing things under the program through
 13   the expansion.  For example, not deepening but
 14   widening.  So that's already included in the base
 15   budget for the project.  But if there should be
 16   any unpredicted effects during construction or
 17   afterwards, that's what that fund is for.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  You've mentioned
 19   deepening versus widening.  Let's get into that
 20   issue since you bring it up.  With regard to
 21   deepening, I understood that the original proposal
 22   was 1.5 metres, to .5 metres, is that correct,
 23   deepening?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  The original proposal was
 25   in the range of 0.6 metres to 2 metres of
00972
  1   deepening.  That was in the concept stage of
  2   design, and that was included in the original
  3   project description.  That is no longer true,
  4   though.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  When did that change?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  It has evolved through
  7   the predesign process and also as we get final
  8   design underway.  As we announced a week ago
  9   today, we are no longer undertaking deepening.  We
 10   are going to achieve the capacity increase of the
 11   floodway by widening only.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  I understand your point,
 13   you make it several times, you feel that you are
 14   not deepening, you are widening.  I guess I'm back
 15   to my earlier question.  At what point in time did
 16   you make the conclusion that you would not go in
 17   any deepening whatsoever?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  We made the final
 19   conclusion just prior to last Monday.  So
 20   February 11 to 13th time frame.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you very much.  Now
 22   prior to that date you had at least two feet of --
 23   sorry, about .5 metres, or roughly two to three
 24   feet of deepening, in your mind, as a possibility.
 25   Is that correct?
00973
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  And maybe even earlier to
  3   that you had a possibility of going even deeper
  4   than that, correct?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  In the original concept
  6   design it was indicated that we could go 0.6 to 2
  7   metres of deepening.  And I would add that since
  8   that time, when we announced that it would be no
  9   more than 0.6 metres, that was at select
 10   locations, not throughout the whole length of the
 11   floodway.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  Now, I would like to ask,
 13   I guess, the environmental side of your team, when
 14   did they do their assessment?  When did they do
 15   their portion of the EIS?
 16               MR. REMPEL:  Are you referring in
 17   particular to groundwater?
 18               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, thank you.
 19               MR. REMPEL:  Dr. Morgan will respond.
 20               MR. MORGAN:  The preliminary
 21   engineering design, as shown in all of those
 22   documents behind them, was done in July of 2004,
 23   and our assessment in the EIS was done in August
 24   of 2004.  And as Mr. McNeil has said, and we've
 25   discussed this with the community in May and June
00974
  1   when we went out to public events, is that the
  2   goal of the Floodway Authority was to have no
  3   deepening, except in selected areas there may be
  4   .5 metres of deepening.  And in those selected
  5   areas, Mr. Smith can get into more details, maybe
  6   around some of the bridges, there was some in the
  7   upstream end around St. Mary's, it was not
  8   expected that there would be effects outside of
  9   the right-of-way.  The effect in the channel
 10   actually decreases as you move away from where
 11   that initial effect was.  And it decreases towards
 12   no effect as you get to the right-of-way.  There
 13   is sketches of that in the EIS, and you have a
 14   groundwater specialist that you can refer to.
 15               So at the time that we made it, the
 16   assessment, we had also thought there would be no
 17   significant effects.  However, there is still a
 18   lot of concern in the community, and so we've
 19   always said that the best thing to make it simple
 20   for people to understand is to not deepen along
 21   the channel.  And Mr. Smith can even fill you in a
 22   bit on the process that went on from August
 23   through until a few weeks ago of how they arrived
 24   at modifying the design in order to be no
 25   deepening.
00975
  1               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, my question
  2   was when did they decide that deepening would take
  3   place.  It wasn't necessarily a full defence of
  4   why they have now retreated from their position.
  5   We will get into that question perhaps later on.
  6               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chair, maybe I can add
  7   to that discussion.  The preliminary design, you
  8   have to understand, was an optimization process, a
  9   sensitivity study looking at various depths versus
 10   widening combinations to come up with the best
 11   final design.  And that involved the bridge
 12   heights -- and it was a very complicated process,
 13   it is not just a simple answer.  But the thing to
 14   appreciate is that when the preliminary
 15   engineering reports went out, the decision had
 16   been made not to deepen the main channel.
 17   However, we did reserve some flexibility to
 18   locally deepen as much as .6 of a metre, and the
 19   focus on that was really in the low flow channel,
 20   the narrow ditch in the middle of the floodway.
 21   However, the wide base of the channel at that
 22   point, the decision had been to widen the sides,
 23   not deepen the bottom of the main channel.  I
 24   think it is important to understand that.
 25               And there were a few points along the
00976
  1   low flow channel where we did want to verify
  2   elevations before we came to that final position
  3   to say no deepening.
  4               There is a diagram up on the board
  5   now.  You can see where the low flow channel is in
  6   the middle, the little ditch, that's designed to
  7   handle surface runoff from the various perimeter
  8   drains.  And the blue areas on the sides are where
  9   the widening is proposed.  The widening, as I say,
 10   when the preliminary engineering report came out
 11   there was no intent to deepen the base of the main
 12   channel at that point.
 13               Maybe that helps you, Mr. Currie, in
 14   understanding the timing.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, if every
 16   time I ask a question, asking for a specific date
 17   or a range of dates, I go on for 20 minutes in an
 18   answer, I will say to you the cross-examination
 19   will go considerably longer than I anticipate.
 20   Answering fully and fairly is one thing, but
 21   answering on a full-based defence -- we have heard
 22   this evidence already.  All I wanted was a
 23   specific answer to when they decided.  What they
 24   did in their defence of that position, I might ask
 25   or I may not ask.  So I'm going to submit that I'm
00977
  1   going to ask the chair to --
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could you ask your
  3   question again in very simple terms, and hopefully
  4   you can get your straight answer.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  I did, in fact, within
  6   two sentences.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  You don't need a
  8   preamble, just say it again.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, I got it, but it
 10   took us quite a while.
 11               So in any event, let's go on to the
 12   next question now.  You've indicated, as I
 13   understand it, that you did the assessment in July
 14   of '04 and then further work in August of '04;
 15   correct?
 16               MR. MORGAN:  No, that is not correct.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  Then I didn't get
 18   my answer.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  David Morgan.  The
 20   assessment started in December 2003.  It was, we
 21   started reviewing the engineering and talking with
 22   the engineers at that time.  There was an
 23   iterative process in the project design.  This was
 24   laid out to the public in January, and then there
 25   is an iterative process in the design.
00978
  1               We had input from the public
  2   consultations very early on that groundwater was a
  3   major concern.  And from that, we brought that
  4   information to the engineers who worked on the
  5   preliminary results.
  6               Preliminary results were made in
  7   April, May, and presented to the public in May,
  8   June.  At that time, you know, over that time the
  9   assessment was made.  And as I just discussed
 10   earlier, the engineering report was finalized in
 11   August -- the engineering reports finalized in
 12   July, the EIS was finalized in August.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you.  With regards
 14   to that then, my analysis of you going through
 15   your assessment is that regardless of the
 16   deepening or not, you came to the conclusion in
 17   your assessment that there would be no significant
 18   impact on the groundwater by deepening or not
 19   deepening, it really didn't matter?
 20               MR. MORGAN:  That's incorrect.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.
 22               MR. MORGAN:  A deepening of two metres
 23   would have had an effect.  We brought that, we
 24   brought that to the engineers and they understood
 25   that.  What we said is that deepening in selective
00979
  1   insensitive areas throughout the channel of
  2   .5 metres or less would have no significant --
  3   would likely have no significant adverse effect.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  So if I can --
  5               MR. MORGAN:  Selected areas, you have
  6   to understand that.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  I'm going to now repeat
  8   it back to you to see if I have got it and
  9   understood it.  You are saying that if the
 10   engineers had come to you and said, we are going
 11   to deepen it generally, that was a problem for
 12   you; but if they came to you and said, we have
 13   selected areas that you have determined are not
 14   sensitive, you would not have a problem with them
 15   deepening in those areas?
 16               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  So I understand it now.
 18               MR. MORGAN:  It is the magnitude
 19   that's important, though.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  Sorry?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  The magnitude is also
 22   important, not just the location, the location and
 23   magnitude is important.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Correct.  Okay.  Now, can
 25   you point to, I guess, specific documents or pages
00980
  1   in your EIS where you discuss, if you will, the
  2   deepening issue and the fact that you can't deepen
  3   generally, but only -- you feel you might be able
  4   to deepen only in select areas.
  5               MR. MORGAN:  Page 5-37 in the EIS
  6   under erosion control, figure 5.5-5.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
  8               MR. MORGAN:  This figure shows a
  9   profile from the inlet to the outlet.  It states
 10   that the only area at that time that requires low
 11   flow deepening was an area upstream around St.
 12   Mary's Road.  This area is underlined with clay, I
 13   can't remember the exact detail, but it is not a
 14   sensitive area.
 15               If you look at that diagram also you
 16   will see what that they are looking at doing is
 17   filling the channel, the low flow channel in the
 18   sensitive areas, so improving the current
 19   baseline.  So by filling and improving the current
 20   baseline, we do not see an adverse effect in those
 21   areas.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Now, with that
 23   assessment, are you able to tell us today roughly
 24   how many springs might be throughout the floodway?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  I think that's in the
00981
  1   documentation.  We can find that and put it up.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  And how did you do that
  3   assessment?  Did you use Provincial Government
  4   data or did you use anecdotal data?
  5               MR. MORGAN:  What do you mean by the
  6   assessment?
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Well, essentially, how
  8   did you get the data, how did you get the data of
  9   the number of the springs from one end of the
 10   floodway to the other, where did you get it from?
 11               MR. MORGAN:  Mr. Smith can get into
 12   the details, but it is shown in appendix M, there
 13   is a graph there, those were located, I think by
 14   KGS staff, they can confirm that, but we also had
 15   people out there doing aquatic studies which noted
 16   those springs also.
 17               The data is presented, or the diagram
 18   is presented in appendix M, annex H, is it?
 19               MR. CURRIE:  Do you have an electronic
 20   version available?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, we are looking for
 22   that.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Let's take our time and
 24   get it up there.  Is Mr. Smith able to tell us
 25   where the data comes from?  I mean, I understand
00982
  1   that you are going to present for us a document or
  2   a diagram that's going to show what you believe to
  3   be springs occurring, but I guess the question is,
  4   where did you get the data from, or where is that
  5   data generated from?
  6               MR. MORGAN:  We will get into the
  7   details -- it is a very detailed question, and you
  8   are looking towards -- there is also base flow
  9   studies done last year about this time.
 10               MR. CURRIE:  Sorry?
 11               MR. MORGAN:  There was base flow
 12   studies which determined the base flow in the
 13   floodway.  These are done in the winter time so as
 14   not to be interfered with by runoff, et cetera,
 15   and that gives indication of the groundwater flow
 16   getting into the floodway.  So that's how the
 17   quantification was done.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  I don't mean to quibble
 19   with you too much, Mr. Morgan, clearly that would
 20   tell us how much water is flowing through the
 21   floodway, but it may not necessarily pinpoint
 22   where springs might be or otherwise?
 23               MR. MORGAN:  No, the springs are --
 24               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, maybe I can
 25   expand on that a little bit.  We have just lost
00983
  1   that section.
  2               In the report we have a drawing in
  3   appendix M, drawing H5C, I'm sure you have seen
  4   it, it is a profile along the floodway from the
  5   inlet to the outlet, and the location of the major
  6   springs are shown on that profile.  Now, that's
  7   based on the historical data at the time of
  8   construction, also on published literature.  And
  9   in addition, we, during the course of our work we
 10   were out in the field walking the floodway to
 11   examine spring locations.
 12               I might add, on that figure we did
 13   miss one spring location at the TransCanada
 14   Highway, and we are aware of other springs right
 15   near the outlet.
 16               I guess the scale of that -- it
 17   doesn't really highlight it, but just for the
 18   record, we show springs in the vicinity of Highway
 19   15, CNR Redditt, CPR Keewatin, through the Birds
 20   Hill area, and north of Dunning Road.  And as I
 21   mentioned earlier, at Highway 1 we are also aware
 22   of springs there.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Maybe in the analysis
 24   here, I guess, is that looking at this document,
 25   can you tell me -- when I look at it, maybe it is
00984
  1   just me -- can you tell me where those springs are
  2   occurring from that document, just looking at it
  3   yourself?
  4               MR. SMITH:  They are occurring in the
  5   bottom of the channel, and there is in our report,
  6   again, appendix M, section 8, there is a
  7   discussion on the groundwater discharge areas that
  8   describes them in more detail.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  But looking at
 10   that diagram, can you pinpoint those springs for
 11   me off that diagram now?
 12               MR. SMITH:  Well, you can't on the
 13   drawing that's in the report.
 14               MR. MORGAN:  We will get a paper copy
 15   to show the Commission.  It just doesn't show up
 16   very clearly because it is a light blue arrow.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Light blue arrow -- I
 18   don't see one there.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  It doesn't show clearly
 20   on the screen.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  I see one there now, yes.
 22   Okay.
 23               Is that an indicator then to us that
 24   that's where you've identified a spring coming
 25   out?
00985
  1               MR. SMITH:  The arrows on that drawing
  2   indicate springs of 100 gallons per minute or
  3   greater, as noted on the drawing.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  And 100 gallons per
  5   minute or less, you didn't note them?
  6               MR. SMITH:  In general where we show
  7   these arrows there is a zone of springs occurring,
  8   so there will be also smaller ones adjacent to it,
  9   we didn't show every arrow.
 10               MR. CURRIE:  I understand that there
 11   may be other springs, but I guess generally
 12   speaking, your analysis or your data doesn't
 13   show -- or at least on this, it may not mean that
 14   you didn't go get the data, I'm not suggesting
 15   that you didn't, what I want to know is that you
 16   didn't put on this particular diagram anything
 17   less than 100 gallons per minute; correct?
 18               MR. SMITH:  Well, the arrows show
 19   approximate areas where there is groundwater
 20   discharge of 100 gallons per minute or greater.
 21   That doesn't mean that it has to be all one
 22   spring, there could be a collection of springs of
 23   lesser flow that total 100.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Let's get back to --
 25   okay, so you are saying what you have anticipated
00986
  1   the blue arrow now to mean is that it could be a
  2   collection of small springs equalling 100 gallons
  3   per minute?
  4               MR. SMITH:  I'm clarifying that for
  5   you, yes.
  6               MR. CURRIE:  Okay, I understand that.
  7               Now, just so I understand this, and I
  8   mean, again, you are going to correct me I'm sure
  9   if I don't, but basically when we see these
 10   springs they are conduits to the groundwater,
 11   correct, possible conduits to the groundwater?
 12               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.  There has
 13   to be an interconnection to the aquifer.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, and as I understand
 15   it, we have got these conduits, possible conduits
 16   to the groundwater, and from what we see here,
 17   this is the upper aquifer; correct?  We are not
 18   talking the lower carbonate aquifer at this point,
 19   or are we?
 20               MR. SMITH:  No, we are dealing with
 21   the upper carbonate aquifer.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  And I note there
 23   that aside from the springs that we have, that you
 24   show a sand and gravel, I guess geography for lack
 25   of a better word, I don't know the actual
00987
  1   engineering term; is that correct, we have sand
  2   and gravel here?  And that appears to be coming
  3   right out to the top of the -- to the top of the
  4   floodway itself where you are actually at ground
  5   level?
  6               MR. SMITH:  That sand and gravel
  7   deposit is projected on to the profile.  It
  8   actually represents the Birds Hill sand and gravel
  9   Kame Esker deposit which occurs east of the
 10   floodway.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  I see.  So that's the
 12   actual Birds Hill sand and gravel aquifer?
 13               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Okay, good.
 15               Now, along this diagram, aside from
 16   the Birds Hill sand and gravel aquifer that we see
 17   in here, on the length of the floodway, do you
 18   have any data regarding any other smaller,
 19   insignificant sand and gravel deposits in there
 20   which would be a conduit to the groundwater
 21   itself?
 22               MR. SMITH:  The spring areas that
 23   occurred initially were developed at the time of
 24   construction in the 1960s, when the bedrock
 25   aquifer was still under its higher head.  So you
00988
  1   had that 20-foot or 6-metre head, as you know,
  2   that has dissipated or dropped at current levels.
  3   At the time of construction that still existed, so
  4   you had a significant differential pressure, if
  5   you will, from the bedrock aquifer up through the
  6   till and the overlying clay.  So in areas,
  7   particularly where there was a thin clay or a till
  8   exposure, that's where the springs would develop.
  9               So it is not a sand conduit up from
 10   the till necessarily.  It actually was a high
 11   differential pressure that forced openings through
 12   the clay.  And I might add that a lot of those
 13   openings since construction, since the pressure
 14   has dissipated, have partially or totally rehilled
 15   or infilled.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  Now just so I
 17   understand this, I mean, if we are talking about
 18   groundwater protection in the state of nature,
 19   clearly certain types of clay are the best, almost
 20   the best natural protection we can find; am I
 21   incorrect on that, I mean, short of a bedrock
 22   aquifer, or a bedrock that has absolutely no
 23   cracks in it?
 24               MR. SMITH:  What you are looking for
 25   is a low permeability layer that the water can't
00989
  1   pass through readily.  So certainly the lacustrine
  2   clays are very low permeability.  The till here is
  3   in fact a clay till for the most part and is also
  4   relatively low permeability.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  And then we just go up
  6   from there to higher permeability?
  7               MR. SMITH:  That's correct, into silts
  8   or sands.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  Now, with the
 10   baseline of your assessment, I have read through
 11   the transcripts and as I understand it, and again
 12   I need to be educated, your baseline is the
 13   existing floodway as it exists with all of the
 14   springs in it, with all of the conduits to the
 15   groundwater that may exist.  Am I to understand
 16   that's where you are starting with your project,
 17   and then we will move forward from there?
 18               MR. MORGAN:  Baseline is similar but
 19   it is a little bit more than that.  It is the
 20   condition that would occur currently and in the
 21   future with the project.  So it includes the --
 22   sorry, without the project.  It is the -- I will
 23   say that again.  The baseline is the environment
 24   now and into the future without the project.  So
 25   it includes existing conditions now, plus
00990
  1   potentially further erosion.  That's one of the
  2   reasons why when we looked at the assessment we
  3   also looked at the erosion control measures and
  4   infilling of the existing floodway when making the
  5   assessment that there should be no likely adverse
  6   effects.  There should be potentially beneficial
  7   effects in some areas.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  With regards to that
  9   then, I guess what I'm understanding you saying is
 10   that the baseline is the existing conditions, plus
 11   what you anticipate might be further conditions
 12   created by this specific project itself?
 13               MR. MORGAN:  No, I don't think it
 14   is -- you can clarify me if it is on -- the future
 15   conditions is future expected, not any
 16   anticipated, but expected.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  I see, so it is just more
 18   of actual expected changes, not --
 19               MR. MORGAN:  We can't anticipate any
 20   future event.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Right, what you expect
 22   will happen based on the historical process that
 23   has occurred already?
 24               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, continued erosion.
 25               MR. CURRIE:  And in particular erosion
00991
  1   being a good example of that?
  2               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, and other activities
  3   in the area too.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  And other activities in
  5   the area meaning other development that has
  6   occurred on the fringes of this particular
  7   floodway that might have an impact on it, or are
  8   we talking about other developments just specific
  9   to the floodway?
 10               MR. MORGAN:  No, other activities and
 11   developments in the area which could have an
 12   overlap in effects.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.
 14               MR. MORGAN:  That's why we went
 15   towards the no effect condition of no deepening,
 16   infilling, control erosion, widening instead of --
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  I guess we are
 18   going to quibble, you and I, about whether there
 19   is a no effect result, but I understand your
 20   position, you take it that there is a no effect
 21   result.
 22               MR. MORGAN:  No likely significant
 23   adverse effects is the position that we state.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, and I understand
 25   that.
00992
  1               With regard to actual numbers, aside
  2   from the blue arrows that we are having a hard
  3   time distinguishing, were you able to put in the
  4   report somewhere a quantitative number where I
  5   could point to the Commission and say, there are
  6   34 springs, there are 31, there are none, there
  7   are 14?
  8               MR. SMITH:  As indicated earlier in
  9   appendix M, section 8, we do discuss some of the
 10   major springs, and I think it is important to
 11   appreciate that, as we brought out in the earlier
 12   discussions in this hearing, we have an ongoing
 13   program to monitor the springs along the channel.
 14               And when you have flow in the channel
 15   from surface runoff, you can't identify those
 16   springs in terms of actual total flow of the
 17   springs.  So we have been in fact monitoring again
 18   this winter to pick up flows along the channel at
 19   various locations, and that will give us a better
 20   quantitative number on the contributions at
 21   various stations along the channel.  However, the
 22   initial work that we did was consistent with that
 23   completed back in the early '70s when the channel
 24   was constructed.
 25               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Smith, so the answer
00993
  1   is no, you do not have a document that points to
  2   the number of springs that are found in that
  3   aquifer, that I can point the Commission to and
  4   say there is 34 springs there, there is 10, there
  5   is none, there is 22?
  6               MR. SMITH:  The number of springs will
  7   vary from season to season, depending on the
  8   amount of pressure and the conditions.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  So the answer is no, you
 10   do not have a written document in your EIS that
 11   says there are 34 or less, and give or take,
 12   because there are changes in the environment?
 13               MR. SMITH:  We do identify the major
 14   areas where springs occur, we did not quantify the
 15   exact number of springs, and that's not realistic
 16   to do that.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Did you quantify the
 18   number of springs that had a significance?
 19               MR. MORGAN:  You seem to be missing
 20   the point on significance here.  Significance is
 21   what we do when we assess the project, not when we
 22   assess the baseline.  So we can look at this and
 23   say, by not deepening, by having erosion control
 24   we do not expect this condition of springs from
 25   the aquifer to the floodway to increase
00994
  1   significantly.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  Let's get into
  3   that then.
  4               MR. SMITH:  Excuse me, Mr. Currie,
  5   maybe I need to clarify.  The springs are
  6   primarily occurring in the bottom of the low flow
  7   channel.  The low flow channel has water in it, so
  8   you can't walk along the flow channel and say, I
  9   see all of the springs, clearly they are masked by
 10   the flow.  So the intent is you measure the flow
 11   at different locations along the channel, and then
 12   you get a quantification of the contribution of
 13   springs in various sections.  And that's what we
 14   have done and we have identified the major zones
 15   of contribution.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  And it is not possible, I
 17   take it, Mr. Smith, to do the reverse of that,
 18   which is to stop the flow at a certain point, to
 19   hold it back in a particular low flow period,
 20   watch what occurs past that point to determine
 21   where your springs are at, and then do the
 22   calculation?
 23               MR. SMITH:  In the period that we did
 24   our investigations, it was probably the wettest
 25   summer on record and that was not done.
00995
  1               MR. CURRIE:  So the answer is, it was
  2   just not convenient at the time that you did your
  3   assessment to do that?
  4               MR. SMITH:  I wouldn't say convenient,
  5   I would say not practical.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  I guess the answer is
  7   also that it is not necessary, in order to make
  8   the assessment of the project, that by infilling
  9   and erosion control we do not expect this to have
 10   a likely adverse effect, infilling and erosion
 11   control.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  My understanding is that
 13   the number of springs and the conduits between the
 14   floodway -- or sorry, the floodway channel and the
 15   lower carbonate aquifer, your model takes into
 16   account these springs.  Your modeling, when you
 17   went to use it, was taking into account the number
 18   of conduits to come to the conclusion there was
 19   going to be no significant adverse effects?
 20               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.  The
 21   regional model identified the locations of the
 22   springs by the interconnection that we applied to
 23   the model at the appropriate locations.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Well, you may not agree
 25   with me, but if your data is wrong, that you don't
00996
  1   have the number of springs correct, that you have
  2   more conduits between the aquifer and the
  3   floodway, that throws your model a little bit off?
  4               MR. SMITH:  What we have is very
  5   detailed measurements of the piezometric pressure
  6   or pressure level all along the floodway, and
  7   that's matched in our model in the contours which
  8   allows us then to have the proper -- if we have
  9   the proper interconnections then we can mirror the
 10   levels in the model.  And that was done both for
 11   construction for year 2000, and for the '97 flood.
 12   So we did represent that to a reasonable level.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Your model, though,
 14   however, would have to make sure that all other
 15   geophysical conditions were exactly as your model
 16   in order to make it a reality?  That is, in order
 17   to simulate reality, your model had to have a
 18   pretty good geophysical description of what you
 19   were dealing with; correct?
 20               MR. SMITH:  I suspect you mean
 21   geotechnical.  Geotechnical mean soils.  And
 22   that's correct, we did have that, we did a lot of
 23   drilling along the channel, well over 300 holes
 24   with both lab testing and field permeability
 25   testing.  So we have a reasonable representation
00997
  1   of the geotechnical or hydrogeological conditions
  2   along the floodway.
  3               MR. MORGAN:  Another point you have to
  4   understand is that the model is calibrated, and
  5   there is also sensitivity analysis done on
  6   modeling.  Exactness, precision is not what a
  7   groundwater model does.  I mean, your expert
  8   should be able to counsel you on this.  But,
  9   again, you also have to see mechanisms for
 10   significance.  By infilling and erosion control,
 11   I'm not sure where you see the mechanism for
 12   adding adverse effects?
 13               MR. CURRIE:  I will get to that, Mr.
 14   Morgan, and that's something for me to argue with
 15   the Commission.  In the meantime, I'm entitled to
 16   explore the evidence and make my own conclusions
 17   and arguments to the Commission.
 18               The next issue I would like to address
 19   is how many of those 300 test holes were done at
 20   springs?  How many of your test holes --
 21               MR. SMITH:  Well, I'm glad you asked
 22   that because in fact the detailed sections that we
 23   present in this report were selected specifically
 24   at areas of major springs, such as CPR Keewatin,
 25   Springhill, and in the Dunning Road area.  And in
00998
  1   those locations we did detailed drilling, both in
  2   the bedrock, the till and the clay, usually on
  3   either side of the floodway, and testing at those
  4   locations in order to use that information in our
  5   model to have a confidence level of the response.
  6   Again, those are selected as representative
  7   sections.  Clearly, you can't do a section on
  8   every mile along the floodway.  But, in addition,
  9   those were selected in areas where the province
 10   had installed monitoring wells and they had
 11   continuous water level readings in the bedrock,
 12   water pressure levels from pre-construction up to
 13   current date.  In other words, on a daily basis
 14   they recorded what the levels were, they respond
 15   to the water, the changes in the seasons, to the
 16   floods that pass.  So we had an excellent data
 17   base in order to calibrate our models and have a
 18   confidence level in the response.
 19               MR. CURRIE:  I don't care who answers
 20   the question, but what is the definition that your
 21   assessment, your environmental assessment uses for
 22   sensitive areas?  What is the definition?
 23               MR. MORGAN:  I don't understand.  Can
 24   you repeat the question?
 25               MR. CURRIE:  Well, earlier you
00999
  1   indicated to us that you were going to look at,
  2   your concerns were that you would not deepen in
  3   sensitive areas, and that you had somehow decided
  4   that there was some form of sensitive areas within
  5   the floodway.  And I'm just asking now, what is
  6   your definition of sensitive areas?
  7               MR. MORGAN:  I guess a sensitive area
  8   would be an area, as Mr. Smith discussed, the
  9   areas where there is potential for higher
 10   permeability material.  Like an area with eight
 11   metres of clay is less sensitive than an area with
 12   two metres of silt, and an area with potentially
 13   sandy silt is more sensitive.  So those are the
 14   areas which more, as he said, more testing was
 15   done, and we actually looked at specific modeling
 16   in three of the areas, more detailed modeling.
 17               MR. SMITH:  Maybe I can add to that,
 18   Mr. Morgan.  There was drilling done along the
 19   entire length of the channel.  We initially
 20   interpreted the stratigraphy, the soils
 21   conditions, identified areas where there is more
 22   likely to be groundwater infiltration, such as
 23   areas with a thin clay or no clay cover, and then
 24   focused on more drilling and testing and
 25   ultimately modeling those areas.
01000
  1               In addition to that, when we did the
  2   models, not only did we first run what was a
  3   representative value for the till permeability,
  4   which in this case is a clay till, right from the
  5   Highway 59 north to Lockport, but we also did
  6   sensitivity analysis where we reduced -- or sorry,
  7   increased the permeability to the equivalent of a
  8   sand.  So we said what if there was a sand pocket
  9   here, not a till, but pure sand connection to the
 10   bedrock, and then analyzed that case to see how
 11   quickly might surface water infiltrate under an
 12   extreme condition of the 1997 flood, which is the
 13   most extreme on record.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  I read that in
 15   your earlier evidence, Mr. Smith, that you had
 16   done your sensitivity to basically what you felt
 17   was the most sensitive you could put in there,
 18   still running a realistic model.
 19               MR. SMITH:  And I will add to that
 20   when you put those values in, the model didn't fit
 21   the observed pressure levels in the nearby
 22   piezometres.  So clearly it was two orders, you
 23   know, 100 times more permeable.  Certainly you can
 24   hypothesize even higher permeability connections,
 25   you can carry on forever.  It achieved our
01001
  1   purpose.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  The next question that I
  3   have is, there is really to my understanding two
  4   types of erosion occurring in this particular
  5   aquifer.  Am I wrong in that?
  6               MR. MORGAN:  I don't understand the
  7   question.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Good, let's go on.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Could you clarify it?
 10               MR. CURRIE:  There is the first type
 11   of erosion which we call channelization, correct?
 12   As the water flows down you are deepening the
 13   channel simply by erosion of the water, and that's
 14   the one form of erosion that we talked about this
 15   morning; am I correct in that?
 16               MR. SMITH:  Are you referring to the
 17   erosion at the base of the low flow channel?
 18               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
 19               MR. SMITH:  That has occurred, yes,
 20   that's in the report, we show a profile of that.
 21   In fact, that erosion typically occurred in the
 22   clay zones, not in the till zones.  It is the clay
 23   that's more susceptible to erosion.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  That's the one form
 25   of erosion that we have identified this morning;
01002
  1   correct?
  2               MR. SMITH:  That's correct, and we
  3   have proposed to rectify that.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  But there is a second
  5   form of erosion, as I understand it, and that is,
  6   as you pointed out, you have hydraulic pressure
  7   coming up from the bottom, from the aquifer
  8   itself; correct?
  9               MR. SMITH:  I wouldn't expect there
 10   would be a lot of erosion there.  In fact, as I
 11   indicated, in a lot of cases those are anticipated
 12   to have been infilling since the original
 13   development, with silt deposition.
 14               MR. MORGAN:  There could be the
 15   opposite of erosion, there can be sedimentation
 16   also in natural mechanisms.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  I would agree with you,
 18   in a drought year we could have sedimentation, or
 19   the aquifer is drained out to a level that it
 20   doesn't have the pressure any further, sure, you
 21   can have that reverse.  And I'm going to make that
 22   argument that in fact you now have a conduit going
 23   the other way, that you can have in fact water
 24   flowing down that same channel, in effect?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  That's an argument or a
01003
  1   question?
  2               MR. CURRIE:  Is that correct?
  3               MR. SMITH:  During a flood scenario
  4   with the high level in the floodway, in fact, in
  5   the fairly high silt sand base load in the water,
  6   when you have water going down there, as I said,
  7   you would start to infill that opening.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  And so your suggestion is
  9   that this would help stop contaminating the
 10   aquifer by the fact that you have silt and sand in
 11   your Red River water, and as it flows backwards in
 12   the system that it would in fact now, so to speak,
 13   design its own plug?
 14               MR. SMITH:  To some extent, yes.  If
 15   you hypothesize that it has opened up, I'm
 16   indicating that in fact during a flood that would
 17   tend to replug.  So the sands and the silt, the
 18   silts in particular would be a lower permeability
 19   and reduce significantly any inflow.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  What about places where
 21   there is bedrock exposure and very little till?
 22               MR. SMITH:  In the channel there is
 23   very -- in fact, the areas where we had bedrock
 24   exposure were during construction at the inlet
 25   structure and the outlet structure, and possibly
01004
  1   in the immediate area upstream of the outlet
  2   structure.  And I note that I have seen a
  3   reference to bedrock outcropping one and a half
  4   kilometres upstream of Springhill.  And I have
  5   spoken to the design engineers at the time the
  6   floodway was constructed, a contractor engineer
  7   who worked in that area, and a construction
  8   supervisor in that area, and none of them recall
  9   bedrock in that area.  So I appreciate -- to the
 10   best of our understanding, there is not bedrock
 11   exposures along the floodway channel.
 12               MR. MORGAN:  There is though bedrock
 13   exposure along Lister Rapids in the Red River.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  My understanding
 15   is, even reading your own documents, that for sure
 16   in the '97 flood, and almost invariably when you
 17   run the floodway there is going to be a
 18   contaminant event in the groundwater.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  I don't think -- I don't
 20   think that was in the document, a contaminant --
 21   there is intrusion, and we can clarify that, we
 22   have some slides that -- are you talking about the
 23   river?
 24               MR. CURRIE:  No, I'm talking about the
 25   floodway itself.  When you operate the floodway,
01005
  1   you are going to have surface water come into
  2   contact with groundwater.  That is almost with
  3   certainty.  Is that correct?
  4               MR. SMITH:  Yes.
  5               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, but that does not
  6   mean it is at a well or anything like that, so I
  7   don't want to alarm people.  That surface water
  8   and groundwater along the river are always in
  9   contact, along every river stream, that's an
 10   interface.  So, you know, you have to be clear
 11   when you make statements like that.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  My next question is that
 13   each time then we see the contact between
 14   groundwater and surface water, and if you want to
 15   argue with me about whether the Red River comes in
 16   contact with groundwater or it doesn't, the fact
 17   of the matter is right now you have got a man-made
 18   event occurring where you have more surface water
 19   coming into contact with groundwater.  Would you
 20   agree with me or disagree with that?  Not more in
 21   the sense of traditional volumes, but certainly
 22   more opportunity.  You have created another
 23   structure which relates to a possibility of
 24   groundwater and surface water interaction?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  Possibility, yes.
01006
  1               MR. SMITH:  And maybe to clarify, Mr.
  2   Currie, that's correct, and for the most part that
  3   groundwater is flowing upward discharging into the
  4   channel, so there is that contact.  But for the
  5   most part, the pressure coming up from the ground
  6   exceeds the water level in the channel.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  What you are suggesting
  8   to me is that you are of the position that even
  9   though you have created this additional source of
 10   contact, not you personally but necessarily the
 11   construction itself has created this second form
 12   of possible contact, you have now said to us, but,
 13   because you have springs in there, you have
 14   hydrological pressure which really prevents that
 15   contact.  Is that essentially --
 16               MR. SMITH:  That's not correct.  The
 17   contact is there.  What I'm saying is it is an
 18   upward gradient, flowing upward, so it would be
 19   localized to the base of the channel.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  I see.  So you are saying
 21   it is not flowing down into the bedrock aquifer?
 22               MR. SMITH:  When there is an upward
 23   gradient from the groundwater, that's correct.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  What happens when there
 25   is no upward gradient, when you have a drought
01007
  1   that may have occurred?
  2               MR. SMITH:  Then there is no flood and
  3   there is no water in the channel.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  Where does the flood
  5   waters come from, do they come only from Manitoba?
  6               MR. SMITH:  The floods on record of
  7   concern, when the water level in the channel
  8   exceeds the pressure in the wells -- and again I
  9   remind you that we have records from day one of
 10   the flood operation -- the pressures, the water
 11   levels in those wells are for the most part,
 12   adjacent to the floodway, are higher than the
 13   water level in the floods.  So that's real data.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  I guess the question that
 15   I asked is, do the flood waters only come from
 16   Manitoba?
 17               MR. MORGAN:  No.
 18               MR. SMITH:  The flood basin, as you
 19   know, extends into the States.
 20               MR. MORGAN:  But floods usually come
 21   when there is a regional wet period.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  A significant flood such
 23   as the 1997 flood was impacted because we had
 24   significant water or precipitation within the
 25   region; correct?
01008
  1               MR. MORGAN:  Correct.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  But it doesn't mean that
  3   you aren't seeing, in effect, the use of the
  4   floodway without that additional precipitation?
  5   In other words, the basin, as you have pointed
  6   out, extends into the U.S. and it may well be
  7   their amount of precipitation which determines the
  8   amount that the floodway is used, or at least has
  9   a significant impact on it?
 10               MR. MORGAN:  I'm not sure -- that the
 11   floods can come from the U.S., yes.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  And in those
 13   circumstances, when we have that event coming from
 14   the U.S. and we use the floodway, and I wouldn't
 15   say even on a drought, but even on a normal year,
 16   it is possible for those conduits between the
 17   channel and the upper aquifer to reverse the flow.
 18   Correct?
 19               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, we have a whole
 20   section on surface water intrusion in the EIS
 21   where we have assessed this existing condition
 22   with the expanded condition, so I'm --
 23               MR. CURRIE:  I guess I'm confused
 24   because Mr. Smith just seemed to eliminate where I
 25   was going with this by simply saying that the
01009
  1   hydrological pressure is such as you would never
  2   reverse the flow into the aquifer, it is likely to
  3   remain up and the contact will be within the
  4   channel?
  5               MR. MORGAN:  He was talking in the
  6   inactive condition when the floodway is not in
  7   operation, which is most of the year, even during
  8   a flood.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  On an active condition of
 10   usage of the floodway, does that flow reverse
 11   itself?
 12               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, we modeled that.  It
 13   was very much of a concern of ours.  We took it
 14   very seriously.  We did an extensive amount of
 15   work, calibrated models, did sensitivity analysis
 16   and made our assessment.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  As a matter of fact, you
 18   came to the conclusion that there was potential
 19   surface water groundwater interaction out to the
 20   boundaries, I guess, of your floodway, or
 21   essentially to that depth, that you would see the
 22   effects of surface water through the groundwater,
 23   to the boundaries of your floodway; that was your
 24   conclusion?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  We can go through this
01010
  1   again and I can explain it to you.  Well,
  2   actually, we can explain it to you in a sensitive
  3   area if you like?
  4               MR. CURRIE:  No, I would just like you
  5   to tell me, did you come to the conclusion that
  6   you had surface water come -- or appear at the
  7   boundaries of your floodway in the groundwater
  8   aquifer?
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Okay.  I hope you
 10   understand that all groundwater comes from surface
 11   water.  So in any time, that's where it comes
 12   from.  So what we did is we looked at a modeling
 13   to determine the rate of flow of surface water
 14   from the floodway into the -- not into the till,
 15   and expected that in most cases along the floodway
 16   it would turn back after the flood.  We then
 17   looked at an unrepresentative highly sensitive
 18   case and said, yes, there is potential for it to
 19   get into the aquifer.  We then looked at rates of
 20   travel and --
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Are you suggesting --
 22               MR. HANDLON:  Let him finish.
 23               Mr. Chairman, I'm going to interject,
 24   because Mr. Morgan was going through his answer
 25   and it is a responsive answer, and he should be
01011
  1   allowed to complete it before he is interrupted or
  2   another question posed.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  I would agree.
  4               MR. MORGAN:  Maybe it would be easier
  5   if we showed some diagrams of the surface water
  6   intrusion modelling.  I mean, in a sensitive area
  7   we did look at this, we did have concerns.  Let's
  8   go through a presentation of surface water
  9   intrusion, because that seems to be the concern.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  I would like to note,
 11   Mr. Currie, that a lot of this was canvassed on
 12   Thursday, and this explanation was covered on
 13   Thursday as well.
 14               MR. MORGAN:  What we have shown,
 15   though, is an area which may be of a concern to
 16   the people in the East St. Paul area where their
 17   wells are.  We didn't show that example, it is the
 18   EIS, and we can talk about that one also.
 19               This is the regional groundwater flow,
 20   and this is Birds Hill area here, and we have
 21   shown this one.  We did show this, we just want to
 22   show it again to put people's mind frame back to
 23   where we are.  So what we did, next slide, is --
 24   sorry, I can't put the laser through people --
 25   what we did is, there was groundwater modeling to
01012
  1   expressly look at the potential for surface water
  2   intrusion at three locations along the floodway.
  3   These are locations that were selected because
  4   they were potentially sensitive; the Keewatin
  5   bridge around Highway 59, which is the Springhill
  6   area and Dunning Road.  I showed the Dunning Road
  7   one earlier, and I will show this Springhill area
  8   also.
  9               Next slide.  This is the sand and
 10   gravel aquifer.  As we have said, this recharge
 11   comes from the Birds Hill area.  This higher
 12   piezometric head here is from a well which would
 13   be located in the carbonate aquifer, and the lower
 14   one is the water table in the sand and gravel
 15   aquifer.  The flow goes through into the carbonate
 16   aquifer, and there is upwelling here.  During
 17   inactive conditions, the flow is into the
 18   floodway.
 19               What we wanted to look at was a flood
 20   condition, so what was modeled was the flood of
 21   1997.
 22               Next slide.  Now, upon reviewing the
 23   documents provided by Conestoga-Rovers, they make
 24   comment about GUDI studies.  And I want to just
 25   explain this a little bit more.  There is concern
01013
  1   that the existing floodway or expansion project
  2   may affect wells.  The Ministry of the Environment
  3   in Ontario, the MOE, has developed a terms of
  4   reference for a hydrogeologic study to examine
  5   groundwater sources under the direct influence of
  6   surface water -- those are often called GUDI
  7   studies -- for a public water supply.  And the
  8   appendix C of the Conestoga report has the full
  9   protocols.  This is done to ensure that
 10   appropriate treatment is provided to the public
 11   water supply.  If there is evidence of direct
 12   influence of surface water on groundwater, then a
 13   full treatment should be done of the water supply.
 14               Next slide.  Now, looking at that
 15   terms of reference, a critical part of a study
 16   like this is to assess the hydrogeology in the
 17   region of the municipal wells to assess water
 18   capture zones, i.e. this is to determine where the
 19   water is coming from.  They give examples.  They
 20   say a preferred method is to use a numerical model
 21   called "mod flow."  This is the model that was
 22   used in this case, in the EIS.
 23               The assumptions, they you say should
 24   submit reports which show your assumptions and
 25   your sensitivity analysis.  This is in the EIS and
01014
  1   is documented in appendix P, engineering reports,
  2   the model and the sensitivity.
  3               Now there is a potential -- the
  4   potential for the floodway to be within the
  5   capture zone for the 1997 flood condition was
  6   looked at.  We did not -- I don't want to make a
  7   mistake, but this is not a GUDI study, the
  8   hydrogeology was based on the same principles and
  9   the rigour of doing a GUDI study, but it is not.
 10               Other features outside of the
 11   floodway, to east of the wells -- and we will show
 12   an air photo of this area so you can get a good
 13   feel for what is there.  But this is not a GUDI
 14   study.  A GUDI study is the responsibility of the
 15   water supplier to understand whether they need to
 16   have further treatment.  But it is just saying
 17   that the model used, the rigour in terms of
 18   calibration and sensitivity analysis was done in
 19   terms of the floodway intrusion assessment.
 20               If you can put up an air photo of the
 21   region which will show more specifically where the
 22   modeling was done.
 23               This is the region, this is the
 24   floodway here, Highway 59, the Oasis Road is along
 25   here, and the RM has wells in this region here
01015
  1   right along the Oasis Road.  Modeling study -- we
  2   are just saying what we did do was only look at
  3   the floodway impacts.  A GUDI study would be done
  4   to look at the region, so it would be more in all
  5   directions looking at the potential water capture
  6   from gravel pits, residences in this area here.
  7   We looked at -- the model of the study that we did
  8   was to look at effects at baseline conditions and
  9   effects of the floodway expansion, and that was
 10   done in this region here.
 11               Go back to the presentation here.
 12               This is in the EIS figure 5.4-4.  It
 13   is also in appendix P, which has the details of
 14   the modeling studies.  This is a 1997 flood
 15   condition.  This is looking east over here, west
 16   over here, through the floodway.  East St. Paul's
 17   municipal wells are located over here.  This is
 18   following the flood to the furthest extent of the
 19   intrusion for the calibrated model.
 20               Remember, this model was calibrated so
 21   that the wells located around the floodway match
 22   the conditions in '97.  So the wells are over
 23   here, this is the furthest extent during the
 24   flood.
 25               Now after the flood, next slide --
01016
  1   just a second, one point.  Even at the flood here,
  2   the water levels in the sand and gravel aquifer
  3   over here, this is the carbonate aquifer, the sand
  4   and gravel and the pressure from the carbonate
  5   aquifer in the East St. Paul wells and this region
  6   here is higher in the floodway.  There is an area
  7   here where the flood is higher, but as you go
  8   towards the wells the groundwater levels rise and
  9   they are actually higher.  But there is a point
 10   for some intrusion to go from the floodway, some
 11   water to go from the floodway into the till, or
 12   the silty sand and into the floodway.
 13               The yellow part is -- next slide
 14   please, I will show you one thing.  This water
 15   here in this location where it is sloping down is
 16   flowing this way, even though this water is
 17   flowing that way.
 18               Next slide.  When the flood is
 19   finished, flood waters go down, next, and at that
 20   point this yellow water here is recaptured back in
 21   the floodway.  The pressure from here flows back
 22   up, the water is recaptured back in the floodway.
 23   So the water does not continue moving on to an
 24   area where it can effect the wells.
 25               Next slide.  This pink area, as it
01017
  1   said down here, the water is not captured within
  2   the floodway within one year.  Some of it does go
  3   back, but not all of it.  And we will talk a bit
  4   more about the analysis done to some of this water
  5   even in an unrepresentative case.
  6               Next slide.  This is what the
  7   sensitivity analysis -- as we talked about
  8   earlier, the calibrated model, this is what you
  9   expect to happen.  You do sensitivity analysis to
 10   understand what areas should we continue on with
 11   further monitoring in case there is something
 12   unrepresentative?  Sort of, it is a sort of the
 13   belt and suspenders, we don't know what we are
 14   doing in terms of calibration, but we are going to
 15   make sure by monitoring if we find it is
 16   potentially a sensitive area.
 17               So in this case, the unrepresentative
 18   case, the silty till in this area is replaced by,
 19   soon to be replaced by sand.  So in this case the
 20   extent of the intrusion would be further.  The
 21   flow though of this condition is still going this
 22   way.  That's why even though you do a very highly
 23   unrepresentative low permeability sanding here,
 24   water does not flow up hill, it still only goes so
 25   far and then it will return.
01018
  1               Next slide.  So after the flood, this
  2   water here will return to the floodway.  Some of
  3   this will go back in, but it could take longer
  4   than a year.  Some of this could move to the west.
  5   This is where -- this is what we agree upon.
  6               Next slide.  But this is a potential,
  7   remember, this is an unrepresentative condition.
  8   On the east side, just to clarify, these wells are
  9   up gradient, the floodway is not influencing these
 10   wells even during a major flood such as 1997.  On
 11   the west side, even for unrepresentative cases,
 12   the travel times are expected to be long.
 13               Now the project in this area is
 14   widening, but as we have presented in evidence
 15   last week, and I haven't got it here, there is
 16   going to be a clay cutoff wall put in on that east
 17   side.  That is done to keep the water levels up
 18   higher on the -- the groundwater levels higher on
 19   the east side, and that will maintain the same
 20   sort of resistance between the floodway and the
 21   wells.
 22               Another thing, when you widen the
 23   floodway for the same flood of 1997, the water
 24   levels in the floodway would be about one metre
 25   lower, so there would be less pressure pushing it
01019
  1   towards the east.  So the project is not expected
  2   to significantly affect well quality, the project,
  3   the expansion project.
  4               Next slide.  This was done at the
  5   sensitive areas, CPR Keewatin Bridge, as I said,
  6   the Springhill area and Dunning Road which we
  7   talked about earlier.  And the key there, as we
  8   showed earlier, the flow generally is from east to
  9   west, so the area of concern where we are looking
 10   at more monitoring wells, but we did look at this
 11   local area model.
 12               Next slide.  This is the Dunning Road
 13   one we showed earlier.  In the Dunning Road the
 14   expected case is you will widen a bit, they don't
 15   show it here but it will be a little lower.  You
 16   will get no more vertical intrusion.  You will get
 17   a little bit of expanded contact here I guess you
 18   could say with the groundwater, although after the
 19   flood it goes back.  So that was just a reminder
 20   of what we went through last time.
 21               Next slide.  The travel times to the
 22   west of the right-of-way were estimated.  This
 23   information is selected from appendix P, the table
 24   is annex C.  At Springhill Oasis Road -- for the
 25   expected case in all of these ones, the
01020
  1   groundwater -- Springhill is different than the
  2   other two.  The other two it is all expected to
  3   return to the channel within a year.  At
  4   Springhill it may take more than a year to return,
  5   after a 1997 flood, which is a one in 100 year
  6   flood.
  7               So we also looked at the unrepresented
  8   sensitivity case.  In that case, going west of the
  9   right-of-way at Springhill, it would take greater
 10   than ten years to get to the right-of-way.  You
 11   will recall those GUDI studies that we talked
 12   about earlier.  When they look at that they are
 13   looking at wells in Ontario and they say you
 14   should have at least 50 days travel time to your
 15   municipal well.  So in these cases it is much
 16   higher.  450 days -- and this is the
 17   unrepresented, I keep reminding myself and
 18   everybody, this is potential but not expected --
 19   450 days at Dunning Road and 145 days at CPR.
 20               And the comments, these are areas that
 21   we said continue monitoring in all of these
 22   sensitive areas.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Dr. Morgan.
 24   That's an appropriate place to take a break.  We
 25   will break for 15 minutes, and come back at 10 to
01021
  1   sharp.
  2               (Proceedings recessed at 10:30 a.m.
  3               and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.)
  4   
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Order, please.  People,
  6   please take your seats quickly, please.
  7   Mr. Currie.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, before I
  9   start again, I noted that you had made a comment
 10   midway through that this stuff had been covered on
 11   Thursday.  There is two things that I'd like to
 12   ask the Commission to consider.  The first is
 13   that, one, we're in this community and this
 14   information, while it's readily available on the
 15   transcripts for us professionals and we realize
 16   it, this community wants to hear and see what
 17   actually is going on in that channelized floodway.
 18   So that's the first thing, that it's a little
 19   broader and perhaps a little overlapped may not
 20   hurt.
 21               Secondly, I'm going to submit that
 22   it's not necessarily me who is going into the
 23   Thursday presentation.  I may be asking questions,
 24   but the Floodway Authority is taking every
 25   opportunity they can to restate their case in a
01022
  1   much more broader context than the question I
  2   asked.  And I'm going to submit that those are two
  3   things that I don't want saddled, if you will, on
  4   my questioning doorstep.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  I won't comment on your
  6   second point, Mr. Currie.  On your first point, I
  7   agree that there is a great amount of value in
  8   recanvassing some of this area for the benefit of
  9   the local citizens.  So I will allow you some
 10   latitude.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you.
 12               We have heard a lot about your change
 13   in design from considering any deepening to more
 14   of a process of widening.  And you pretty much
 15   stated, I guess, that there will be no deepening.
 16   I'm just wondering, with what certainty can you
 17   provide the residents of this community and
 18   perhaps the participant municipalities that there
 19   will be no deepening?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, as I mentioned
 21   earlier, the design to increase the capacity of
 22   the channel was an evolutionary process.  We
 23   started out at 2 metres, up to 2 metres deepening
 24   when we submitted the concept design with the
 25   original environmental licence.  As Mr. Morgan had
01023
  1   indicated, through public consultation and because
  2   of the overriding concern of groundwater, we
  3   jumped to the step of no more than 2 feet or 0.5
  4   or 0.6 metres at select locations.  And we had
  5   publicly announced last week at the beginning of
  6   the hearings that we will not be deepening to
  7   increase the capacity of the channel and we stand
  8   firm on that.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  I have read in your EIS
 10   that if design and construction require it, you
 11   would in fact consider deepening at that point?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  The EIS was drafted in
 13   July and submitted on August 3, 2004, and so
 14   that's old news.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  I understand it's old
 16   news, but the principle still stands today, if
 17   design and construction require it, you will
 18   deepen?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  We are confident, and
 20   that's why we made the announcement, that we will
 21   not be deepening.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Now, by widening the
 23   channel, I suppose it might be somewhat semantics
 24   to say that you're not also deepening some of the
 25   channel in the sense that you are taking the
01024
  1   channel walls and removing that dirt or
  2   construction to the floor of the existing
  3   floodway.  Is that correct?
  4               MR. MORGAN:  You can point me to the
  5   diagram of the widening that you make your point
  6   on.  Could you clarify where you think deepening
  7   is occurring?
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Sure.  I take it this is
  9   the widened channel; correct?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  And I take it that the
 12   area that we see, I guess where the arrow
 13   starts -- yes, right there.
 14               MR. HANDLON:  For the purpose of the
 15   record, maybe the witness or counsel can just
 16   direct everyone to the slide that's on the screen
 17   so that we have a record of what's being referred
 18   to.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 20               MR. REMPEL:  This slide was taken from
 21   Mr. McNeil's presentation I believe on Tuesday of
 22   last week.  I don't have a slide number, but it's
 23   in Mr. McNeil's presentation.  And this particular
 24   slide shows the manner in which is proposed to
 25   enlarge the channel.
01025
  1               MR. CURRIE:  Which I'm given to
  2   understand is actually this part right in here; am
  3   I correct?
  4               MR. REMPEL:  Yes.  The purple areas in
  5   the cross section of the channel are conceptually,
  6   the concepts are shown of widening the channel to
  7   achieve the additional capacity instead of
  8   enlarging it by going down.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yeah.  In effect, you're
 10   taking the channel itself and lowering it to this
 11   bottom portion.  That is a corner of the channel,
 12   correct?
 13               MR. REMPEL:  There will be excavation
 14   at the edges of the existing channel to make it
 15   larger, wider, yes.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  And it may be semantics
 17   but, in essence, as it relates to this portion
 18   right here, you are deepening the channel?
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think you are
 20   correct, Mr. Currie, that it is semantics.  I
 21   think the point of concern here is whether or not
 22   they are deepening the floor of the channel.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Well, that may be one
 24   aspect of it, Mr. Chairman, but there may be other
 25   aspects that I'd like to explore such as, for
01026
  1   example, have you now created a greater surface
  2   exposure at the bottom?
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that that's a
  4   valid point.  But to sort of couch it in the
  5   language of deepening, I don't see where that
  6   leads us.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Okay, fair game.
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, just for
  9   clarification, the line shown here is prairie, so
 10   prairie is to go all the way across here.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  By prairie you mean
 12   ground level, normal ground level?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Normal ground level, and
 14   this is the existing spoil pile from the original
 15   excavation, and from the widening excavation, we
 16   will take that spoil material and place it behind
 17   and/or on top of the existing spoil piles.  And
 18   now Mr. Smith would like to explain the
 19   differences between widening and deepening with
 20   excavation, in trying to help answer Mr. Currie's
 21   question.
 22               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, I may just add
 23   to that that the bottom of the main channel slopes
 24   at a 1 to 20 horizontal.  In other words, it's
 25   sloping upward as we move outward from the
01027
  1   centre -- sorry, correction, 1 to 50.  So for
  2   every foot you go up vertically, you move over
  3   50 feet horizontally.  So there is an up slope
  4   throughout that.  So as we widen that channel and
  5   remove the side slopes of existing channel, we are
  6   actually going up slope as well, so increasing the
  7   thickness of cover over the aquifer.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Are you suggesting that
  9   at this portion of the floodway that you are, in
 10   fact, increasing the thickness between the aquifer
 11   and the existing floodway?  Is that what your
 12   position is or did I misunderstand?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Relative to the existing
 14   floodway base, as you widen and move outward,
 15   there will be an increasing thickness.  So we're
 16   not making it any worse in that respect.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Can you assure us that,
 18   given that you have seemed to take in your
 19   baseline of the bedrock as being pretty level
 20   there, that it is in fact, it is going to be
 21   consistent from one side to the other?
 22               MR. SMITH:  No, our baseline is based
 23   on actual drilling, so we defined the bedrock as
 24   it was in the --
 25               MR. CURRIE:  As it existed?
01028
  1               MR. SMITH:  -- existed at the sites
  2   analyzed.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  I was wondering what part
  4   of the report, as it relates to microbiology, what
  5   part of the report explains at this point the type
  6   and extent of microbes and other organisms that
  7   might be found within the floodway waters that are
  8   travelling down the floodway?
  9               MR. REMPEL:  You're asking about the
 10   water quality characteristics of the water in the
 11   floodway when it's operational?
 12               MR. CURRIE:  Correct.
 13               MR. REMPEL:  We'll take a minute and
 14   find the appropriate spot in the EIS.
 15               MR. SMITH:  That would be in appendix
 16   M.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
 18               MR. SMITH:  We have data on the
 19   coliform monitoring in the river water.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  Is that the extent of it
 21   was the coliform content?
 22               MS. FRIEDMAN-HAMM:  In the report on
 23   figure E.4.3 is the graph of the coliform content
 24   of the Red River at the south gate of the floodway
 25   from 1978 to 1985.  This is data from the
01029
  1   provincial database from Water Stewardship.
  2               MR. MORGAN:  Just to clarify, coliform
  3   bacteria is an indicator of other bacteria.  We
  4   are in no way saying that's the only one there.
  5   We are using it as an indicator that there is
  6   bacteria of a variety of forms in the flood
  7   waters.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  And am I given to
  9   understand that the information you relied on,
 10   given Ms. Friedman's comments, that that was from
 11   '78 to '85; is that correct, or did I
 12   misunderstand you?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Just to clarify, what did
 14   you mean by information we relied on?
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Well, I had understood
 16   her to say that there was coliform monitoring in
 17   the floodway, and that there was data that you had
 18   under E.4.3 that stated you had, that there had
 19   been collection of provincial data from '78 to
 20   '85.
 21               MR. SMITH:  That's correct, but what
 22   is your reference --
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  That was his question.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, that was just
 25   essentially my question.
01030
  1               MR. SMITH:  I just wanted to clarify,
  2   data we relied on for what?
  3               MR. CURRIE:  For determining the
  4   content of microbes in that floodway?
  5               MR. MORGAN:  I guess that was part of
  6   it, but also we do acknowledge in the EIS, page
  7   519, that there is wastewater and land drainage
  8   discharged to the floodway, although it's expected
  9   that any wastewater discharges would be required
 10   to comply to the applicable regulations.  But we
 11   do again acknowledge bacteria in surface water,
 12   hence the assessments we did.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  From 1985 to the year
 14   2005, are there other microbes evolving as we
 15   speak today, i.e. from '85 to 2005 there are other
 16   microbes that actually have come into existence?
 17               MR. MORGAN:  Not that I know of.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  No?  You would
 19   disagree --
 20               MR. MORGAN:  But everything is
 21   evolving all the time, I'm not sure what you're --
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Well, I'm just talking
 23   about generally.  We've got 1985 data, and you're
 24   talking about coliform content, and the extent of
 25   that is that you are able to tell us that there is
01031
  1   microbes in the water.  That's what you're telling
  2   us?
  3               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, there is microbes in
  4   the water.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  You cannot tell me what
  6   microbes beyond the coliform content?
  7               MR. MORGAN:  The coliform is an
  8   indicator commonly used in water treatment and
  9   water assessments to indicate that there is
 10   bacteria.  It is not common practice to do a
 11   complete inventory of all potential bacteria in
 12   waters, even when you're doing a water supply or
 13   water treatment work.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps I might
 15   interject here.  We're just looking at this graph
 16   at the table.  Is there similar data available
 17   post 1985?
 18               MR. MORGAN:  There is data in the Red
 19   River continuously taken at the inlet at Selkirk.
 20   There is data taken throughout the City of
 21   Winnipeg, mostly it's on coliforms, e.coli, total
 22   coliforms, fecal coliforms.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, you have these
 24   half a dozen years covered on this graph in the
 25   '70s and early '80s.  Did you not feel it was
01032
  1   necessary or advisable to --
  2               MR. MORGAN:  We don't see that the
  3   floodway is adding any more coliforms in the
  4   pathway.  In the water quality, we focused on
  5   things which have potential to be added to the
  6   floodway by the project.  We do acknowledge that
  7   there is coliforms in the water.  It should be
  8   treated as there is coliforms bacteria, therefore,
  9   we did the analysis that I showed earlier, as you
 10   would do for potential GUDI or whatever, that type
 11   of thing.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 13               MR. REMPEL:  I'd just like to add,
 14   there is a database, as Dr. Morgan indicated,
 15   upstream of the channel inlet which covers the
 16   period post '85, and it would give water quality
 17   the characteristics such as suspended solids,
 18   nutrients, and on the bacterial side it would have
 19   fecal coliform which is an indicator of
 20   contamination.  And we certainly would expect
 21   during a flood that the surface water would have
 22   high levels of fecal coliform indicating some
 23   contamination from feed lots, lagoons, whatever.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Right.  I guess the
 25   chairman got exactly where I was going, which was
01033
  1   the prudence of relying on '85 data to the year
  2   2005.  And now, while he's prepared to accept the
  3   answer that you've given him, I am just not in
  4   this sense, that you've got evolving conditions
  5   from '85 to 2005, you've got more hog farms
  6   downstream from you, you've got more development
  7   downstream from you.  Would you disagree with me
  8   on either one of those premises, that from '85 to
  9   2005, that we've seen more development?
 10               MR. REMPEL:  Certainly there's been
 11   more development.  Did you say hog farms
 12   downstream of the project?
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Well, yes -- well,
 14   downstream of your project, or upstream rather --
 15   sorry, my apologies, you're right, upstream.
 16               MR. REMPEL:  Certainly there's been
 17   developments both upstream and downstream and in
 18   the floodway area itself.  But if you are looking
 19   for that database, we can provide that surface
 20   water quality database updated to current
 21   conditions in terms of -- it's an easy thing to
 22   access database and provide you with that
 23   information, if that's useful.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  I was wondering why we
 25   don't have it.  That's what I'm wondering.  I
01034
  1   mean, it's readily accessible.  It tells us
  2   information, puts a community at rest.
  3               MR. REMPEL:  Well, we would not expect
  4   that the expansion project would change the
  5   characteristics of the flood waters going down the
  6   Red River or the floodway itself.  We just didn't
  7   see it as a pathway, a vector of the expansion of
  8   the project, of the floodway.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  And that, sir, may be
 10   where there's a big problem, and maybe it's a
 11   misunderstanding and maybe it's just our
 12   perception.  But it appears that you have
 13   essentially taken that portion and deemed it a
 14   non-issue by virtue of having said, we didn't
 15   think the expansion of the floodway will have any
 16   effect on the contents of the Red River.  I agree
 17   with you, it will not have any effect on the
 18   contents of the river.  However, reverse it a bit.
 19   You have now more water going through that
 20   floodway, and the contents are different.  You are
 21   raising the level.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Currie, you're
 23   getting into a debate here, and you'll have plenty
 24   of time to make debate and argument later on in
 25   these hearings.  Please restrict yourself to
01035
  1   questioning at this point.
  2               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  3   My question is, are you going to put more content
  4   of water through that floodway?
  5               MR. REMPEL:  During severe flood
  6   events, there will be more water flowing down the
  7   floodway.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  And as part of
  9   that, when we put more water down the floodway, is
 10   that not part of an analysis of accumulative
 11   effects?  That is, that you have more water going
 12   down the floodway and, therefore, something you
 13   should analyze what is going on there?
 14               MR. REMPEL:  And we have done that.
 15               MR. MORGAN:  We have done that.
 16               MR. CURRIE:  But you didn't feel the
 17   database had any value to you, that is the '85 to
 18   2005.
 19               MR. MORGAN:  It wasn't required in
 20   order to do the effects assessment.  As we showed
 21   earlier, we did assume that there would be
 22   bacteria in the water and we did thorough
 23   hydrogeological assessments.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  What I'm given to
 25   understand is that as this project evolves there
01036
  1   are still design and construction changes that may
  2   occur; am I correct on that?
  3               MR. REMPEL:  The design is evolving.
  4   It is common practice in designing engineering
  5   projects to do a conceptual design, proceeding to
  6   a more detailed design.  And details do evolve,
  7   even during the tendering process when the final
  8   documents are issued for contractors to bid on.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  And at that point in
 10   time, my understanding is that when we get to the
 11   detailed design phase, the MFA has some
 12   anticipation to have public input.  Am I correct
 13   on that or have I missed the point?
 14               MR. REMPEL:  The Authority has
 15   indicated it will have ongoing public involvement.
 16   I'm not sure if the design details will change
 17   sufficient that the design will be a major element
 18   of that involvement, but certainly the Authority
 19   will be open to discussing details of bridge
 20   closures, details of piling, when it will occur,
 21   that kind of thing.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  I follow that, but my
 23   question is this:  Does the MFA have a plan that
 24   they can present to the Commission to have them
 25   assess whether the public input is going to be
01037
  1   meaningful in the sense of how you are going to do
  2   it?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  First of all, over the
  4   last 14 months, we've had significant public
  5   consultation on the predesign and hence the
  6   widening rather than deepening.  And we've also
  7   committed to future consultation as we go through
  8   this project, specifically during construction.
  9   With respect to road access, we have committed to
 10   continuous access across each of the crossings
 11   except maybe at Highway 44, but all the other
 12   roads will be accessible across the floodway
 13   during construction.
 14               If there is any change from that, then
 15   yes, we would expect to have public consultation,
 16   any changes from the design that is now on the
 17   table.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  I guess my question is,
 19   do you have any plans that you put forward in your
 20   proposal as to how you are going to hold your
 21   public consultations, how are the public going to
 22   respond, and are you obliged to hold them?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  I think as managers of
 24   this project, it's just good, a good approach to
 25   keep the public involved.  And although we don't
01038
  1   have it written down anywhere specifically how
  2   we're going to go forward from here, we have
  3   indicated it will be more of the same which has
  4   occurred in the past, and that's a commitment that
  5   we are making.
  6               MR. MORGAN:  I can give an example of
  7   I guess a commitment made in the EIS by MFEA under
  8   groundwater mitigation specifically.  There is
  9   discussion about dewatering at the bridges and
 10   that there's potential for short-term effects from
 11   the dewatering.  And there's a commitment made to
 12   mitigate this.  However, on page 5-19, they have
 13   outlined the groundwater mitigation policy.  And
 14   in it they say that the examples of mitigation
 15   include lowering of pumps and individual wells,
 16   deepening existing wells, installing new wells.
 17   This is if they are unable to stop the effect by a
 18   number of other mitigation activities described
 19   later.  But the affected property owners are to be
 20   involved in determining the mitigation and MFEA is
 21   open to suggestions on mitigation alternatives.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  While I'm thinking of it,
 23   on your drawing regarding the influence of water,
 24   surface water on your model, remember the model
 25   you put on the screen?  Yes?
01039
  1               MR. MORGAN:  Well, that's a
  2   representation of the model.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  At Oasis Road.
  4               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  While I'm there, you put
  6   on a circle indicating the East St. Paul wells,
  7   correct?
  8               MR. MORGAN:  Yeah, there was East St.
  9   Paul wells that were marked to the east of the
 10   floodway.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  Yeah.  In your model
 12   diagram, can you show me where the draw down cone
 13   from the wells appears?
 14               MR. SMITH:  Maybe I can comment on
 15   that, Mr. Currie.  The water level at J006, which
 16   is the provincial well adjacent to the municipal
 17   wells, represented shall we say the net effects of
 18   pumping at those wells.  Actually at the time of
 19   this, there was only two wells operating of the
 20   municipal wells.  So we recognize there will be
 21   local draw down cones.  You're dealing with a very
 22   pervious sand and gravel aquifer drawing with flow
 23   coming from up gradient.  We don't show a local
 24   depression there but clearly there will be.
 25               Now, those wells are operated on and
01040
  1   off.  There is a very limited zone from the, I
  2   guess the static level to where the pumps are set,
  3   so they are cycled quite frequently back and forth
  4   between them.
  5               And then as I said, the J6 represents
  6   the average impact of those over ongoing, as they
  7   flip back and forth, I don't know if it's on an
  8   hourly basis or something in that order.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  I guess my question still
 10   remains; your model, at least on this diagram,
 11   doesn't show a draw down cone?
 12               MR. SMITH:  There is no monitoring of
 13   that draw down cone by the RM.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  I understand.
 15               MR. SMITH:  So we monitor the closest
 16   well and that's what we show there.  So it doesn't
 17   show, you know, that's what we get.  We've got a
 18   continuous monitoring right through that period
 19   and that's the level that we had.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  And do you --
 21               MR. SMITH:  So the draw down cone
 22   would be very localized around the immediate dam
 23   or to the well.  These municipal wells are, I
 24   don't know, 400 or 500 metres probably from the
 25   floodway at the point of entry and, you know,
01041
  1   local draw down cone when they are operating
  2   cycling on and off would be significantly less
  3   than that as a radius.
  4               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, but let's take that
  5   position further.  That does change your modeling
  6   somewhat, at least as to the local conditions for
  7   that well?  That is that that draw down cone does
  8   change the gradient at the local site of the well;
  9   correct?
 10               MR. SMITH:  Very locally, yes, for a
 11   short time.  As soon as the pumps turn off, it
 12   fills back, recovers.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  And Mr. Smith, you are
 14   quite certain that those pumps turn off and on?
 15               MR. SMITH:  Well, they have a high
 16   level, low level float control, so that's why they
 17   have got four in a row because one individual well
 18   cannot supply the required water, so therefore
 19   that's the mode of operation as they do cycle back
 20   and forth.  At least that's as we understood based
 21   on discussions with the RM of East St. Paul, but
 22   we actually have data on the operation of those
 23   wells.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  In your EIS, can you
 25   point me to the section which shows us the amount
01042
  1   of anticipated or future development in any of the
  2   three municipalities?
  3               MR. J. OSLER:  Mr. Currie, perhaps I
  4   can help you.  It's discussed in the future trends
  5   and planning for residential land use, the section
  6   of the EIS is found on page 8-22.
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
  8               MR. J. OSLER:  It has a brief
  9   discussion on anticipated future trends and
 10   planning based on discussions that the EA study
 11   team had with municipalities in the region.  It
 12   does not provide detailed analysis of what those
 13   forecasted anticipated future development trends
 14   are.  It does point out things such as within the
 15   RM of St. Andrews that there is noted plans for
 16   housing projects in the southern part of the RM;
 17   or in the RM of East St. Paul it's indicated that
 18   residential development was very important to the
 19   municipality, and that growth of about a hundred
 20   homes per year is a general target for the
 21   municipality, if that's of any help to you.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Is that the extent of the
 23   information that exists regarding the amount of
 24   development amongst the three municipalities,
 25   within the EIS itself?
01043
  1               MR. J. OSLER:  I think when you go to
  2   look at the environmental assessment process,
  3   Dr. Morgan has talked about it in regards to
  4   groundwater, the thing that we're looking for is
  5   an indication of where things are going.  Part of
  6   our environmental assessment, particularly as it
  7   relates to future resource and land use
  8   requirements, has to obviously look at where
  9   future land use requirements are headed.  And
 10   that's part of our assessment of the process.
 11               But when we look at socio-economic
 12   environmental effects, they do have to follow from
 13   a physical pathway.  Something that Dr. Morgan
 14   identifies, or Mr. Smith as regards to what --
 15   where are the pathways and changes in the
 16   biophysical condition?  That's a definition that
 17   we have to work with under CEAA, our Environmental
 18   Assessment Act.
 19               So once we have determined that there
 20   is growth taking place, that's one thing.  The
 21   effect that this project has on that is the thing
 22   that we are considering.  And I think in looking
 23   at that reference on page 822 in chapter 8, we are
 24   looking for an indication of where growth is, what
 25   are the land use requirements, what are the
01044
  1   current planning studies that are being
  2   undertaken?  But really when we're looking at
  3   effects and a determination of the significance of
  4   those effects, it has to follow from what does
  5   this project, the Floodway Expansion Project, what
  6   does it result in, where is the pathway, where is
  7   the linkage and changes in biophysical
  8   environment, and then associated changes in the
  9   socio-economic environment?
 10               MR. CURRIE:  I appreciate that I've
 11   heard that argument, read it many times in your
 12   transcripts.  I understand your point, which is
 13   that you've got an existing baseline and how does
 14   this new project affect the existing baseline.
 15   That's essentially it.  Am I correct on that?
 16   That's the only analysis that you really want to
 17   get through is what does this project specifically
 18   affect your baseline, or have I misunderstood
 19   that?
 20               MR. MORGAN:  It's not done in
 21   isolation of current or future or past effects
 22   outside the project.  For example, we have talked
 23   about that, if you read our transcripts from last
 24   week, that we took the groundwater concerns that
 25   are in this region very seriously, and for that
01045
  1   reason we went to a number of steps in order to
  2   have no effect.  We have talked about the no
  3   deepening earlier.  We talked about last week in
  4   this region that we had up earlier a mitigation
  5   was to put a clay cutoff wall between the
  6   expansion and the wells in order to have no effect
  7   on water levels.  We do not do assessments on
  8   future projects, though, in isolation.  You know,
  9   it's not an assessment of a future project that
 10   East St. Paul may have to withdraw water later in
 11   the future.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  I guess I'm not asking
 13   you in the sense of are you going to do an
 14   assessment on some future project?  I am just
 15   going to ask you, do you know all the projects on
 16   the horizon?  Not the assessments of those
 17   projects, but do you know what they are?
 18               MR. REMPEL:  No, we do not know all
 19   the projects that might be coming forward, but we
 20   have an obligation to see what is reasonably
 21   foreseeable in terms of development activities,
 22   and to test whether this expansion project will
 23   interact with those activities.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  And what can you
 25   tell me about the RM of Springfield and
01046
  1   development within the RM of Springfield
  2   particularly, let's just start with residential?
  3               MR. REMPEL:  In terms of development
  4   in Springfield, we would ask how could this
  5   Floodway Expansion Project interact with
  6   residential development?  And we did not see that
  7   it had a pathway to affect that.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.  So that's a fair
  9   answer, is that you simply didn't see it as a
 10   significant component that is impacted by your
 11   expansion project?
 12               MR. REMPEL:  We did not see a linkage
 13   between the expansion project and residential
 14   development.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  And any other development
 16   in the municipality, or for sure residential?
 17               MR. REMPEL:  Well, other developments,
 18   we understand that service drainage was an issue
 19   and that some stakeholders were interested in
 20   assuring greater capacity in the future for
 21   accelerated surface drainage.  And the authority
 22   has responded by increasing the capacity, or
 23   intends to increase the capacity of some of the
 24   structures allowing entry of surface water into
 25   the floodway.
01047
  1               MR. CURRIE:  Dr. Webster carried this
  2   line of questioning with you, basically, and I
  3   think he had kept it significantly to those wells
  4   adjacent to the floodway.  And in particular, he
  5   was asking you, if I recall correctly, what was
  6   your baseline analysis at the floodway?  Do you
  7   recall those questions?  I can pull them out of
  8   the transcript and we can go through them again.
  9   But, effectively, he has already asked you many of
 10   those questions.  Do you recall those questions at
 11   all regarding the baseline and your establishing
 12   it?
 13               MR. REMPEL:  This is with respect to
 14   groundwater?
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, with respect to
 16   groundwater.
 17               MR. REMPEL:  I remember a line of
 18   questioning, but I can't recall the specific
 19   questions at this point.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  It's on record.  The
 22   questions and answers from Dr. Webster.  I mean,
 23   do we need to revisit it again?
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Well, Mr. Chairman, as
 25   long as they don't tell me they don't understand
01048
  1   what I'm talking about, then I wouldn't have a
  2   problem to revisit it.  But, essentially, it's
  3   incumbent upon me to make sure that I'm clear that
  4   I'm not misleading on the record, that I have
  5   accurate -- that I have put accurate information
  6   to them.  So I don't necessarily need to go
  7   through it in detail but, certainly -- I'll start
  8   off and head off my questioning.  And if we get
  9   objected to, then we can decide what we have to do
 10   at that point.  How is that?
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  As I understood his line
 13   of questioning, it was essentially saying it would
 14   be prudent to have a fairly well-established
 15   baseline of infiltration because once that event
 16   occurs and people start coming forward, how are we
 17   to know whether it was the operation of the
 18   floodway, the expansion of the floodway or just
 19   normal conditions?  Do you recall those kinds of
 20   questions?  Yes?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.
 22               MR. CURRIE:  And I guess that that's
 23   essentially where I am going with my whole line of
 24   questioning.  We have folks who have to come
 25   forward and at some point in time, I suppose,
01049
  1   prove that this expansion project had some effect
  2   on them.  They just can't come forward and say, oh
  3   no, my well is now contaminated.  I doubt that
  4   that's a position that you would readily accept.
  5   You'd have to have some proof, correct?  You'd
  6   want to know that it came from the floodway?  Yes?
  7   No?
  8               MR. MORGAN:  I'm not answering for the
  9   floodway, but I guess you'd want to know if there
 10   is any kind of proof, or what's the reason they
 11   think so?
 12               MR. CURRIE:  Right.
 13               MR. REMPEL:  There is a process to
 14   that.  When a person has a problem or suspects
 15   that there's an issue with a well, I believe it's
 16   the Manitoba Stewardship branch, the water, Office
 17   of Drinking Water will investigate and advise the
 18   owner.  And typically if there is an issue, the
 19   source of that contamination is pursued.  And
 20   certainly if the floodway was involved in that
 21   contamination, I think Mr. McNeil has indicated
 22   they would mitigate it.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  I understand that.  But
 24   if you don't take a very solid baseline, that is
 25   make sure we know where we're starting from, would
01050
  1   you not agree with me that you have put those
  2   folks in a horrible position of having to prove
  3   something, having to prove that now the floodway
  4   has done this?
  5               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, we have
  6   established baseline, as we discussed, on 25 of
  7   the public wells along the floodway at select
  8   locations, and we are intending to continue
  9   monitoring those wells, and as we indicated
 10   earlier, establish additional points to build on
 11   that baseline.
 12               MR. CURRIE:  In our submission, we
 13   supplied to the MFA and your various experts a
 14   copy of the groundwater study done by the Selkirk
 15   planning district.
 16               MR. REMPEL:  Was that the study done
 17   by Wardrop?
 18               MR. CURRIE:  Correct.
 19               MR. REMPEL:  Yes, that was received.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  And in there, their
 21   analysis is that there is enough water in this
 22   aquifer for development for, they see until 2030 I
 23   believe?
 24               MR. SMITH:  That's what their
 25   assessment was I believe, yes.
01051
  1               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  And currently, as I
  2   understand it, we have 1,700 imperial gallons per
  3   minute of aquifer water pouring into the floodway.
  4   And I appreciate you don't want to take
  5   responsibility for that, it's not your
  6   construction design, all the rest of it, I've
  7   heard your position.  But as you are widening the
  8   channel, is it your position that that
  9   1,700 gallons per minute can continue to flow,
 10   because all you've done is widened, you don't have
 11   to mitigate that problem, it can just flow; is
 12   that what I'm understanding?
 13               MR. MORGAN:  Are you saying we -- are
 14   you talking about the baseline, 1,700?
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
 16               MR. MORGAN:  We're saying to have no
 17   significant adverse effect if it remains the same
 18   and that's no significant adverse effect.  That's
 19   what we said, yes.
 20               MR. CURRIE:  And you have no
 21   obligation to mitigate?
 22               MR. MORGAN:  Remediate?
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Well, mitigate, put up a
 24   wall, just as you did, similar, a clay barrier or
 25   somehow stop that flow from going into the
01052
  1   floodway.
  2               MR. MORGAN:  In order to assess the
  3   EIS adverse significant effects, we had no
  4   obligation to remediate.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  And that's exactly what I
  6   asked you.
  7               MR. SMITH:  However, in fact, we are
  8   proposing to do some works to reduce or protect
  9   against that.
 10               MR. MORGAN:  We are looking at things
 11   like the erosion control and the infilling on the
 12   low free channel which has potential.  But we're
 13   not trying to say it's going to significantly
 14   change that baseline.
 15               MR. SMITH:  Maybe for further
 16   clarification, Mr. Currie, the inflow relates to
 17   the head to the east or upgrading to the floodway.
 18   As development continues in that area, that
 19   piezometric surface will be drawn down and there
 20   will be less of a gradient and, you know, there's
 21   opportunity for people to develop that water east
 22   of the floodway and capture it.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  I understand your point,
 24   Mr. Smith.  Can you tell us today how many wells
 25   are along the floodway that are going to be
01053
  1   actually impacted on a flooding event?
  2               MR. REMPEL:  Could you clarify your
  3   question?
  4               MR. CURRIE:  Potentially impacted I
  5   suppose?
  6               MR. REMPEL:  Are you referring to
  7   water quality now?
  8               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Potentially impact?
 10               MR. CURRIE:  Well, let's put that even
 11   in deeper terms, realistically impact.  I don't
 12   want you to go off on, you know, something that's
 13   not realistic.  Are you suggesting I guess that
 14   there are no wells that are going to be impacted
 15   by a flooding event?  Are you suggesting 10 will
 16   be?  Are you suggesting 100?
 17               MR. SMITH:  Can you clarify impact?
 18   Are you talking water levels, piezometric level or
 19   quality?
 20               MR. CURRIE:  Quality, let's start with
 21   quality.
 22               MR. SMITH:  Currently, there is no
 23   recorded impacts by public, you know, well, or
 24   rather domestic wells to our knowledge that has
 25   been submitted to the province.  The intent is to
01054
  1   have the monitoring program and mitigation plans
  2   if in fact there are local wells impacted.  At
  3   this stage, we can't say that there's going to be
  4   10 or 20 or 30.  Based on existing modelling of
  5   the representative data, we would anticipate there
  6   would be very few, which is consistent with what
  7   we've seen already from the operation of the
  8   floodway since 1970.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  I guess that's the
 10   question.  What is very few?
 11               MR. SMITH:  Well, there's been none.
 12   I mean, you can't rule out, as you said yourself
 13   you don't want to say absolutely and positively
 14   there shall be no wells ever effected to the
 15   fullness of time.  That's not a realistic comment
 16   to make.  That's why, as I say, there's a need for
 17   monitoring and a mitigation plan.  But, again,
 18   based on our representative modeling, we don't see
 19   migration of any extent beyond the floodway
 20   right-of-way.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  With regard to the
 22   conclusions that you draw about significant
 23   effects, I take it that the EIS makes judgments,
 24   or professional judgments based on your
 25   experience, as to what the likelihood of adverse
01055
  1   effects might be.  Am I correct on that?
  2               MR. REMPEL:  Yes.  We actually spent
  3   quite a bit of time in our presentation on the
  4   first day commenting on how we treated likelihood,
  5   how we assessed an effect as to whether it's
  6   adverse or not, and the judgments as to
  7   significance.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  And in effect, it's the
  9   professional team's personal judgment that it's
 10   significant or insignificant; correct?
 11               MR. REMPEL:  There is judgment
 12   involved, but we do get guidance from the
 13   guidelines in terms of how to draw that judgment.
 14   And there are practitioner guides put out by the
 15   Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that give
 16   general guidance in that sense.  And we spent a
 17   number of pages certainly dealing with how we
 18   treated or judged significance in terms of
 19   duration, magnitude, frequency, et cetera.  And we
 20   discussed that in section 2, I believe it is, of
 21   the EIS for both biophysical and socio-economic
 22   effects.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  And when you're
 24   exercising the personal judgment on these effects,
 25   you are looking at, as I understand it, the nature
01056
  1   of the effect?
  2               MR. REMPEL:  Certainly.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  The duration of the
  4   effect?
  5               MR. REMPEL:  Um-hum.
  6               MR. CURRIE:  And the magnitude of the
  7   effect?
  8               MR. REMPEL:  That's a number of the
  9   parameters, if you like.  Reversibility is
 10   another, certainly likelihood of the effect.  And
 11   it's based on not entirely judgment, it also draws
 12   on scientific assessment that was done.
 13               I should also note that that judgment
 14   of significance is done after appropriate
 15   mitigation measures are considered, and it's
 16   really done on the residual effect after
 17   mitigation which could include compensation.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  I understand.  You are
 19   saying that you add in those two components before
 20   you come to a conclusion whether there's a
 21   significant effect.
 22               MR. REMPEL:  Yes.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  We've heard evidence of
 24   Minister Ashton's commitment to a study, and that
 25   study is to consider all the effects on the
01057
  1   groundwater in the area, so far as we know at
  2   least from his letter.  Is that a reasonable
  3   interpretation of that?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  That's generally correct,
  5   yes.
  6               MR. CURRIE:  And I guess, so that I
  7   understand it, totally, it's the Authority's
  8   position that you don't have to wait for that
  9   study because essentially you see no impact of the
 10   floodway on groundwater, or no significant impact
 11   on groundwater; is that correct?
 12               MR. MORGAN:  Well, in the context that
 13   we did a study on the potential for groundwater
 14   effects of the floodway, I mean, there was a study
 15   done already.  This is for other impacts, other
 16   than the expansion project.
 17               MR. REMPEL:  Essentially, I think we
 18   reported that we understood that there are many
 19   issues out there related to groundwater, both in
 20   quantity and quality and sources of contamination
 21   et cetera, pressures of development.  And
 22   certainly we, as EIS practitioners, felt that an
 23   overall study was an entirely appropriate thing to
 24   do and we are pleased that the government elected
 25   to do so.
01058
  1               MR. CURRIE:  But you didn't think it
  2   was significant, that you would wait this project
  3   to see that total study?
  4               MR. REMPEL:  No.  We thought we could
  5   do our assessment based on the information that
  6   exists now in terms of effects of the expansion
  7   project.
  8               MR. CURRIE:  That was my question.
  9               MR. REMPEL:  Yes.
 10               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you.  We talked
 11   about flood compensation.  You said that that was
 12   one of the mitigation effects that you felt came
 13   into your analysis as to whether there were
 14   significant effects or not significant effects.
 15   And my question to you is, what model did you use
 16   to decide, of your compensation package to any
 17   individual that may have a problem, in order to
 18   conclude that it fit within there and you had no
 19   significant impact?
 20               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. John Osler will
 21   respond to this question.
 22               MR. J. OSLER:  Mr. Currie, are we
 23   talking about groundwater specific issues?
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Pretty much.  My issues
 25   are fairly much restricted.  I think we've made it
01059
  1   clear that that's where I'm going.  But, I mean,
  2   generally speaking I still have to say that yeah,
  3   pretty much groundwater, but I'm more interested
  4   in -- my understanding is your model was three or
  5   four different things, add in your mitigation
  6   strategy, add in your compensation package,
  7   conclusion, no significant effects.  If I get to
  8   that level, I want to know, and all I'm really
  9   asking is, what model did you use in your
 10   compensation package to determine that it fit in
 11   there and, hey, it's fine, you've now got
 12   everything that there's no significant effects?
 13               MR. J. OSLER:  The basis that we
 14   arrived at the conclusion that we did in terms of
 15   the effects on people -- let's take one step back.
 16   When we looked at the potential effects on water
 17   supply, water quality within chapter 8 which deals
 18   with socio-economic effects of the project, you're
 19   correct in saying that a determination of the
 20   significance of the effect is done after the
 21   application of mitigation.  And in the extent
 22   where direct mitigation can't be effective or
 23   isn't effective, compensation.  MFA has talked
 24   about, throughout this hearing process and much
 25   earlier on even in the public consultation
01060
  1   process, of an environmental mitigation fund being
  2   available.
  3               The application of that environmental
  4   mitigation fund, its intent is to reduce or
  5   actually remove any residual or leftover that you
  6   can address otherwise through mitigation, so that
  7   there is no effect at the end of the day.
  8               Now, the examples that we use on page
  9   8-79 of the EIS include, particularly for example
 10   let's say with regards to construction dewatering
 11   where there is a temporary draw down, well, the
 12   determination or the examination we set is that is
 13   a temporary issue.  But in the areas where there
 14   is a draw down in water supply, in terms of
 15   availability of water for the wells that are
 16   adjacent to these particular zones where
 17   dewatering activity is taking place, notification
 18   will be made prior to that activity taking place.
 19               But as Dr. Morgan has also pointed
 20   out, there will also be an assessment before the
 21   construction activity takes place of assessing
 22   those wells.
 23               Let's say you make that assessment and
 24   you find that there is still a requirement that
 25   there could be potentially an issue, temporary
01061
  1   dewatering, you have various options available
  2   long before you have to get to looking at
  3   compensation mechanisms.  The compensation --
  4   sorry, in terms of the environmental mitigation
  5   fund -- you can look at lowering the pump, you can
  6   look at reorganizing, deepening the well, looking
  7   at the potential perhaps of new wells, or I guess
  8   as a last resort even consider trucking in water
  9   if it's needed.  But the compensation mechanisms
 10   that are available, there are a variety of things
 11   that MFA has at its disposal that it will and can
 12   consider in the event that these are unanticipated
 13   adverse significant events.
 14               If you'll just wait for a moment.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  I guess I can take your
 16   answer in total as having said you have no
 17   compensation model package in place to hand to the
 18   Commission as something that they can look at to
 19   see whether in fact you have significant or
 20   insignificant effects.  You've simply just said,
 21   we can do that.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  We don't, but we have
 23   examples.  I would imagine that if the worst case
 24   was that the well or the groundwater supply to a
 25   specific residence was unmitigable, what would be
01062
  1   a fair form of compensation?  Obviously it might
  2   be a farmstead or homestead and no place on the
  3   property where you could reinstate the well for
  4   safe and potable drinking water.  Then the only
  5   form of compensation would be buyout and
  6   relocation, and government has lots of examples of
  7   buyout methodology.
  8               Recently the government bought out
  9   properties immediately south of the floodway along
 10   St. Mary's Road because that was deemed to be --
 11   that was for a very different purpose.  It was for
 12   flood protection.  It was deemed to be more cost
 13   effective to buy them out and remove them from the
 14   flood plain.  But my point is that's an example of
 15   compensation method, if you can't mitigate for the
 16   issue with groundwater.
 17               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Osler will add to
 18   that.
 19               MR. J. OSLER:  Just to finish up on
 20   the thought, Mr. Currie, and I apologize, I didn't
 21   complete it while I was providing my answer there.
 22   It's important to note when we look at the
 23   Floodway Expansion Project that this predicted
 24   effect, the predicted environmental effect as it
 25   relates to ground -- we don't have -- we have a
01063
  1   condition here where we are identifying that
  2   there's no significant residual adverse likely
  3   effect, right.  And what you're talking about and
  4   what you've asked me about, and perhaps Mr. McNeil
  5   gave you an example, additional examples, is we're
  6   looking at adaptive management of this.  We don't
  7   anticipate that there's a significant adverse
  8   environmental effect.  And what we're describing
  9   to you is ways in which we are looking at adaptive
 10   management in the event, or the unlikely event
 11   that there is this unanticipated environmental
 12   effect that materializes.
 13               MR. REMPEL:  And Mr. Smith also has a
 14   comment to hopefully further explain.
 15               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, before
 16   Mr. McNeil had referred to the potential for full
 17   compensation, but in reality if there is a well
 18   that's impacted, there are commercial treatment
 19   packages that could quite readily be installed,
 20   they are in the order of 5 to $10,000 for an
 21   individual well.  So that would be, I would think,
 22   the route that would be taken and would ultimately
 23   provide a very safe and potable water supply.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  I can see I've not made
 25   my point all that clear.  I think there's no doubt
01064
  1   you can mitigate against these losses, there is
  2   some engineering concept that would apply.  What
  3   I'm getting down to is the root cause here.  We
  4   have real people who have to make real claims.  We
  5   have people who have limited resources.  And they
  6   are going to be impacted by this project.  People
  7   in this room today may have a well on the edge of
  8   that project.  How are they going to come to the
  9   MFA with absolute confidence that their well is
 10   not going to be a 10 year legal battle for them,
 11   period.
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  There are currently
 13   processes in place.  If people have a process --
 14   or have a problem with their well, we will be
 15   working with the groundwater people of the
 16   Province of Manitoba to follow through with that
 17   process, but at the end of the day, if there is an
 18   impact, it will be MFA's responsibility.
 19               We have shown in our budget that we
 20   have a mitigation fund to deal with that.  Some
 21   people have said it's not enough.  But what's
 22   enough?  If it needs to be increased, it will be
 23   increased.  We are making a commitment as the
 24   Manitoba Floodway Authority to mitigate any
 25   impacts.
01065
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we have order in
  2   the room, please?
  3               MR. CURRIE:  And just with that,
  4   Mr. McNeil, I just want to clarify for the record,
  5   is it the MFA that's running the compensation
  6   package then?
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, it will be --
  8   specifically for groundwater, correct?
  9               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, you are right.
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  But the environmental
 11   mitigation fund is for any unanticipated or
 12   unpredicted environmental impacts.  That's what
 13   it's there for, including groundwater.
 14               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, while you are
 15   looking, I might be able to add another comment
 16   that might give some comfort to the residents.
 17   The intent for the ongoing operation is to set up
 18   that monitoring program in conjunction with the
 19   provincial regulatory authorities, with input from
 20   the municipalities and the public that are going
 21   to be directly affected.  So they will have input
 22   into the monitoring program and the ongoing review
 23   of results.  So it intends to be a totally open
 24   and proactive process.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Currie, how long do
01066
  1   you anticipate before you complete your
  2   questioning?
  3               MR. CURRIE:  I'll be a bit, but not
  4   actually that long, Mr. Chairman.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I would propose,
  6   having heard lawyers' bits before --
  7               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, I don't
  8   want to suggest that was an answer that we might
  9   hear from the floodway, but it was a little
 10   equivocal.  I don't mean that.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  I would propose that we
 12   break in a moment or two for lunch.  We'll come
 13   back here at one o'clock sharp.  The first order
 14   of business immediately after lunch is we'll hear
 15   from Mr. Bezan, a Member of Parliament from
 16   Selkirk Interlake.  That will be a brief
 17   presentation.  Following that, we will recall the
 18   floodway panel to continue answering Mr. Currie's
 19   questions.  So one o'clock back here, please.
 20   
 21               (Proceedings adjourned at 12:00 and
 22               reconvened at 1:00 p.m.)
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I'd like to call
 24   us back to order.  Order please.  It occurred to
 25   me over lunch that I was a little remiss this
01067
  1   morning in that I failed to introduce the members
  2   of the panel.  My name is Terry Sergeant.  I
  3   should say that in failing to do this, I recognize
  4   half the faces in the room but there are a number
  5   of you in the room who weren't here last week.  So
  6   I should have introduced the panel and given a
  7   couple of comments about what we are here to do.
  8               My name is Terry Sergeant and I am the
  9   Chair of the Clean Environment Commission and the
 10   Chair of the Floodway Panel.  With me on the panel
 11   are Wayne Motheral and Barrie Webster.
 12               Our role in these hearings is we are
 13   one of a number of steps, approval steps that the
 14   Floodway Authority has to go through in order to
 15   get the environmental licences that they require
 16   to go ahead and build the floodway.  Our specific
 17   role is to convene public hearings, to hear
 18   concerns from members of the general public and
 19   public interest groups in respect of the
 20   Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared
 21   by the Manitoba Floodway Authority.
 22               We held one week of hearings last week
 23   in Winnipeg.  This is our second week and we will
 24   be here for the next four days.  We will be back
 25   in Winnipeg for four days next week.  We
01068
  1   guesstimate that that might bring us to a
  2   conclusion; if not, then we will reschedule an
  3   extra day or two the following week.
  4               Following the completion of
  5   Mr. Currie's questioning, there will be an
  6   opportunity for members of the general public, so
  7   those in the room who have specific questions of
  8   the Floodway Authority may avail themselves of
  9   that opportunity following the completion of
 10   Mr. Currie's questioning.
 11               I would like now to invite Mr. James
 12   Bezan, the member of parliament for Selkirk
 13   Interlake, to come forward and make a brief
 14   presentation.  Take the front table, please,
 15   Mr. Bezan.
 16               I would just like to say, Mr. Bezan,
 17   that as one of your predecessors as a member for
 18   Selkirk Interlake, it gives me particular pleasure
 19   to welcome you here today.  So the floor is yours.
 20               MR. BEZAN:  Thanks very much,
 21   Mr. Chair.  First of all, I want to thank you for
 22   the opportunity to allow concerned citizens and
 23   organizations to express their concerns and offer
 24   their ideas on the expansion to the Red River
 25   Floodway.
01069
  1               Everyone that presents to the Clean
  2   Environment Commission deserves to be respectfully
  3   heard and addressed.  Unfortunately, recent media
  4   reports have suggested contrary responses from
  5   officials of the Floodway Authority.  As well, it
  6   would have been appropriate to hold hearings north
  7   of the floodway in the riding of Selkirk Interlake
  8   where so many of the concerns surrounding the
  9   floodway expansion have been raised.  But rather
 10   than accommodating these people, it appears that
 11   the Commission and the Floodway Authority would
 12   rather try to avoid this potential negative
 13   attention.
 14               All presenters at these hearings are
 15   expressing legitimate concerns that they have with
 16   proposed expansion, albeit the concerns expressed
 17   north of the floodway are different from those
 18   south of the floodway and those who reside along
 19   the floodway.
 20               The CEC must consider all these
 21   impacts, whether they are a direct result of the
 22   expanded floodway or floodway amplified
 23   environmental impacts north of the floodway.  Any
 24   decision to discredit concerns of potential
 25   environmental impacts, because they fall out of
01070
  1   the terms of reference of the hearings, would be
  2   irresponsible and call into question the
  3   effectiveness of the Commission.
  4               We must remember that currently this
  5   is the only round of environmental hearings
  6   scheduled and that the federal government
  7   considers these hearings sufficient for this
  8   project.  However, if the Commission does not
  9   weigh all of the evidence presented and consider
 10   the problems expressed alongside and north of the
 11   floodway and adequately address these issues, then
 12   a federal review will be sought.
 13               The concerns raised the most about and
 14   that seem to resonate the greatest for the riding
 15   of Selkirk Interlake include the fair treatment of
 16   municipalities and their rural residents'
 17   concerns, the bridge infrastructure and emergency
 18   responses, aquifer and groundwater concerns, ice
 19   jams and the importance of finding a solution,
 20   dredging and the importance of the commitment made
 21   to dredging, and the flood of record and the
 22   protection concerns.
 23               There had been concerns raised as to
 24   whether all the municipalities along the Red River
 25   and along the floodway were adequately represented
01071
  1   in the recent flood protection planning by the
  2   Flood Advisory Board and whether their
  3   environmental impact concerns were at all
  4   considered prior to those hearings.
  5               We need to draw attention to the
  6   concerns that not all municipalities had a seat at
  7   the table and had their groundwater and flooding
  8   concerns addressed during the planning stages of
  9   this project.  According to answers to questions
 10   during the public consultation process, not all
 11   the municipalities were consulted adequately.
 12               The Floodway Advisory Board include
 13   the municipalities of Ritchot, Macdonald, Morris
 14   the City of Selkirk and the City of Winnipeg.  The
 15   municipalities of East St. Paul, St. Clements and
 16   Springfield were not on this advisory board so it
 17   would not be surprising if their flooding,
 18   groundwater and infrastructure concerns were
 19   overlooked during the planning stage.
 20               The question today is whether, in the
 21   rush to project Winnipeg, the Government of
 22   Manitoba has ignored the needs of rural residents
 23   north of Winnipeg for flood protection.  We all
 24   cohabitate on a flood plain and as such, we all
 25   deserve equitable treatment.
01072
  1               If the province is interested in
  2   protecting Manitobans from flooding and protecting
  3   groundwater from contamination, they should
  4   address the concerns of all rural residents as
  5   well as those in the major urban centres.
  6               We support the municipality of St.
  7   Clements in their efforts to have a bridge at the
  8   Dunning Crossing.  The current crossing is not
  9   accessible year-round and creates serious problems
 10   for emergency response teams to serve the whole
 11   municipality in a timely manner.  Residents should
 12   not have their health and lives put at risk even
 13   for a short period of time during the year.  The
 14   entire capital region should be able to expect
 15   quality infrastructure put in place following the
 16   floodway expansion so they can receive quality
 17   emergency services.  This may not be the usual
 18   kind of environmental impact one thinks of but it
 19   is an impact the floodway has already had on this
 20   municipality and will continue to have after the
 21   expansion if the proper infrastructure is not
 22   invested in by the province.
 23               We'd also like to encourage the
 24   government to continue to review how the City of
 25   Selkirk's bridges can also be upgraded and find
01073
  1   other solutions, services or infrastructure that
  2   can be improved to prevent this city's bridges
  3   from being impacted during spring flooding or ice
  4   jams.
  5               Also, we'd like to point out that
  6   Selkirk Interlake has some of the fastest growing
  7   communities in the capital region and although the
  8   current floodway expansion has been primarily
  9   aimed at addressing Winnipeg's concerns, Selkirk
 10   and the municipalities north of Winnipeg will
 11   continue to grow.  And what seems like small
 12   problems now will be magnified with the passing of
 13   time.  More and more people ought to live in these
 14   communities.  And if their environmental and water
 15   and flooding concerns are not adequately addressed
 16   now, it will surely come back to haunt us all in
 17   the future.
 18               One of the main environmental concerns
 19   is that if any change to the aquifers occurs
 20   during construction, it could impact on the flow
 21   of the groundwater which would then affect the
 22   supply water for the local residents that rely on
 23   these aquifers.  There is also the environmental
 24   concerns that these aquifers might be contaminated
 25   during a flood year when the floodway is in
01074
  1   operation.  Residents using these aquifers want
  2   some clear statements from the provincial
  3   government that every step will be taken to ensure
  4   that they are protected both during the
  5   construction stage and when the floodway is used.
  6               It is already known that there are
  7   presently breaches where contamination could
  8   occur.  This problem must be addressed before we
  9   have a disaster of Walkerton proportions on our
 10   hands.  These aquifers serve thousands of people
 11   and are a valuable resource that must be
 12   protected.  The ice jam problem also presents
 13   environmental problems.  Constituents are very
 14   concerned about this problem that seems to get
 15   worse every year.  They are concerned about well
 16   and groundwater contamination as well as general
 17   damage and pollution caused by flooding that
 18   occurs primarily because of the ice jams.
 19   Originally, the impact of the floodway on ice jams
 20   was dismissed as non-existent.  It has been
 21   suggested that ice jamming is unpredictable and
 22   impossible to measure in any models.
 23               There has been a recent commitment by
 24   the government to address the problems of ice jams
 25   by setting up a review committee.  And hopefully
01075
  1   this won't be just another committee that is lost
  2   in the shuffle.  We will monitor the situation and
  3   review the process closely to see if the
  4   provincial and federal governments are seriously
  5   looking for the solutions to this problem which
  6   impacts so severely on the communities in the
  7   riding of Selkirk Interlake.
  8               The ice jams appear to be the primary
  9   cause of flooding north of the floodway and have a
 10   large impact on the bridges in Selkirk.  As
 11   mentioned earlier, any closure of bridges will
 12   have to mitigate the impacts upon the delivery of
 13   emergency services.
 14               There may be one more possible
 15   solution to ice jams to look at.  First, you could
 16   add improved emergency services to both sides of
 17   the floodway and Red River.  Secondly, you can
 18   upgrade the existing bridges and invest in
 19   additional bridges that can withstand higher
 20   waters than the existing ones.  Thirdly, least
 21   desirable but as a last resort, you could buy up
 22   affected properties along the river as part of the
 23   government's proposed Greenway project.  And
 24   finally, engineering solutions revealed through
 25   scientific analysis of the problem.  And there are
01076
  1   a couple of proposals that can already be
  2   considered for alternatives downstream.
  3               All of these solutions could be costly
  4   to the current government.  The question is
  5   whether these potential costs of delivering
  6   adequate infrastructure and emergency services to
  7   the municipalities north of Winnipeg are factored
  8   into the government's original cost benefit
  9   analysis of the possible alternative floodway
 10   projects that were reviewed before undertaking
 11   this floodway project.
 12               There has been a promise made by the
 13   Red River Floodway Authority to introduce dredging
 14   at the mouth of the Red River.  We formally
 15   support restarting the dredging program and will
 16   make sure that the agencies responsible for the
 17   statement follow through on their commitment.
 18               I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention
 19   riverbank stabilization, particularly with the
 20   design of the outlet structure and the increased
 21   flows that are going to go down through the
 22   channel.  We also have to really consider the
 23   stabilization of the riverbank along Lower Fort
 24   Garry where the channel narrows and we have to
 25   make sure that we protect that historic site.
01077
  1               The International Joint Commission
  2   recommended that the floodway be expanded or
  3   improved to handle the largest flood on record of
  4   which we have only sparse historic record.  The
  5   largest flood of record is usually deemed to be
  6   the flood of 1826 which we have some historical
  7   records of.  There is some debate on whether it
  8   was bigger than the 1997 Flood of the Century
  9   because we had the floodway in '97 and obviously
 10   not in 1826.  So the historical descriptions we
 11   have from 1826 are difficult to compare to the '97
 12   flood.
 13               Nonetheless, the accounts say that
 14   residents of the Red River Settlement, which is
 15   now Winnipeg, had to flee as far away as a point
 16   of land known today as Grosse Isle to reach high
 17   ground.  There are also oral histories of floods
 18   in the late 18th century that were even greater
 19   than that of 1826.  With such a vague historical
 20   record, it is not surprising it has been difficult
 21   to determine what is needed in a floodway.
 22               Although everyone fully supports
 23   improving flood protection for Winnipeg, many
 24   Selkirk Interlake constituents are concerned as to
 25   whether flood protection north of Winnipeg and the
01078
  1   riding of Selkirk Interlake will be able to handle
  2   the floods of the magnitude of 1826 or that of the
  3   500 year flood often mentioned by the Government
  4   of Manitoba.
  5               In the environmental sense, if the
  6   communities north of Winnipeg are not protected by
  7   the floodway expansion or their groundwater
  8   concerns are not adequately addressed, then we may
  9   very well have a negative environmental impact.
 10               We know the answers that some would
 11   give us is this is not the result of the floodway
 12   but of natural flooding conditions.  But if you do
 13   not address all the flooding concerns up-front,
 14   then you will have serious environmental impacts
 15   put on these communities when these large floods
 16   occur.  If this is not done right, Winnipeg could
 17   indeed flood from the north.  We urge the
 18   Commission to make sure all aspects of potential
 19   flooding are addressed.
 20               As the Commission has been learning,
 21   there are many concerns surrounding the
 22   environmental impacts of the expanded Red River
 23   Floodway.  It is imperative that all efforts are
 24   made to adequately address the issues raised.
 25               Over the years, it appears that every
01079
  1   effort has been made by the Government of Manitoba
  2   to protect the City of Winnipeg and communities on
  3   the Red River flood plain south of Winnipeg.
  4   However, the communities of Selkirk Interlake
  5   north of Winnipeg deserve the same consideration
  6   and flood protection.  The expansion of the
  7   floodway will increase the flooding risks north of
  8   the outlet.  As mentioned, if communities and
  9   lands north of the floodway go underwater, there
 10   is the real potential that Winnipeg would flood
 11   from the north.
 12               Although we can all agree that the
 13   City of Winnipeg must be protected, we must insist
 14   that the communities north of the floodway do not
 15   become the sacrificial lamb for this project.
 16               The rush to start the floodway
 17   expansion project before we experience the flood
 18   of a semi-millennium is fear-mongering and a fully
 19   responsible appraisal must be the norm rather than
 20   the exception.
 21               The constituents of Selkirk Interlake
 22   do not want their wells and aquifers contaminated
 23   through floods and they do not want to be left out
 24   to dry by the provincial and federal governments
 25   who, for the most part, seemed to have ignored
01080
  1   communities north of Winnipeg.
  2               All downstream impacts including ice
  3   jams, riverbank stabilization and others must be
  4   given full consideration by the Commission.
  5               Finally, if the concerns raised by the
  6   constituents of Selkirk Interlake are not
  7   adequately addressed, a full intervention by the
  8   federal government and a federal environmental
  9   review will be sought.
 10               I do trust that the Commission will
 11   consider all of the evidence and potentially
 12   cumulative impacts.  And again, thank you for this
 13   opportunity.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
 15   Mr. Bezan.  As I noted earlier, we won't subject
 16   you to cross-examination but if either of the
 17   panelists has a question of clarification?  Don't
 18   seem to be.  We thank you very much for your
 19   comments and I assure you we will be considering
 20   all of the evidence before us, including your
 21   testimony today.
 22               MR. BEZAN:  I appreciate that very
 23   much.  I look forward to the results.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 25               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, if we
01081
  1   could add Mr. Bezan's presentation as Exhibit 51.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  3   
  4   
  5               (EXHIBIT 51:  Red River Floodway
  6               Expansion Concerns Raised by the
  7               People of Selkirk-Interlake.
  8               Presentation to the Clean Environment
  9               Commission. By: James Bezan, Member of
 10               Parliament, Selkirk-Interlake)
 11   
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could I ask the
 13   Floodway Authority to take their hot seats again.
 14   Just before we start, I would pass the comment
 15   that it did become very warm in here this morning,
 16   so please if you feel the need to be a little less
 17   formal by removing your jackets, you are welcome
 18   to do so.  As you may have noted, a couple of my
 19   colleagues did this morning as well.
 20               I think we can resume the questioning
 21   by Mr. Currie on behalf of the three local
 22   municipalities.  Mr. Currie.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 24   I noted in the transcript that at points in time,
 25   there were discussions surrounding what has been
01082
  1   referred to in the transcripts as the summer
  2   operation of the floodway.  And I understand from
  3   that transcript that in effect, it's not the
  4   Floodway Authority that will be deciding when and
  5   how the operation may occur in the summer, that's
  6   for another body.  Am I correct on that?
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  That's partly correct.
  8   There are two modes of summer operation, both of
  9   which are the responsibility of Manitoba Water
 10   Stewardship.  However, we will be working with
 11   them to study the permanent summer operation
 12   scenario with respect to riverbank fish passage,
 13   wildlife, et cetera.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Can you give us an
 15   example, since you've now told us that there will
 16   be some involvement of the MFA, of an event where
 17   a non-spring event which is usage of the floodway
 18   for other purposes than spring flooding would
 19   occur?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  The only involvement we
 21   are going to have is to be part of the economic
 22   analysis when Manitoba Water Stewardship considers
 23   that event during construction of the non-spring
 24   emergency operation.  Basically, if they are to
 25   operate in a non-spring period in an emergency
01083
  1   mode, then the floodway would be used and we would
  2   have to remove the equipment that is working
  3   within the floodway channel and, therefore, would
  4   risk us completing the project by spring of 2009.
  5               So the economic analysis that was
  6   provided in section 8 of the EIS supplementary
  7   filing indicates that it's not likely that
  8   emergency summer operation would be cost-effective
  9   taking into consideration the interruption of
 10   construction of an expanded floodway.  And that
 11   would be our input as advising them exactly what
 12   the costs would be in more detail if that event
 13   was being considered.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  So the MFA's involvement
 15   as to a spring or non-spring use of the floodway
 16   is restricted to the construction period; am I
 17   correct?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 19               MR. CURRIE:  And restricted to an
 20   economic analysis as to the effect of running
 21   water down there, down that floodway and moving
 22   your construction equipment out of there.
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Beyond 209, what happens?
 25   Who is in charge here?
01084
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  As indicated in the
  2   Floodway Authority Act, Manitoba Water Stewardship
  3   is responsible for ongoing operation of the
  4   floodway, whether it be spring emergency or
  5   non-spring emergency operation so they are in
  6   charge with respect to the operation of the
  7   floodway and in conjunction with the other major
  8   flood control works.
  9               MR. CURRIE:  And where does the MFA
 10   go?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  As indicated earlier,
 12   Mr. Currie, the MFA is a Crown corporation.  It
 13   was established last year and we will be
 14   responsible beyond construction for long-term
 15   maintenance of the floodway and the associated
 16   components.
 17               As it also indicates in the Floodway
 18   Authority Act, we will be working with the
 19   operators as we go forward, as maintenance affects
 20   operation and vice versa.
 21               While you're looking something up,
 22   just to give you an example, if there was to be
 23   significant vegetation growth in the channel that
 24   could affect the hydraulics, the operator would be
 25   concerned about that and they would come back to
01085
  1   us to say please remove the vegetation.  And
  2   that's a fairly simplistic example of how we will
  3   work together with the operator in the future.
  4               MR. CURRIE:   I was just wondering, we
  5   had heard earlier comments about adaptive
  6   management.  Can you give me an example of how
  7   that works?
  8               MR. MORGAN:  One of the places where
  9   we used an example of adaptive management was
 10   actually as an approach to a future project which
 11   was the non-emergency non-spring operation or the
 12   summer operation.  It says in the supplemental I
 13   think that there is a concern that fish passage
 14   could be affected by operation of the floodway in
 15   its non-emergency non-spring operations.
 16               So part of the adaptive management
 17   studies would be to do studies on fish passage
 18   before that project is approved.  You could do
 19   them during spring operation, during the emergency
 20   summer operation if it occurs and work with
 21   Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the best way
 22   to mitigate any potential effects.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  And your point of
 24   adaptive management, is that some theory or
 25   process that you go through to produce this study?
01086
  1               MR. MORGAN:  Adaptive management --
  2               MR. REMPEL:  I think another example
  3   might be the cut-off wall where an issue is
  4   identified and you think the design and the
  5   construction will take care of it.  But there's a
  6   potential that it may be worse, for example, than
  7   anticipated then that you have a mitigative
  8   measure in hand, a management technique to take
  9   care of that issue and reduce it to an
 10   insignificant adverse effect.
 11               I think the cut-off wall is a
 12   proactive adaptive management on the side of the
 13   floodway channel.
 14               MR. C. OSLER:  If I could just add one
 15   thing to that, just so we're all using the term.
 16   In the guidelines we were given, the EIS
 17   guidelines, section 9, it says, and I quote,
 18               "The EIS should also describe an
 19               adaptive management process that could
 20               be implemented in the event that the
 21               project has unexpected adverse effects
 22               or when mitigation measures may not be
 23               effective."
 24               So we're using the words in that
 25   context as something that is available to deal
01087
  1   with situations that could be implemented in the
  2   event that the project has unexpected adverse
  3   effects or when mitigation measures that are being
  4   planned may not be effective.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  Now, as I heard you read
  6   that quote, I understood you to say that the EIS
  7   should contain a process for adaptive management.
  8   Can you tell me where it is in this EIS?
  9               MR. C. OSLER:  Well, I was describing
 10   that.  It will be found in specific sections.  I
 11   think the discussion we had this morning about
 12   mitigative measures and monitoring and potentially
 13   even the opportunity for environmental mitigation
 14   fund is an example of a process of adaptive
 15   management approach in the event that groundwater
 16   issues emerge contrary to expected forecasts or
 17   mitigation measures such as the cut-off wall don't
 18   or aren't as effective as they'd like, I think
 19   there would be lots of other adaptive management
 20   processes through the physical environmental
 21   effects.
 22               I know downstream when we're dealing
 23   with the concerns about any incremental flooding
 24   associated with flood events downstream of the
 25   floodway due to the expanded floodway, the
01088
  1   adaptive management process discusses mitigation
  2   of sandbagging.  And if that is not effective and
  3   the flooding indeed damages property, again,
  4   resort to some form of compensation from MFA.
  5   There are probably other examples my colleagues
  6   could put forward.
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  And, Mr. Currie, the
  8   adaptive management approach that was discussed
  9   with respect to future summer operation is in
 10   section 8.2 of the supplementary filing.
 11               MR. CURRIE:  I guess the reason that I
 12   really raise the summer operation, and I don't
 13   want to be dancing around with different
 14   definitions, summer operations mean for me a
 15   non-spring event.  I understand that.  So clearly,
 16   we've got a non-spring flooding event.  You're
 17   going to pop open the floodway door channel, the
 18   gates, and you're going to run water down the
 19   floodway.  Am I correct on that?  That's the
 20   summer use of it?  Or is that a little too
 21   simplistic.  It may be.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  The only time that the
 23   province anticipates using the floodway in a
 24   non-spring event is when there is already elevated
 25   river levels such that there would be the risk of
01089
  1   significant basement flooding and sewer backup and
  2   risk to public health when elevated river levels
  3   are coincident with forecast significant
  4   non-spring rain storms.  So the river levels would
  5   already be elevated.  And they would be elevated
  6   to a point approximately seven feet above the
  7   normal summer water level in the City of Winnipeg
  8   and then the gates would be raised to raise the
  9   water level upstream of the inlet and then allow
 10   that river water to pour into the floodway and use
 11   the floodway, thereby reducing the water level in
 12   Winnipeg.  And the target is 9 which is about 2
 13   and a half feet above normal and about half a foot
 14   to a foot above the walkway.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Bottom line is when you
 16   have got those conditions, we've got water going
 17   down the floodway.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 19               MR. CURRIE:  And at that point in
 20   time, we've got the potential, I'm going to
 21   submit, for the flow to really reverse itself.  In
 22   other words, you've got a significant amount of
 23   water coming down the floodway on a very short
 24   rain very quick.  You're opening the gates to
 25   prevent the flooding.  And now you've got water in
01090
  1   there but you've got somewhat of a potential for
  2   those springs to have reversed themselves.  What's
  3   your thoughts on that I guess?
  4               MR. MORGAN:  Yeah, I can answer that.
  5   We had shown it this morning at 1997 flood.  In
  6   the 1997 spring flood conditions, the water levels
  7   are considerably higher than any summer operation.
  8   So that more severe event has been assessed in the
  9   EIS, the event of a summer operation is a much
 10   less head.  So do you understand?
 11               MR. CURRIE:  You're saying that
 12   there's much less water flowing down the floodway,
 13   therefore, there's less hydrologic pressure
 14   pushing down?
 15               MR. MORGAN:  Yeah.  The water levels
 16   in the floodway will be much lower, therefore
 17   there's less pressure.  So it's a less severe
 18   event than the one that's assessed.
 19               MR. CURRIE:  But in effect, though,
 20   that use of the summer operation now creates one
 21   more opportunity for what I'll call or refer to as
 22   a contaminant event; that is, that you have
 23   surface water down through into the groundwater.
 24   You've added one more opportunity for that to
 25   occur.
01091
  1               MR. MORGAN:  That's an existing
  2   situation.  Summer operation has occurred before
  3   the expansion of the floodway and it will occur
  4   with the expanded floodway.  So it's not an
  5   addition in terms of the project.
  6               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Currie, if I may add
  7   to that.  It's the difference in the surface water
  8   level and the pressure in the piezometers that
  9   affects how much infiltration could occur.  And
 10   also, it depends on the nature of the soils
 11   separating the bedrock aquifer and also the time
 12   duration.  So the summer events will be very
 13   short, in the order of a week, possibly two weeks
 14   compared to say a spring event.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  And your analysis is as a
 16   result of that, there's less opportunity for this
 17   groundwater surface water interaction occurring
 18   below the surface?  Or in fact, there's just not
 19   enough hydrologic pressure to push it back down is
 20   what you're saying?
 21               MR. SMITH:  Well, there's less
 22   pressure and less time so any movement into the
 23   subsurface would be limited or much less than a
 24   spring flood.
 25               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, I would
01092
  1   like to take about five minutes and talk to my
  2   clients about just basically wrapping up in
  3   essence.  I think that's my intent.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Five minutes?
  5               MR. CURRIE:  Yes, thank you.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  A short break
  7   for five minutes only, please.
  8   
  9               (BRIEF RECESS)
 10   
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we come back to
 12   order, please.  Mr. Currie.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 14   I am now going to move towards, just a very brief
 15   couple of questions regarding emergency response
 16   during the construction phase.
 17               Do you have any set plans in place
 18   that you can provide the Commission who will,
 19   through that, provide it to the RM as to what you
 20   intend to do with those concerns?  Do you have a
 21   plan in place?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  Could you be a little bit
 23   more specific?
 24               MR. CURRIE:  Yes.  You have a bridge
 25   out and the municipality has an emergency event on
01093
  1   one side of the floodway and there is no access.
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  All the existing
  3   crossings will be maintained during construction.
  4   Oh, Jim is going to add something.
  5               MR. THOMSON:  Jim Thomson.  There will
  6   be a short period of time when Dunning Crossing is
  7   out of Commission because as we excavate through
  8   there before we rebuild the crossing there, that
  9   will be out.  But the other locations, either the
 10   existing bridge will be in operation or there will
 11   be a detour provided for.  So there obviously will
 12   be some limited tie-ins when pavement tie-ins are
 13   happening and that type of thing.  But they will
 14   be a duration of a day perhaps at a time and could
 15   always make arrangements for emergency vehicles to
 16   pass through.
 17               MR. REMPEL:  Could we also add
 18   something, a reference in the EIS to this
 19   circumstance.  Mr. Osler can identify the
 20   particular spot for you.
 21               MR. J. OSLER:  Mr. Currie, if it's at
 22   all helpful, on page 8-78 of the EIS itself, there
 23   is a reference to exactly the point that Mr.
 24   Thomson was just talking about.  It notes that
 25   during the construction process, the Dunning Road
01094
  1   crossing will be out of service due to the project
  2   for, it's estimated no more than 30 days.  This
  3   will obviously affect the ability of the RM of St.
  4   Clements to respond to emergency events.
  5               On the east side of the floodway while
  6   the crossing is closed, suggested possible
  7   mitigation measures include coordinating with the
  8   RM of East St. Paul to provide emergency services
  9   to that portion during that particular time.
 10               In addition to that section 8.5.3.1 of
 11   chapter 8 of the EIS also summarizes other
 12   potential obviously reconstruction-related traffic
 13   issues that will surface during construction and
 14   how they will be looked at, and also with regards
 15   to the construction of the West Dyke and how those
 16   transportation and traffic issues will be managed.
 17               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you.  In terms of
 18   the ring dykes for the City of Winnipeg, my
 19   understanding is that they were originally going
 20   to cost $5 million to change.  And I understand,
 21   Mr. McNeil, your evidence is that they are now
 22   going to cost $7 million to make adjustments to
 23   those?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  Yeah.  I wasn't referring
 25   to ring dykes, I was referring to the primary
01095
  1   dyking system and the areas that it's deficient.
  2   In other words, the areas of the primary dyke that
  3   would need to be raised so that you have a
  4   protection level two feet above the 700 year water
  5   level.  And I indicated earlier last week that it
  6   would be about $5 million to install and then
  7   remove the clay fill to perform that action.  And
  8   then I subsequently added that you should also
  9   take into account dyke patrols and any
 10   engineering, et cetera, and that would add another
 11   $2 million.  So a total of $7 million for a 700
 12   year event to raise the primary dykes in the city
 13   temporarily.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Is that paid for by the
 15   MFA or out of your funds?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  No, that's an emergency
 17   event.  And typically, pre-emptive costs
 18   associated with a flood event like that are
 19   covered through the federal/provincial disaster
 20   financial assistance program.
 21               MR. CURRIE:  Now, there are several
 22   times in your presentation where you have said to
 23   us we are going to use adaptive management to
 24   adjust our design to mitigate problems, that you
 25   are going to seek some public consultation in your
01096
  1   EPP, your Environmental Protection Plan, that you
  2   intend to consult the public if there are design
  3   changes as we go along, correct?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, in general.
  5               MR. CURRIE:  The process that we take
  6   before the Commission is one where the participant
  7   municipalities and average individuals get to come
  8   to the Commission and in fact have a third party
  9   hear their side.  Do you intend to have anything
 10   of that nature in terms of your public
 11   consultation process?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  Public consultation, as
 13   we move forward through detailed design and
 14   construction, will probably take different forms.
 15   We don't expect a formal hearing process if that's
 16   what you're asking.  But, for example, when we're
 17   dewatering at the bridges during bridge
 18   construction, we anticipate to have some form of
 19   working committee that will involve RM and/or
 20   public representation to mitigate any associated
 21   impacts that that dewatering may have on local
 22   wells.  That's one form of that public
 23   consultation.
 24               We've also said that we will carry on
 25   with public consultation in a general sense
01097
  1   throughout the construction to keep residents and
  2   municipalities informed of the progress of this
  3   project of any changes to this design, et cetera.
  4   We haven't laid out exactly when and where and who
  5   and what halls and what time of day or night we're
  6   going to have that public consultation.  But it
  7   will be similar to the things that we've had in
  8   the past.
  9               And I was just reminded here that the
 10   Environmental Protection Plan is submitted to
 11   Manitoba Conservation for approval prior to
 12   construction getting under way.
 13               MR. CURRIE:  So is it your position
 14   that Environment then is going to hold hearings on
 15   your EPP?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  It's not my understanding
 17   that they will hold hearings on an EPP.  We have
 18   already described, in general terms, what the EPP
 19   will involve in the EIS supplementary.  What
 20   section is it?  Section 12.0 I believe of the EIS
 21   supplementary describes, in general terms, what
 22   the environmental protection plans will involve.
 23   And we'll finalize the EPP and it will change.
 24   The Environmental Protection Plan for each
 25   component of this project will change and it will
01098
  1   be specific to those components and those
  2   construction methods.  And each of those EPP's we
  3   will be submitting to Manitoba Conservation for
  4   review and approval prior to construction getting
  5   under way.
  6               MR. PETERSON:  You might also want to
  7   refer to the Environment Act that says that if
  8   there is a major alteration to a project, that it
  9   requires a reassessment and resubmission to the
 10   regulators.  So when you are making an alteration,
 11   you advise the regulators, they determine whether
 12   it's a major alteration or not.  And if it is,
 13   then the process starts over again.
 14               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you.  I think,
 15   Mr. Chairman, those are my questions.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
 17   Mr. Currie.  Could I ask you and your party to --
 18               MR. CURRIE:  They abandoned me.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  -- to move your
 20   material so we could make the space available for
 21   others who may wish to come forward.
 22               As soon as Mr. Currie has removed his
 23   papers from the front table, I will invite any
 24   members of the public who have questions for the
 25   Floodway Authority.  I would like to point out
01099
  1   that this is not an opportunity to debate or argue
  2   with the Floodway Authority or to make
  3   presentations.  There are other opportunities to
  4   do that.
  5               Right now, the opportunity is to ask
  6   questions of the Floodway Authority in respect of
  7   the Environmental Impact Statement for the
  8   floodway expansion.  So we'll wait a moment or two
  9   and anybody who wishes to ask questions, please
 10   come forward.
 11               Mr. Millman, you have expressed
 12   earlier today that you had some concerns with the
 13   responses that were given to you last week.  I
 14   would invite you to ask questions in respect of
 15   your issues but please don't engage in a debate.
 16               MR. MILLMAN:  I understand and
 17   appreciate that, thank you.
 18               Mr. Chairman, members of the
 19   committee, honoured representatives and other
 20   stakeholders, I am here today again because I
 21   found the presentation I made last Thursday
 22   morning so highly discrepant with the presentation
 23   made by the Floodway Authority, I was concerned
 24   that this Commission may not understand the issues
 25   I was raising.  I have returned today and I have
01100
  1   some pointed questions I would like to ask.
  2               At the hearing on Thursday,
  3   February 17th, the Floodway Authority stated in
  4   section 00766, lines 4 to 10.  And I'll just find
  5   that and read it.
  6               "Now, the 59 -- Highway 59 is
  7               generally above the 1997 level even
  8               south of Grande Pointe.  There are,
  9               though, culvert openings through it,
 10               so it acts partly as a dyke.  There
 11               are culvert openings so that the water
 12               would eventually get through that area
 13               and get into the drainage system."
 14               I'd like to ask the Floodway
 15   Authority, have any calculations been done or
 16   estimates been made as to how much Red River flood
 17   water would pass to the east of 59 through these
 18   culverts in a repeat of floods of the 1997
 19   magnitude?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I'm just
 21   trying to find the table that I referred to in
 22   order to help answer this question.  I am
 23   referring to table 6-1 in Appendix "H" of the
 24   engineering pre-design reports.  And I'm sorry, I
 25   can't give you the flow numbers across Highway 59
01101
  1   in the repeat of a 1997 flood but what I can show
  2   you is from this table -- and by the way, this is
  3   all based on sophisticated two-dimensional
  4   hydraulic analysis as performed by the Canadian
  5   Hydraulic Centre of the National Research Council
  6   in conjunction with Acres Manitoba Consulting
  7   Engineers.
  8               And what we see here is at the time of
  9   the actual 1997 flood, the peak level at
 10   Mr. Millman's property, which is just upstream
 11   along the Seine River Diversion Channel which
 12   discharges to the floodway on the east side of
 13   Highway 59, the peak water level above ground
 14   elevation was 771.9.  The ground in that vicinity
 15   is approximately 767.5 feet above sea level.  So
 16   then you have a water level on prairie or above
 17   ground of about 4.4 feet.
 18               Now, as a result of the Grande Pointe
 19   dyke project still with the existing floodway
 20   channel as we have it today, the two new east
 21   embankment gaps and the Grande Pointe or Seine
 22   River Diversion drop structure, all that works
 23   together to provide a lower water level if we were
 24   to have a repeat of the 1997 flood today resulting
 25   in a water level in that area of 769.0 feet.  So a
01102
  1   benefit of almost three feet so that only one and
  2   a half feet would be above ground at Mr. Millman's
  3   house.  And these are approximate numbers.
  4               And then with the expansion with the
  5   project, we would expect, because of the increased
  6   capacity of the floodway and that water getting in
  7   there, that a repeat of 1997 would result in no
  8   flooding east of Highway 59 or in the vicinity of
  9   Mr. Millman's house.
 10               MR. MILLMAN:  To borrow from
 11   Mr. Currie's style, I take it the answer is no.
 12   No estimates have been done about the amount of
 13   water that could flow from the west to the east of
 14   Highway 59 through culverts and no estimates had
 15   been made and no comments had been made about how
 16   significant that water would be.
 17               Is it possible if you folks have an
 18   aerial photograph for the benefit of everybody
 19   listening and here today, to put that on, of the
 20   Grande Pointe Seine River Diversion so people can
 21   have a feel for this?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  I am just looking for --
 23   are you looking for the flooded area, Mr. Millman,
 24   or are you looking for just an aerial map?
 25               MR. MILLMAN:  I became aware that the
01103
  1   Commission members I don't think are familiar with
  2   this project.  And I think it's hard for them or
  3   anybody else, without visualizing it, to really
  4   understand what we're talking about.  And I think
  5   it would be very beneficial if you have an aerial
  6   photograph of that area.  You showed one earlier
  7   in the Lockport area.  I think that's what helped
  8   us here.
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  Okay.  I can call up an
 10   aerial photograph of that area if you'll just bear
 11   with me.
 12               MR. MILLMAN:  Thank you.  I will
 13   proceed in the interests of our concern with time.
 14               In a letter to me written on September
 15   24th, the Floodway Authority stated --
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  2004?
 17               MR. MILLMAN:  Sorry, yes, thank you.
 18   2004, the Floodway Authority stated, and I quote.
 19               "With improvements now in place, the
 20               peak level will be approximately
 21               769 feet above sea level or
 22               approximately three feet below the
 23               actual 1997 level of 771.9."
 24               Can the Floodway Authority tell this
 25   Commission with that substantive improvement
01104
  1   already made, how Red River water will ever reach
  2   the culvert which could deliver it to the east
  3   side of Highway 59 in a 1997 sized flood event?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  Because of the culverts
  5   through Highway 59 south of Grande Pointe, the
  6   water that crosses over the bank in the Red River
  7   both from the west and further from the south will
  8   reach the east side of Highway 59.
  9               MR. MILLMAN:  If you can put the
 10   aerial photograph up, I would appreciate you
 11   pointing it out to us all where these culverts are
 12   that you referred to.
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  I don't know where they
 14   are exactly, but here is the aerial photograph.
 15   This is actually the -- could we dim a couple of
 16   the lights at the front and it would be easier for
 17   the crowd to see this aerial photograph.  Thank
 18   you, that's better.
 19               So this is an aerial photograph that
 20   shows the entrance to the floodway, the inlet
 21   control structure, the floodway.  And then in this
 22   corner here you can see here is Highway 59 -- am I
 23   orientated right here -- and then Grande Pointe
 24   Boulevard or Hallama Drive.  So Highway 59 now
 25   forms the -- here is the Grande Pointe area and
01105
  1   it's currently dyked.  I've got another
  2   illustration if I need to pull it up.  And 59
  3   comes down and then carries on.  And this leg of
  4   Highway 59 is at least at 97 plus 2 feet to form
  5   part of the community ring dyke that protects the
  6   Grande Pointe area.
  7               And I'm just going to go to another --
  8   these are pretty big files.
  9               MR. MILLMAN:  In the interest of
 10   speed, I can move on.
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  Well, we're getting to
 12   the point that I think you're interested in.
 13               MR. MILLMAN:  I have more questions
 14   that will get us there.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  So now we're just a
 16   little further along.  Here is Highway 59, and
 17   this is an old aerial photographic base so it
 18   doesn't show the new 59, the twinned portion, as
 19   well as it doesn't show the Seine River Diversion
 20   in this area.  And we don't have a map further
 21   south from here, but south from the southern limit
 22   of the Grande Pointe dyke to a point some few
 23   miles away, before Highway 59 starts to climb
 24   again, then that area just south of Grande Pointe
 25   is an opportunity of the water to head to the east
01106
  1   side of Highway 59.
  2               MR. MILLMAN:  Thank you.  I have an
  3   aerial photograph taken pretty much at the peak of
  4   the flood which demonstrates that the water well
  5   south of Ile des Chene did not reach the ditch.
  6   And the water only slightly went, reached 59
  7   slightly beyond Mondor Road where you currently
  8   have your ring dyke.  And you have told us with
  9   the improvements already made, we will see in the
 10   1997 sized flood a reduction of three feet in the
 11   water level.
 12               I cannot fathom yet how Red River
 13   flood water is going to reach the east side of
 14   Highway 59, given the data that you have provided.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Was that a question,
 16   Mr. Millman?  That sounded more like a statement.
 17               MR. MILLMAN:  I'll move on.  Thank
 18   you, I appreciate the correction.
 19               What is the prairie elevation at
 20   Mondor Road and Highway 59?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm sorry, I don't have
 22   that detail at this point in time.
 23               MR. MILLMAN:  Is that information held
 24   by any of the people from the Floodway Authority?
 25   A dyke, a ring dyke was just built that goes to
01107
  1   that location.  And we're talking about a level
  2   three feet less.  It's critical information.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Three feet less than
  4   what?
  5               MR. MILLMAN:  We are told that the
  6   improvements already made in the floodway will
  7   result in the equivalent of the 1997, in a peak
  8   level three feet less than it actually was in
  9   1997.  This is going to impact on how far the
 10   water is going to flow south of Grande Pointe and
 11   have the ability to go through culverts.
 12               I'm going to move on.  How does the
 13   Floodway Authority reconcile the statements made
 14   to this Commission on February 17th about
 15   culverts, with this statement contained, written
 16   to me on September 24th, '04?  And I quote, and
 17   this is from a letter I received from the Floodway
 18   Authority.
 19               "There will be a lower peak water
 20               level for a repeat of the 1979 flood
 21               because the flood waters from the Red
 22               River will not be able to reach the
 23               east side of Provincial Trunk Highway
 24               Number 59 by flowing overland as they
 25               previously did in 1997."
01108
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  Yeah, and that was an
  2   error.  We've recently corrected that information.
  3               MR. MILLMAN:  We, I guess, have very
  4   different views and I want the Commission to
  5   clearly hear this.  It is my belief that the water
  6   will not flow through culverts because it will not
  7   reach any culverts.  We are told that the water
  8   level has been reduced by three feet with
  9   improvements already made.
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  Okay.  I'm going to bring
 11   up a graph here.  This is actually the 700 year
 12   flood.  I don't have it for the 1997 year.  The
 13   situation is very similar.
 14               MR. MILLMAN:  I have no doubt --
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  The reason that there are
 16   lower levels for 1997, with the repeat of it in
 17   today's situation, is because of these two gaps.
 18   These two gaps that were created in the south
 19   embankment following the 1997 flood then permit
 20   any of this water that's piling up south of the
 21   embankment to get into the floodway more
 22   efficiently, thereby lowering the overall level of
 23   water upstream of the structure in this general
 24   vicinity.  But it's only a local effect.  And it
 25   translates to the same thing along Highway 59.
01109
  1   And that letter was in error.  There are culverts
  2   here, and it was pointed out to me after that
  3   letter was issued that this water can still get
  4   across to the east side of Highway 59.
  5               By the way, here is Highway 59 -- oh,
  6   and this is a graph in Appendix "H", I don't know
  7   which one it is -- let me just check -- 16.  And
  8   what it shows is the dropping of water levels as
  9   the result of these gaps and water more
 10   efficiently getting into the floodway.  And so you
 11   can see that generally, in this whole area of
 12   having the same colour, that it will have
 13   approximately the same water elevation, although
 14   that's not necessarily -- it's not flat in this
 15   area, it's flowing towards these gaps.  But there
 16   is some water getting through Highway 59, and this
 17   area will still flood, as I demonstrated with that
 18   table.  But instead of being four and a half feet
 19   above prairie, it will only be about a foot and a
 20   half above prairie.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  With current
 22   conditions.
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  Current conditions, yes.
 24   This graph happens to show the 700 year event.
 25   And the benefits of those two existing gaps, the
01110
  1   existing entrance plus the new gap, right adjacent
  2   and to the east of the existing Seine River
  3   Diversion drop structure, we're going to widen
  4   that gap as well to provide another major entrance
  5   way for the 700 year flood to get into that area
  6   east of Highway 59.
  7               MR. MILLMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. McNeil,
  8   I want to go on record as saying I challenge what
  9   you're saying.  You don't know where the culverts
 10   are, you don't know the elevation at Mondor Road.
 11   I talked, if there is a culvert that could be
 12   affected, although quite frankly I don't think the
 13   water will reach there with the three foot
 14   reduction you have already made in the 1997 peak.
 15   And even if it did, from my conversations
 16   yesterday, it would be a very simple issue to
 17   simply cover the culverts to keep all the Red
 18   River flood water from going east of Highway 59.
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  You know, I personally
 20   don't know where these culverts are.  I personally
 21   don't know the elevation of Highway 59 south of
 22   the Grande Pointe dyke.  The Grande Pointe dyke is
 23   the 97 plus 2-foot criterion.  But let me assure
 24   the Commission that the engineers who worked on
 25   all this had factual data, plugged it into the
01111
  1   comprehensive 2D hydraulic model, and the
  2   information that's being presented is factual.
  3               MR. MILLMAN:  We will differ and I
  4   will move on.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Please.
  6               MR. MILLMAN:  The Floodway Authority
  7   has indicated to me by letter that the water level
  8   of 769.0 feet is approximately 1.5 feet above
  9   prairie (767.5 at the drop structure).  Can the
 10   Floodway Authority explain the ramifications of
 11   that data to the residents and business owners
 12   located on the east side of the diversion so that
 13   this Commission has a clear understanding as to
 14   what is going to happen when the level of the
 15   flood water at the drop structure rises to a foot
 16   and a half above prairie?
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, Mr. Millman, with
 18   all due respect, this sounds much like the
 19   presentation you made last week.
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  That's a question.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  But it's still the same
 22   ground that you covered in that presentation,
 23   followed up by some questions from members of the
 24   panel to the Floodway Authority to describe your
 25   situation to us.
01112
  1               MR. MILLMAN:  I respectfully respond
  2   by saying I believe our presentations were
  3   tremendously discrepant, and I'm attempting to ask
  4   these questions to bring the discrepancies to
  5   light.  I was just told that I had received
  6   information from the Floodway Authority that was
  7   inaccurate.  How did I come upon discovering that?
  8   I've been pursuing this issue for three quarters
  9   of a year, and it's been a frustrating journey.
 10   And I come here, and I have to sit here and make
 11   these statements to learn that some of the
 12   information I had been provided, in a personal
 13   letter to me, is inaccurate, and it's very
 14   important.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  And we heard the
 16   inaccuracy and the correction that came from the
 17   Floodway Authority.  But I'd encourage you please
 18   not to be repetitive or to revisit the area we
 19   covered last week.
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  I will do my best.  I
 21   would like the question I just asked answered, if
 22   I may.  What is going to happen when the level of
 23   flood water at the drop structure rises to one and
 24   a half feet above prairie, and what is going to
 25   happen to the water attempting to flow down the
01113
  1   Prairie Grove drain, the Southside Road ditches,
  2   the Lavallee Road ditches and the Seine River?
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  But Mr. McNeil showed
  4   us a graph earlier and he showed us that graph
  5   last week that indicates that once the floodway is
  6   expanded, the level of water will be 2 feet below
  7   prairie.
  8               MR. MILLMAN:  I recall that and I
  9   understand that.  I have not been able to get
 10   people to squarely address this issue as it exists
 11   now.  We're going to be flooded, and I believe
 12   I've figured out where the water is going to come
 13   from.
 14               It was stated on Thursday that I'm
 15   going to have a foot and a half of water in my
 16   yard.  A really simple question; where is the
 17   water going to come from?
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, okay, I'll allow
 19   that question.
 20               MR. MILLMAN:  Thank you.
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  The water will come
 22   across the flood plain as it has in the past, but
 23   because of the improvements to the embankments it
 24   will be less.
 25               What we show in this graph is the
01114
  1   extent of flooding for a 700 year flood in dark
  2   blue.  Here is Highway Number 1, Highway 59 is
  3   generally in this area.  The light blue is the
  4   1997 flood, actual flooded area.  And then --
  5   Brian, help me out with the green.  Okay.  And
  6   then the green is the '97 flood after expansion.
  7               So the point that we're trying to make
  8   is that we're not making matters worse with this
  9   project.  In fact, we're improving matters.
 10               Now, Mr. Millman says, well, he's
 11   going to be flooded, what's going to happen?
 12   Typically what happens is government does respond.
 13   It's first the municipality's responsibility to
 14   help flood protect their people temporarily by the
 15   issuance of sandbags or whatever the case may be.
 16   The province assists with coordination of
 17   emergency events.  And if you are not flood proof
 18   to the '97 plus two, then you will have to do that
 19   again.  But anybody else who is flooded to '97
 20   plus 2, like Grande Pointe, like other individuals
 21   outside of community ring dykes, they are in a
 22   much better situation with a repeat of '97, today
 23   and also after expansion.
 24               MR. MILLMAN:  How many flood
 25   protection options did Acres present to the Water
01115
  1   Stewardship branch in February of 2002, and could
  2   the Floodway Authority very briefly describe them
  3   to the Commission?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm sorry, I can't speak
  5   to that.  If you're talking about in general, the
  6   flood proofing program where over $110 million was
  7   spent in the valley --
  8               MR. MILLMAN:  That's not what I'm
  9   talking about.
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  --Grande Pointe was
 11   afforded, or was allowed to be one of those
 12   communities that could be afforded that protection
 13   to '97 plus two.
 14               MR. MILLMAN:  I will repeat the
 15   question.  That isn't what I was talking about.
 16               How many flood protection options did
 17   Acres present to the Water Stewardship branch in
 18   their memo of February 2002, and could the
 19   Floodway Authority very briefly describe them to
 20   the Commission?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  I don't think that's
 22   relevant to our proceedings with the Floodway
 23   Expansion Project.  That occurred prior to the
 24   Floodway Expansion Project coming to being, and
 25   I'm not familiar with specifically what's included
01116
  1   in that memorandum.
  2               MR. MILLMAN:  I'll move on.  Thank you
  3   for your answer.
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  Before you carry on,
  5   Mr. Millman, I just wanted to reference this
  6   figure that I was referring to just a minute ago
  7   as figure 8.1 in the EIS supplementary filing,
  8   that shows the flooded areas in the vicinity of
  9   Highway 59.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Millman.
 11               MR. MILLMAN:  Would the Floodway
 12   Authority please comment on the effectiveness of
 13   the recent changes made to the drainage system
 14   with the Prairie Grove drain, Southside Road
 15   ditches, Lavallee Road ditches, and large portions
 16   of Seine River water all attempting to discharge
 17   into the diversion in a 1997 like peak flood
 18   condition with a floodway water level of 769 feet,
 19   which is one and a half feet above prairie at the
 20   drop structure?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  I guess the only thing I
 22   can say to the Commission is that the Seine River
 23   diversion as an existing project, and in the
 24   future when we expand the floodway, for the same
 25   level event, the water level in the floodway will
01117
  1   be lower.  So there's an improvement to water
  2   levels.  There are lower water levels once the
  3   floodway has expanded.  And if there was
  4   coincident drainage from this network and the
  5   Seine River Diversion, then that will be an
  6   improvement to the discharge of the drainage from
  7   the Seine River Diversion into the floodway as a
  8   result of Floodway Expansion Project.
  9               MR. MILLMAN:  I'm sorry, if you
 10   answered me, I didn't hear it.  I'm asking how
 11   effectively is the drainage system going to work
 12   with all these sources moving into that diversion
 13   when at the drop structure the water level is a
 14   foot and a half higher than prairie?  This is
 15   probably the most fundamental question I would
 16   like this Commission to hear.
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  Let me explain it this
 18   way.  The drainage system is designed for a Seine
 19   River event.  It relies on being able to discharge
 20   to the floodway.  The floodway, once expanded,
 21   will have lower water levels for each given event
 22   thereby improving the drainage capacity of the
 23   Seine River Diversion for whatever event happens
 24   to be occurring on the Seine River Diversion at
 25   that time.
01118
  1               One of the things I mentioned last
  2   week -- because part of the concern that
  3   Mr. Millman and others have in this area is the
  4   coincident peaks.  What I mean by that is, what if
  5   the Seine River is peaking at the same time that
  6   the Red River is peaking at, will their situation
  7   be worse?  And in fact, this appendix does speak
  8   to that a little bit.  But those are independent
  9   events.  And we have demonstrated with floodway
 10   expansion that for all events on the Red River, we
 11   are improving the water level and lowering the
 12   water level on the floodway.  So we're improving
 13   the situation if it should occur, and that is all
 14   I can say to it.
 15               MR. MILLMAN:  What I would like to
 16   observe and then ask you your opinion, it would
 17   seem to me if the water level at the drop
 18   structure in a 1997 peak event is a foot and a
 19   half above prairie at the drop structure, the
 20   water coming down the Prairie Grove drain, the
 21   Southside ditches, the Lavallee ditches and the
 22   Seine River is going to have to start to back up.
 23   What is going to happen to that water when it runs
 24   into a head water of a foot and a half?  Which way
 25   is it going to go and where is it going to go?
01119
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  Basically, when the Red
  2   River in a 1997 event, with the existing
  3   situation, it's already flooded the landscape.  As
  4   I indicated to you previously, the Seine River in
  5   most events has peaked and passed on prior to the
  6   Red River peaking.  So how much will the -- if the
  7   Seine River happens to be peaking at the same time
  8   that the Red is peaking with a repeat of 1997,
  9   most people wouldn't be able to measure the
 10   difference, because that whole area will be
 11   flooded out anyway from the Red River.  You won't
 12   see the flow in the Seine River or the Seine River
 13   Diversion where the Red River has an influence
 14   with the overbank flooding.
 15               MR. MILLMAN:  I'm going to accept that
 16   as your answer and move on.  I will agree to
 17   disagree.  You have told me there's been a three
 18   foot drop in some of the data you show on your
 19   charts.  I continue to believe the Red River flood
 20   water will not cross Highway 59.  We have one
 21   source coming north, from the north out of the
 22   diversion.  Moving on.
 23               Will the Floodway Authority please
 24   share with the Commission how things could and
 25   would be different for the residents and
01120
  1   businesses going east of the diversion in terms of
  2   flood close to the magnitude of the 1997 flood
  3   condition and up to maybe 1997 plus 2 if measures
  4   were taken identical or similar to those presented
  5   in the Acres memo of February 15th, which would
  6   provide closure for the Seine River Diversion at
  7   the drop structure in a pumping station to
  8   discharge Seine River water, diversion water into
  9   the floodway?  How would it be different for us if
 10   one of those recommendations were taken to achieve
 11   that?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  What Mr. Millman is
 13   talking about is, if you close off the Seine River
 14   diversion at the floodway, and I can't remember --
 15   I remember seeing the memo he's referring to, I
 16   don't know what all the details are in it.  But
 17   it's not necessary to do that once we expand the
 18   floodway.  And not only that, but then you have to
 19   deal with, if there is still water flowing down
 20   the Seine River and you block its outlet to the
 21   floodway, you have to deal with that Seine River
 22   water.  Then you've got a 1997 flood approaching,
 23   it has to be wide open anyway.  It doesn't matter
 24   what's coming down the Seine, the Red is going to
 25   take over and you need that opening to release
01121
  1   that water into the floodway.  With the expansion,
  2   and for a bigger flood, of course, we're making
  3   that opening even that much bigger.
  4               Mr. Millman is suggesting that the
  5   outlet be blocked with some kind of gate structure
  6   or stop blocks, and then a pump station be
  7   installed to pump the water up and over that
  8   blockage.  But the reality is that -- and I can
  9   see where the letter that he received last year
 10   from me was a little misleading -- that the Red
 11   River flood will still get across to the east
 12   side.  And so that option of blocking off the
 13   Seine River Diversion serves no purpose in a '97
 14   Red River flood event, or the repeat of it.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. McNeil, you might
 16   help me a little bit, why is the outlet of the
 17   diversion higher than prairie?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  The outlet of the
 19   diversion is actually significantly below prairie
 20   itself.
 21               MR. MILLMAN:  It's the water level
 22   coming down the floodway, sir, that will be a foot
 23   and a half higher than prairie.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay, I gotcha.
 25               MR. MILLMAN:  Thank you.  I appreciate
01122
  1   your inquiring into that.
  2               How I think this really involves this
  3   Commission is, if you support this portion of the
  4   floodway expansion plan, you will be adding a
  5   trump card I believe which will forever prevent
  6   preventative measures from being put in place
  7   which will flood us east of the diversion, because the
  8   plan is to increase the gapping there.  We deal
  9   with an issue that no measures were put in place,
 10   and there were many of them articulated in the
 11   Acres memo that could be put in place to prevent
 12   flooding.
 13               They still can be.  But if the gapping
 14   goes ahead, that's the trump.  It's done for that
 15   area.  And we have a serious difference as to
 16   whether water is going to cross 59, but I will
 17   tell you, even if it possibly could, it looks
 18   really simple to prevent it by putting some caps
 19   on some culverts.  Quite frankly, I think it will
 20   be a waste of money because I think they would be
 21   dry.
 22               So I'm concerned about the
 23   piggybacking and the gapping.  I guess one last
 24   question and I'll direct it to Mr. McNeil.
 25               If this Commission should approve the
01123
  1   project with conditions, what authority would
  2   supervise the situation to see that these
  3   conditions were put into place and adhered to?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  If the Commission makes
  5   recommendations on certain conditions to the
  6   licence, and the Minister of Conservation agrees
  7   with those when granting the licence, then you can
  8   be assured that we will follow through with the
  9   environmental approval and those conditions.  We
 10   have to.
 11               MR. MILLMAN:  That didn't answer my
 12   question.  I asked, what authority would ensure
 13   that the recommendations of this Commission would
 14   be put in place?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Well, it's Manitoba
 16   Conservation and the Minister.
 17               MR. MILLMAN:  Thank you.
 18               Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your
 19   indulgence.  I hope you have a clear view of the
 20   concerns that you had at Thursday morning.  Thank
 21   you very much.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
 23   Mr. Millman.  Mr. Webster.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  Just for clarification,
 25   Mr. McNeil, you showed us a table earlier in
01124
  1   association with Mr. Millman's questioning about
  2   the water levels in association with the 1997
  3   flood before and after floodway expansion.  And it
  4   shows that Mr. Millman's area would be dry with
  5   the expansion of the floodway; is that correct?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct, with a
  7   repeat of the 1997 flood.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  And yet the figure,
  9   figure 8.1 shows that that area would be flooded
 10   with an expanded floodway.  This figure says that
 11   the green area is a 90 year event flood with the
 12   expanded floodway.
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  What page?
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  That's the one you just
 15   had up on the screen.
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, I had already closed
 17   it, I'm sorry.  I'm looking for it.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  Mr. Millman's place is
 19   over in here.  Am I misreading the map, I guess is
 20   what my question would be?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  I guess to explain it, it
 22   would be within the errors of the topography that
 23   we're working with in this area.  So there will be
 24   an improvement.  And from the analysis that Acres
 25   undertook which was a separate study, they show
01125
  1   that there would be no water above ground in the
  2   repeat of '97 after the floodway is expanded.  But
  3   this topographical information in this flooded
  4   area shows that it is.  If it is, it will be
  5   inches, but certainly it will be a three or more
  6   foot improvement over what actually happened in
  7   1997.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  I understand.  This is
  9   in response to some of the questions that
 10   Mr. Millman was raising, except that this didn't
 11   tally with your other table and that was the
 12   reason for my question.
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Yeah, thanks for pointing
 14   that out.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Sir, would you please
 16   identify yourself for the record, and then you may
 17   ask questions.  And I would again caution, please,
 18   keep the preambles and statements to a minimum.
 19               MR. STINSON:  Thank you very much, Mr.
 20   Sargeant.  My name is Jim Stinson.  Panel, Mr.
 21   Sargeant, I'd first like to say I'm really going
 22   to try to keep the preamble down.  And please
 23   don't take anything I say as personal.  Please
 24   look at it as a compassion, because for the last
 25   year and a half this has consumed me and my wife.
01126
  1   I don't mean to throw any jabs, please correct me
  2   if I do.  My wife is telling me that as well.
  3   Thank you.
  4               I'm going to first go into one area
  5   that really hasn't been looked at, and that's
  6   guidelines.  It's guidelines for the preparation
  7   of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Red
  8   River Floodway Expansion Project, February 5,
  9   2004.
 10               What I first refer to now is chapter
 11   1, page 17, 1.6, effect of the guidelines on the
 12   EIS, Environmental Impact Study organization and
 13   content.  The first three sentences have really
 14   got me asking questions.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Where are you,
 16   Mr. Stinson?
 17               MR. STINSON:  It's chapter 1, page 17.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Is this in the
 19   guidelines or EIS?
 20               MR. STINSON:  No, I am going to refer
 21   to the guidelines, but the question comes as the
 22   result of things in the EIS.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
 24               MR. STINSON:  Okay.  It says,
 25               "The Environmental Impact Statement
01127
  1               guidelines are for the most part
  2               directly reflected in the structure
  3               and content of the EIS.  However,
  4               certain generic aspects, example,
  5               those described under intent in
  6               section 2.3.1. of the guidelines are
  7               not separately and explicitly
  8               addressed but have more broadly
  9               influenced EIS development and
 10               presentation."
 11   So with that, let's just swing to 2.3.1.  In 2.3.1
 12   on page 3, bullet number 2, bullet number 2 says,
 13               "Provide a description of the policy
 14               and regulatory framework within which
 15               the project will be planned, built,
 16               maintained and operated."
 17   With that last word, "operated," I ask why the
 18   operating rules were not included in total in the
 19   Environmental Impact Statement, not just portions
 20   here and there, why were the operating rules of
 21   today not included in the EIS?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, you can find
 23   the operating rules in section 8 of the EIS
 24   supplementary filing.
 25               MR. STINSON:  The entire section 8?
01128
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  It's in section 8, yes.
  2               MR. STINSON:  All the operating rules?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes.
  4               MR. STINSON:  I have to say that I
  5   only have dial-up and I've had to travel, and I've
  6   been living in the Selkirk Library trying to get
  7   the supplementary.  So it's section 8?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  Let me just refer
  9   straight to it.
 10               MR. STINSON:  It's okay, if it's in
 11   section 8 we can refer it, I don't want to take up
 12   the time of the Commission.
 13               We now refer to scope, which is 2.3.2,
 14   operations page 4.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, Mr. Stinson, I've
 16   just been reminded that the operating rules 1, 2
 17   and 3 are also included in the EIS at section
 18   5.3.2.2.
 19               MR. STINSON:  Are you telling me that
 20   all the entire operating rules of today are there?
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  The first three.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  These are the major
 23   operating rules that affect operation.  There is a
 24   couple of other minor ones like don't raise the
 25   gates until ice is flowing, honk the horn once
01129
  1   when you start operation.  Those are considered
  2   minor rules.
  3               MR. STINSON:  But I'm talking about
  4   the change from last November from 24.5 at James
  5   to 14, those are operating rules.  Why were they
  6   not included in the Environmental Impact
  7   Statement?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  They are included in the
  9   additional information to the EIS supplementary
 10   filing in section 8.3, the new rule.
 11               MR. STINSON:  I'll look it up.  Thank
 12   you very much.
 13               Under scope 2.3.2, operations page 4,
 14   again, that has to do with the operation.  But if
 15   you say it's in section 8, I'll go look for it.
 16               We'll move onto 5.3.1, site
 17   preparation, page 8.  I have only picked out
 18   portions of the EIS just for the Commission's
 19   intention.  Site preparation -- geographic maps
 20   and aerial mosaics of suitable scale showing the
 21   location of all proposed project components
 22   including, but not limited to, related access
 23   roads, work camps, borrow and disposal sites,
 24   placements of sediment and erosion control
 25   measures, storage and staging measures, power
01130
  1   sources and utility quarters with inclusion of the
  2   local topographical water courses, wetlands and
  3   lakes.  Yes, we had seen some of those, but I
  4   could not find anywhere where the storage and
  5   staging areas are on any map.  I cannot find where
  6   the work camps are going to be located.  I cannot
  7   find any borrow or disposal sites.
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  For the most part, the
  9   project is described in the preliminary
 10   engineering report and all the appendices.  There
 11   is some details that Mr. Stinson asked about work
 12   camp.  I think it's pretty safe to say that, being
 13   proximate to Winnipeg, there won't be any work
 14   camps set up within the floodway area.  Staging
 15   areas and the like will be dealt with during final
 16   design and included in tender documents.  And the
 17   contractors also have the opportunity to make
 18   changes to some of those details after the
 19   contract has been awarded.  And a lot of this has
 20   been discussed in the EIS supplementary, as well
 21   as in the response to the information request to
 22   the CEC.
 23               MR. STINSON:  I will jump forward
 24   there, Mr. McNeil -- actually I think Mr. Gilroy
 25   should be answering this question, but since you
01131
  1   are the spokesman for it -- who or what are you
  2   asking to be approved?  Are you asking for the
  3   Environmental Impact Statement to be approved as
  4   presented to you or just portions of what has been
  5   asked and supplied for it?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Can you clarify a little
  7   bit further what you're asking?  It sounds like
  8   there's two different questions in there.
  9               MR. STINSON:  Mr. Sargeant.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I think under the
 11   Environment Act, the Floodway Authority has to
 12   apply to Manitoba Conservation for an
 13   environmental licence.
 14               MR. STINSON:  That's EPP, correct?
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  No, that's not the EPP.
 16   The EPP are different, they are sort of sub plans
 17   for different aspects of the construction.
 18               MR. STINSON:  Okay.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  But what we are
 20   concerned with here in these hearings is the
 21   application for an environmental licence, which is
 22   issued by -- in this case it will be issued by the
 23   Minister of Conservation on the advice of the
 24   Environmental Approvals branch of the department.
 25   So it's an environmental licence to go ahead and
01132
  1   construct it.
  2               What we're doing here is hearing
  3   comments from the public, yourself included, in
  4   respect of the EIS.  We will make recommendations
  5   to the Minister.  We may recommend go ahead and
  6   issue it.  We may say we don't think you should
  7   issue it, or which is more typical of our reports,
  8   we will recommend issuance with a number of
  9   conditions.
 10               MR. STINSON:  That is why I was asking
 11   the question, Mr. Sargeant.  This statement I read
 12   said the Environmental Impact Statement will
 13   include providing those things.  It has said it
 14   will provide locations where work camps are.  It
 15   says it will provide where borrow sites are.  It
 16   says it will provide where disposal sites are.
 17   And that is why I asked, why was it not put in the
 18   Environmental Impact Statement?
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  I will let Mr. McNeil
 20   answer that, I believe he's answered at least part
 21   of it.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  Well, borrow sites would
 23   be the sites where we take clay to build something
 24   up, and we need to do that on the West Dyke.  And
 25   the West Dyke design indicates the land adjacent
01133
  1   to the West Dyke on both sides will be utilized as
  2   borrow, and it indicates the maximum amount of
  3   area that we would need to do that.
  4               In terms of the channel, through
  5   illustrations like I provided today but in more
  6   detail in Appendix "B", it identifies where all
  7   the spoil material is going once we have excavated
  8   it.  In terms of a work camp, I just said to you
  9   we expect a majority of the population that will
 10   be working on this project to live in and near
 11   Winnipeg.  It's not like working up north where
 12   you need a work camp for the workers.  And in
 13   terms of staging areas and whatnot, that has to be
 14   worked out during detailed design and during
 15   preparation of the tender documents and will also
 16   be part of the EPP in terms of staging areas for
 17   the contractor's equipment, for depositing gravel,
 18   depositing soil, refueling vehicles and on and on.
 19   And that is discussed a little bit in the section
 20   12, I think, of the EIS supplementary with respect
 21   to EPPs.
 22               MR. STINSON:  I guess where I'm coming
 23   from, Mr.McNeil --
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, one more thing.
 25   The EPPs, I mentioned earlier, and maybe you
01134
  1   weren't here for that.
  2               MR. STINSON:   Yes, I was.  I have
  3   been here every day.
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  They have to be submitted
  5   to Manitoba Conservation for approval prior to
  6   construction.  So it follows due process.
  7               MR. STINSON:  Yes, I follow that.  But
  8   I guess there are several other areas, and I won't
  9   bother holding up the time.  But it says in the
 10   guidelines specifically, those areas will be
 11   addressed, and there are probably about another 20
 12   or 30 of them.  And if you saw fit that it was not
 13   of an issue such as there's no staging areas,
 14   would it not have been prudent for you to place in
 15   it what is not necessary, it's not of issue, since
 16   you were guided by those guidelines?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, could you repeat
 18   the last part again, Mr. Stinson?
 19               MR. STINSON:  Mr. McNeil, I'm trying
 20   to make it short and I don't want to get it
 21   personal, but if I'm asking you a question and
 22   you're discussing with someone else, how can I
 23   keep asking the same question over and over?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  I apologize, I'll wait
 25   for you to finish and then I'll confer with my
01135
  1   colleagues.  That's why they are up here.  But I
  2   will let you finish first.
  3               MR. STINSON:  Thank you.  Mr. McNeil,
  4   there are probably at least 20 other issues under
  5   the guidelines which you were compelled to follow
  6   for doing the environmental impact study.  If you
  7   saw fit that those issues were not mandatory for
  8   the Environmental Impact Statement, why would you
  9   not indicate that in the Environmental Impact
 10   Statement to advise the Commission that those are
 11   not of an issue?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  The EIS guidelines are
 13   just that, they are guidelines.  They are there.
 14   They were developed by the project administration
 15   team which is made up of both federal and
 16   provincial people, because this is a Canada and
 17   Manitoba cooperative environmental process.  The
 18   guidelines went out for public review and they
 19   were finalized in February of '04, and that is
 20   what we used as a guideline for developing our
 21   EIS.
 22               The PAT, after submitting the EIS in
 23   August of '04, put the EIS out for public review
 24   and also review by the TAC.  And the Technical
 25   Advisory Committee is made up of federal and
01136
  1   provincial departments that have an interest in
  2   this project.  They came back on November 1st and
  3   said these are certain areas of the EIS, and
  4   there's a whole host of areas, much more than the
  5   30 that you are describing, that they felt that we
  6   needed to address to complete the EIS.
  7               Therefore, on November 29, 2004, we
  8   submitted to the PAT and to the public a fourth
  9   volume called the EIS supplementary filing that
 10   addressed all the outstanding issues that the PAT
 11   had determined were outstanding from the original
 12   EIS document, which is three 3-inch binders and
 13   are sitting behind Dr. Webster.  So now those four
 14   binders make up the EIS.
 15               The PAT looked at all of it again
 16   together, probably mostly the fourth binder.  And
 17   then on January 7th, 2005, or maybe it was a week
 18   later, they felt that the EIS was complete and
 19   sufficient enough to go to this public hearing.
 20               And so despite the fact that you may
 21   have identified a couple of issues that weren't
 22   addressed in the guidelines, it was felt
 23   sufficient by the PAT that we could go to public
 24   hearing.  And the reason is, as I have explained,
 25   some of these things you can't answer upfront,
01137
  1   some of these things you have to wait until final
  2   design or wait until you develop the details of
  3   the EPP, or the tender documents, or whatever the
  4   case may be.  We're just following due process
  5   here.
  6               And eventually, if it's required,
  7   those things will be addressed through this
  8   process.
  9               MR. STINSON:  Thank you, Mr. McNeil.
 10   Under "Purpose," I will just read that and we will
 11   carry on.  It says under "Purpose,"
 12               "The purpose of this document is to
 13               provide guidance to the Manitoba
 14               Floodway Expansion Authority on issues
 15               that should be considered in the
 16               environmental assessment of the Red
 17               River Expansion Project, and
 18               information should be contained in
 19               this Environmental Impact Statement on
 20               the project."
 21   But I'll move on to summertime operation.  I'll
 22   move on to that.  I'm not sure exactly which date,
 23   I didn't write it down, that you were commenting
 24   concerning summertime operation in Bill 23.  Has
 25   Bill 23 been acclaimed?  Was that acclaimed in
01138
  1   June of 2004, as you mentioned before?
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr.Stinson, I'm aware of
  3   a lot of bills but what's the name of that
  4   particular bill?
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  That is the Red River
  6   Floodway Act, I believe.
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  The compensation
  8   legislation?
  9               MR. STINSON:  That's correct.
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  It has not yet been
 11   proclaimed.  It has received royal assent but not
 12   been proclaimed.
 13               MR. STINSON:  So therefore, it is not
 14   law at this time?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 16               MR. STINSON:  Okay.  Then we will just
 17   assume -- and I know what assume means, I will use
 18   that in the general terms, I apologize, Mr.
 19   Sargeant -- Bill 23, if it is proclaimed, does it
 20   cover the entire year for damages caused by
 21   artificial flooding?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  What do you mean by an
 23   entire year?
 24               MR. STINSON:  Well, from January 1st
 25   to December 31st, the entire year?
01139
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  The overriding purpose of
  2   the compensation legislation is to restore the
  3   claimants to pre-flood condition.  So I don't know
  4   if there is a time limit on it.  It's just related
  5   specifically to the damages that would be involved
  6   from an artificial flooding event on the Red
  7   River.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  But that only applies
  9   to spring flooding, is that not the case?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  Oh, if that's what he's
 11   asking, yes, sorry.  It is a significant
 12   clarification that that Act only applies to spring
 13   flooding.
 14               MR. STINSON:  So therefore, my next
 15   question relates to spring flooding.  And I
 16   believe you were at the legislature when the
 17   question was asked, when is spring flooding and
 18   when is summer flooding?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  Are you referring to the
 20   public meeting that was held with respect to the
 21   Act?
 22               MR. STINSON:  That's correct.
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  I was not at the
 24   legislature that day.
 25               MR. STINSON:  Some of your compadres
01140
  1   were.
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  I don't believe anybody
  3   here was at that.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think you can still
  5   address the question as to when spring flooding
  6   ends and other flooding commences.
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  Spring flooding is
  8   generally from March to early June, and it's
  9   generally associated with spring snow melt runoff.
 10               MR. STINSON:  So if we received
 11   artificial flooding in July, artificial flooding,
 12   Bill 23 would not cover it; is that correct?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  That's absolutely
 14   correct.
 15               MR. STINSON:  Thank you very much.
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  That would be considered
 17   non-spring.
 18               MR. STINSON:  I was hoping to be able
 19   to ask this question before Mr. Bowering, when he
 20   was here, because he may be able to help you.
 21   It's concerning the operation of the inlet gates.
 22   Mr. Bowering is not here today?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  He's not here today, no.
 24               MR. STINSON:  Possibly you can help
 25   us.  I'm looking at 2004.  Did the Floodway
01141
  1   Authority operate the gates on the 10th of June,
  2   2004, under the rules in place at that time?  Yes.
  3   I'm specifically looking at James Street level.
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  On June 10, 2004?
  5               MR. STINSON:  That's correct.
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Just a minute.
  7               MR. STINSON:  If I could maybe point
  8   you to the section?
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  Oh, there we go.  I'm
 10   just going to call up a graph that illustrates the
 11   water levels over time in that summer operation.
 12   Now, first of all, to clarify, the Floodway
 13   Authority is not the operator of the floodway.
 14   You referred to us as the operator.  It is
 15   Manitoba Water Stewardship.  So most of the
 16   questions should be directed to Mr. Bowering.
 17               MR. STINSON:  In your EIS, you say on
 18   the 10th of June the level at James Street was
 19   between 15 and 16, if it may assist you, on the
 20   10th of June.
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm almost there.  Okay,
 22   so what this graph shows -- okay, first of all,
 23   the event that Mr. Stinson is talking about is
 24   discussed in section 5.3.2.3 titled "Emergency
 25   summer operation" on page 5-7 of the EIS.  It's
01142
  1   also discussed in more detail in section 8 of the
  2   EIS supplementary filing.  And this is figure 11
  3   in the EIS supplementary filing in section 8.0.
  4               So what it shows here, just to walk
  5   you through it, is elevation on the Y-axis.  And
  6   this is the -- it's blue for a reason.  Blue lines
  7   are water level just upstream of the inlet control
  8   structure, and green on the Y-axis to the right is
  9   water level at James Avenue.  So the solid blue
 10   line shows the actual water level at the inlet
 11   control structure and the dotted blue line shows
 12   what would have occurred if the gates weren't
 13   operated.
 14               And the same thing goes with the green
 15   lines.  The solid green line is actual in the City
 16   of Winnipeg water level at James Avenue, and the
 17   dotted line is what would have occurred without
 18   the gates being operated.
 19               So in answer to Mr. Stinson's
 20   question, on June 10, 2004, the gates were raised.
 21   And you can see here at the inlet control
 22   structure that there was a sudden rise of the
 23   water level when the gates were raised from about
 24   749 and a half feet above sea level up to 756 and
 25   a half.  And then there was a corresponding drop.
01143
  1   And it doesn't happen instantaneously, it takes a
  2   while to adjust, but there was a corresponding
  3   drop from about James 16 to about James 9 over the
  4   course of about a day as a result of that
  5   operation.
  6               MR. STINSON:  But my question, and
  7   this is going to go on and on, and we don't need
  8   this.  My simple question was, on the 10th of June
  9   when the gates were operated, were they following
 10   the rules of that day when they operated them for
 11   James level?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  And this is good backup
 13   information for the Commission, by the way.  Were
 14   the rules followed?  There were no specific rules,
 15   written rules for either the 2002 or the 2004
 16   operations.  The summer operation does not follow
 17   the existing program of operations, those major
 18   rules 1, 2 and 3.  It can't, because what happens
 19   here is that you automatically go above the state
 20   of nature when you operate in the summertime
 21   because the flow is not sufficient enough to
 22   maintain natural, even with operation of the gate,
 23   which is what the spring operation is all about.
 24               Sorry for the long explanation, Jim,
 25   but it helps the public and the Commission to
01144
  1   understand.
  2               MR. STINSON:  But it's been confusing,
  3   because you've said to me earlier, springtime
  4   operation went from May to early June.  To me, the
  5   10th of June is early June.  So, therefore,
  6   springtime operation should have been included
  7   with the 10th of June.  James level is 24.5.  It
  8   was operated between 15 and 16.  But I will move
  9   on and I won't hold you up any more on that.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Stinson, in
 11   fairness, I think what they said was that
 12   springtime operation normally went from sometime
 13   in March until early June, but it covered spring
 14   runoff, snow melt runoff.
 15               In this instance, I don't believe this
 16   had anything to do with snow melt runoff.
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  No, the spring fresh, or
 18   the snow melt runoff situation had long passed.
 19   In fact, the Red River had dropped to elevation
 20   740 at the inlet control structure by May 9th or
 21   10th, and then it was slowly rising again in
 22   response to rain storm events throughout the
 23   valley.
 24               MR. STINSON:  So the gates were
 25   operated for how many days?  The reason why I ask
01145
  1   this question is my Member of Parliament has sent
  2   a request to Mr. Bowering's office three weeks ago
  3   looking for this report, because there has to be a
  4   report done, and he has sent a chaser in the last
  5   week, and we cannot obtain the report concerning
  6   the summertime operation in June of 2004 or
  7   operation 2002.  What I wanted to find out is, how
  8   many days, from this thing here, how many days was
  9   it operated in June, were the gates in operation?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  Are you asking how long
 11   was it operated in total or just in the month of
 12   June?  Because what we show here, the other thing
 13   I didn't explain on figure 11 is that this shows
 14   the gate movements.  So you can see where the
 15   gates were raised several feet at a time in one,
 16   two, three movements.  And then reacting to water
 17   levels starting to recede, the gates were dropped,
 18   and then they were raised again.  And then they
 19   are continuously dropped.  I think the last day
 20   that the gates were up was July 29th, which was
 21   off to the right of this table.  So it went from
 22   June 10th basically to the end of July.  So over
 23   the course of about 50 days.
 24               And one of the reasons that the gates
 25   are lowered in this fashion, you know, you go a
01146
  1   day, you drop it a little bit, you go a day, you
  2   drop it a bit, or less, is that what the Water
  3   Stewardship is trying to do is to mimic the
  4   natural recession of water levels so that they
  5   don't have any unnatural impact to river banks.
  6   So you can see here the slope of this natural
  7   curve, had the gates not been operated, and they
  8   are trying to mimic that by following the same
  9   kind of slope or the same rate of drop.  And
 10   that's why the gates end up being generally up for
 11   such a long period of time is that they want to
 12   reduce the water levels and mimic nature as much
 13   as possible.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Stinson.
 15               MR. STINSON:  Thank you very much.  So
 16   they dropped from 15 to nine in one day.  And last
 17   week you indicated that to prevent erosion, it
 18   should drop it half a foot a day, but you
 19   indicate --
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  Maximum of a foot, but up
 21   to half a foot a day.  And when this happened this
 22   was considered, and there could have been a
 23   negative impact on the river banks in the City of
 24   Winnipeg.  We don't know for sure.  That's why
 25   riverbank studies are needed over the next few
01147
  1   years, but you try to avoid that situation both in
  2   the city and upstream of the city as much as you
  3   can, given the circumstances of the impending
  4   significant rainfall.
  5               MR. STINSON:  From the readings that
  6   I've been able to find, James Street level was
  7   24.5.  And my concerns through this whole thing
  8   is, is there anything in place that will prevent
  9   the gates from being operated against the rules in
 10   the future?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  Okay.  Now you say 24.5.
 12   I'm assuming you're talking about the spring of
 13   '97 now.
 14               MR. STINSON:  That's correct.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  That's the only time
 16   since the floodway was built that the water levels
 17   reached 24.5 in the city.
 18               MR. STINSON:  That's correct.
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  So what is your question?
 20               MR. STINSON:  Is there anything in
 21   place that will prevent the gates from being
 22   operated against the rules in the future?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  In the spring, no.  The
 24   rules are the rules, they are hard and fast, and
 25   Manitoba Water Stewardship stated last week that
01148
  1   they would be following those.
  2               MR. STINSON:  Okay.  I will move on.
  3   Concerning the EIS, on the volume 1, I had great
  4   difficulty, especially being on line, finding the
  5   glossary because there is no way of going in and
  6   querying to find out where things were.  I
  7   eventually found the glossary at the end of volume
  8   1.  And what I was looking for was cumulative
  9   effect.
 10               Now, we heard on Tuesday morning, and
 11   I felt all day Tuesday I was hearing everything
 12   that I've heard from the previous day, and this is
 13   what you gave us as a definition of cumulative
 14   effect the next day which flip-flopped completely.
 15               Now this says cumulative effect
 16   assessment and it says,
 17               "An assessment of the incremental
 18               effects of an action on the
 19               environment when the effects are
 20               combined with those from other past,
 21               existing and future actions,"
 22   from the glossary.  When I look at the glossary of
 23   there, my definition that I find in your glossary
 24   says,
 25               The combined effects of several
01149
  1               projects on the environment.
  2               Cumulative effects have to be
  3               considered as part of the environment
  4               assessment process.
  5   And it is a very important part.  Why would there
  6   be two definitions in one document, if I could not
  7   find this one that you first put on your slide?
  8   It is slightly different.
  9               MR. REMPEL:  Those definitions are
 10   slightly different.  They are different.  There is
 11   also a definition in the guidelines, and we do
 12   expand on the meaning of cumulative effects in
 13   section 2, page 2.5, and we discuss how the
 14   environmental assessment agency defines cumulative
 15   effects as well.
 16               MR. STINSON:  But why would you not
 17   use your glossary definition, because that is what
 18   me, as a lay person, or anyone who is trying to
 19   read the environmental assessment has to go by?  I
 20   can move on, thank you.
 21               MR. HANDLON:  Mr. Chairman, if a
 22   question is asked, I think Mr. Rempel should be
 23   given a chance to respond.  It's unfair to pose a
 24   question and then --
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I think he's been
01150
  1   given ample opportunity.  And if Mr. Rempel has
  2   further comment, we will allow it.
  3               MR. REMPEL:  I was just going to add
  4   that I don't think the definition in the glossary
  5   is contradictory, it may not be as fulsome as the
  6   explanations or definitions in the body of the
  7   work itself.
  8               MR. STINSON:  Thank you very much.  I
  9   would like to move onto what I classify as
 10   probably one of the best, and I have to say thank
 11   you to Mr. John Osler who looked after the public
 12   consultations.
 13               I want to get into specifically round
 14   one.  When we had the first rounds, the first one
 15   I believe, the second hearing was in Selkirk;
 16   correct?
 17               MR. J. OSLER:  Can you give me a date?
 18               MR. STINSON:  25th of February, this
 19   is the official rounds that we went through, 25th.
 20               MR. J. OSLER:  So you're saying that
 21   the first round --
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Are you asking or
 23   stating?
 24               MR. STINSON:  That's correct, right,
 25   that was the first one?
01151
  1               MR. J. OSLER:  Mr. Stinson, if you
  2   refer to table 3.3-1 on page 3-7.
  3               MR. STINSON:  I don't have it with me,
  4   sir.  I will take your word for it.
  5               MR. J. OSLER:  It's a table that lays
  6   out the open houses, municipal government meetings
  7   and stakeholder workshops that took place in
  8   rounds 1, 2 and 3.
  9               MR. STINSON:  And the first one was
 10   25th of February in Selkirk.  And at that time,
 11   were we told that the questions from the community
 12   that were raised would be documented and put on
 13   your website within the next couple of days?
 14               MR. J. OSLER:  I think the process was
 15   that the notes from the workshops, notes from the
 16   municipal government meetings, actually, let's
 17   just say notes from the workshops.  The process as
 18   I described to the Commission last week were that
 19   we would draft the notes, the notes would go back
 20   to the workshop participants.  Once they were
 21   finalized, they would be shared with the public
 22   via the website that we had.  So I don't recall
 23   the reference to a couple of days.  But as they
 24   were finalized as best we could, we tried to get
 25   them up.
01152
  1               MR. STINSON:  I know it's very
  2   difficult getting them on and I think that was the
  3   problem, there was some difficulty getting them
  4   on.  Then there was the hearing the 10th of March
  5   in Winnipeg, and I'd like to really point to that
  6   question.  At the end of all those rounds, there
  7   were 285 questions, were there not, 285 questions?
  8   Were those the -- is that the entire list of all
  9   the questions that were asked on all four of those
 10   hearings in round 1?
 11               MR. J. OSLER:  I don't have a
 12   reference to 285 questions.
 13               MR. STINSON:  There is a copy of it in
 14   the EIS.  I can find it.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Stinson, I'd just
 16   like to interrupt for a minute.  I'm not trying to
 17   cut you off, I'm just trying to find an
 18   appropriate time to take a break.
 19               MR. STINSON:  This one will be just
 20   quick.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Fair enough.
 22               MR. STINSON:  The reason why I say
 23   that, we were led to believe that that was the
 24   entire questions.  When I reviewed them -- maybe
 25   if Mr. McNeil could confirm or deny if I asked a
01153
  1   question in Winnipeg, and the question I asked --
  2   and Mr. Osler you were there -- was, could the
  3   breaches in the aquifer be sealed prior to
  4   continuing on with the expansion of the floodway?
  5   In those general terms, not verbatim, I know you
  6   can't do it verbatim.  Was that question asked?
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  I can't recall.
  8               MR. STINSON:  Mr. Osler?
  9               MR. J. OSLER:  I'm sorry, Mr. Stinson,
 10   I can't recall either but the records are
 11   contained within appendix 3.  Why don't we check
 12   it at the break?
 13               MR. STINSON:  It's not in there, but
 14   we'll move forward to the 21st of April, the next
 15   chance that I could appear on the 21st of April in
 16   St. Norbert.  I asked that same question and
 17   indicated that it was not on the list, because I
 18   found it very important, this was back almost a
 19   year ago, about sealing the breaches.  I was
 20   assured that it would be included.  To this date,
 21   it is not included.  I ask why, it is a very valid
 22   question, why would it not be included?
 23               MR. MORGAN:  This is David Morgan.  I
 24   wasn't at these meetings but I do know that this
 25   issue of surface water intrusion, leakage, was
01154
  1   brought to the EIS team and to the engineers to
  2   look at.  It wasn't an easy answer that probably
  3   could be answered quickly.  There is a lot of
  4   study went into it over that whole, from January
  5   through to May, June, and so it was included in a
  6   lot of the documentation after, but it was
  7   probably not a quick answer that could be answered
  8   in two or three days.
  9               MR. STINSON:  And to assist Mr. Osler
 10   his response to me was, you know, that is the
 11   toughest question I have been asked in the entire
 12   four rounds.  Does that help you, Mr. Osler?
 13               MR. J. OSLER:  When was this question
 14   asked?
 15               MR. STINSON:  That was asked in
 16   Winnipeg.
 17               MR. J. OSLER:  On what date?
 18               MR. STINSON:  That was on the 10th of
 19   March.  I have two other people here that were
 20   with me at that time.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Nobody is doubting your
 22   credibility.
 23               MR. STINSON:  But that question, why
 24   was it removed from all the questions in public
 25   consultations?
01155
  1               MR. J. OSLER:  Sir, to be of help to
  2   the Commission and to you, I would like the
  3   opportunity, and it may take some time to do a
  4   couple of things.  One is to check the meeting
  5   notes and the record of those meetings to find if
  6   we can in fact find it.  We also want to take an
  7   opportunity to look at the moderator's report.
  8   Each one of the open houses that took place in
  9   rounds 1, 2 and 3 actually had an independent
 10   moderator.  Mr. Stewart, Dale Stewart, he
 11   submitted a separate report of what he heard at
 12   those meetings, and that might be able to identify
 13   that point.
 14               The final avenue would be, as I
 15   described last week in terms of the public
 16   consultation process, we did, particularly out of
 17   round 1, maintain an issues database based on the
 18   questions that were asked that we got from various
 19   sources.  And I'd like the chance to see if in
 20   fact this particular point materialized within
 21   that issues contact database.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  That sounds very
 23   reasonable, Mr. Osler.  When do you think you
 24   might be able to get back to us?
 25               MR. J. OSLER:  I expect we can have
01156
  1   that -- we can't have that by the end of the day.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  I wouldn't expect it
  3   today, but perhaps tomorrow or Wednesday when we
  4   meet at one o'clock.
  5               MR. J. OSLER:  Okay.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Rempel.
  7               MR. REMPEL:  I'd just like to make a
  8   point of clarification.  The question may not have
  9   been recorded to Mr. Stinson's satisfaction, but I
 10   think we have demonstrated that the issue has been
 11   looked at in the EIS, and we've certainly talked
 12   about it here in the hearings.  So perhaps the
 13   record isn't as clear as you'd like, Mr. Stinson,
 14   but hopefully we've shown that we took the concern
 15   seriously.
 16               MR. STINSON:  I'll bring that up in my
 17   presentation.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Are you
 19   finished, Mr. Stinson?
 20               MR. STINSON:  Questions?  Negative --
 21   sorry, no.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  You have more
 23   questions?
 24               MR. STINSON:  Yes, I do.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I'd like to take
01157
  1   a break now.  It's about seven minutes after by my
  2   watch, it's ten minutes after by the clock in the
  3   back.  So we'll come back at 25 after by the clock
  4   in the back wall.
  5   
  6       (Proceedings recessed at 3:07 p.m. and
  7       reconvened at 3:15 p.m.)
  8   
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Order, please. Mr.
 10   Stinson.
 11               MR. STINSON:  Thank you, very much,
 12   sir.  Concerning the general public submissions
 13   again, were the questions issued or submitted to
 14   you during the rounds, and stakeholders, were they
 15   taken into consideration when preparing the EIS
 16   that was submitted in August?
 17               MR. J. OSLER:  Yes.
 18               MR. STINSON:  May I ask why or how my
 19   questions could have been considered when I
 20   received a phone call, and I gave the man credit
 21   for doing it on the 24th of December, the day
 22   before Christmas, advising me of the answers,
 23   that's four months after the submission, how could
 24   my questions have been included?
 25               MR. J. OSLER:  I think, sir, that the
01158
  1   final answers were provided to you in the latter
  2   part of December.  At the time that you submitted
  3   questions during the spring of 2004, we didn't
  4   have any answers for many of the questions that
  5   you had, and we wouldn't have had those questions
  6   until such time as -- sorry, they wouldn't have
  7   the answers to those questions until such time as
  8   we had an opportunity to complete the assessment,
  9   document it, file it and respond to the particular
 10   questions that were raised after the technical
 11   advisory committee review.
 12               So to the extent, first of all, that
 13   the questions were answered as soon as we had an
 14   opportunity to know what all of the answers were
 15   going to be.  The bigger question, though, is how
 16   did the questions you asked help with the defining
 17   of and the completion of our environmental
 18   assessment process.  And in fact the questions
 19   that you and others asked of the environmental
 20   assessment team in the Floodway Authority helped
 21   define what types of issues that people were
 22   expressing concerns or interests about.  Very much
 23   the same way as the type of questions that were
 24   asked during the open houses processes, the stake
 25   holder workshop processes, in fact the meetings
01159
  1   that we had with the municipal government
  2   officials, also helped to define or identify
  3   issues of particular concern, and those were
  4   reflected in how we completed the environmental
  5   assessment.
  6               MR. STINSON:  So, you didn't know my
  7   answers until sometime after the filing, maybe
  8   from August to December, is that correct?
  9               MR. J. OSLER:  I think we had some of
 10   the responses to your questions provided shortly
 11   after you had asked them.  But the majority of
 12   your questions, I recall, some were of a fairly
 13   technical nature and they weren't -- we just
 14   weren't in a position to be able to respond to
 15   them accurately.
 16               MR. STINSON:  And I think that's
 17   something that somebody would stay to work on the
 18   24th of December and actually did, so thank you.
 19   Concerning the drainage of the Red River, what is
 20   the drainage area of the Red River basin?
 21               MR. CARSON:  I believe it is stated in
 22   our report to be 278,000 square kilometres
 23   including the Assiniboine River.
 24               MR. STINSON:  That's correct.  But the
 25   entire drainage for the Red would it be 100 -- the
01160
  1   Red River coming from the States, which I heard
  2   earlier this morning, would that be 125,000 square
  3   kilometres?
  4               MR. CARSON:  My memory fails me, I
  5   don't know.
  6               MR. STINSON:  And the Assiniboine is
  7   153,000 square kilometres.  So, in other words,
  8   the Assiniboine drainage system is larger than the
  9   Red River drainage system.  I have concerns for
 10   the City of Winnipeg, it is hard to believe, but I
 11   do have concerns for the City of Winnipeg.  Here
 12   is where my line of thoughts are going.  The
 13   Portage diversion takes 25,000 CSF.  10,000 comes
 14   into the City by the Assiniboine River.  We now
 15   have 80,000 going through the city, because that's
 16   what they are going to be legislated to carry.
 17   What will happen if we receive from the larger
 18   river drainage basin, let's say 50,000, an extra
 19   50,000?  Because it is larger, we are saying we
 20   could get 225 from the south.  What is going to
 21   happen to Winnipeg?  Will their dykes overflow?
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  That's a very
 23   interesting question, Mr. Stinson.  I'm not sure
 24   it is relevant to the issue before us.
 25               MR. STINSON:  The reason I bring it
01161
  1   forward is the mandate that was given to the
  2   Floodway Expansion was to protect the City of
  3   Winnipeg, and it said by primarily -- it said
  4   primarily, it did not say exclusively, it said
  5   primarily by the expansion of the floodway.  This
  6   is why I was asking it, sir.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
  8               MR. CARSON:  Let me try and give you
  9   at least a partial answer to that, Mr. Stinson.
 10   The Assiniboine drainage area is larger, but the
 11   runoff characteristics are quite different from
 12   the Red River Valley.  And it has historically
 13   been shown that the Assiniboine River only
 14   delivers a fraction of the runoff that the Red
 15   River does typically under flood conditions.  So
 16   the design for protection of Winnipeg reflects the
 17   fact that the major culprit in the production of
 18   floods is the Red River, not the Assiniboine.
 19               MR. STINSON:  So, the 226,000 CFS from
 20   1826 came from the south?  You can say that, or
 21   did it come from, you are not sure where?
 22               MR. CARSON:  You know, I don't think
 23   there is enough information on the Red and the
 24   Assiniboine flows from the 1826 event to say one
 25   way or the other.
01162
  1               MR. STINSON:  I will move on.  I
  2   appreciate that, Mr. Carson.
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  Doug McNeil speaking.
  4   One thing that I would like to add and that is the
  5   original designer for the Shellmouth Reservoir,
  6   the Portage Diversion and the Red River, assumed
  7   that for the design event, the event that all
  8   three of those structures were designed to, that
  9   there would be a certain slope of the river, and
 10   that's based on what the flow contribution would
 11   be from the Red and what it would be from the
 12   Assiniboine.  What we saw in 1997 was we met the
 13   capacity of the system, but it was basically met
 14   from more of a contribution from the Red, and so
 15   we had a steeper gradient of the water level
 16   through the City of Winnipeg.  And after studying
 17   that, subsequent to 1997, it was concluded by most
 18   of the experts that if we get a repeat of 1997
 19   that it would likely be the same scenario, that
 20   for all floods as big or larger than 1997 that
 21   most of the contribution would be from the Red
 22   River.
 23               MR. STINSON:  Thank you.  Dr. Morgan,
 24   on Wednesday the 15th, last week, I have to say I
 25   was floored when you made a comment of three
01163
  1   words.  You were asked I believe by Dr. Webster if
  2   the breaches in the aquifer could be sealed, and
  3   you went to great length concerning the cut off on
  4   the side, and I appreciate that.  But when you
  5   said, when you were put down to the breaches in
  6   the pilot channel, "no, not practical."  That is a
  7   very, very powerful and scary question.  Those
  8   were the three words, "no, not practical."  Now, I
  9   have looked at those things and practical -- did
 10   you mean practical or not possible?
 11               MR. REMPEL:  Can you tell us where
 12   that statement was made in terms of the
 13   transcript?
 14               MR. STINSON:  I apologize, I tried to
 15   find it and I couldn't.
 16               MR. MORGAN:  I don't recall making
 17   that.
 18               MR. STINSON:  I can't print it out, I
 19   apologize.  It was on the 15th, Dr. Webster.  15th
 20   was Tuesday, correct.  It is immaterial, but could
 21   you have used the word it is not possible?
 22               MR. MORGAN:  I guess I'm not sure what
 23   this -- where I made these statements.  I remember
 24   there was some discussion and it could have been
 25   between me and Mr. Smith and Dr. Webster, but I --
01164
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  What would you answer
  2   today if you were asked the question?
  3               MR. STINSON:  Yes, thank you.
  4               MR. SMITH:  Bert Smith here.  Could we
  5   just clarify, are you referring to the low flow
  6   channel or the overall base of the main channel?
  7               MR. STINSON:  Just the low flow
  8   channel, the seven breaches in the aquifer, I
  9   don't believe you mentioned the seven breaches,
 10   but just concerning them.
 11               MR. SMITH:  I believe the conversation
 12   that you are referring to is in fact a reference
 13   to lining the entire channel, and that's where we
 14   said specifically it was not practical.  But the
 15   low flow channel will certainly, as part of the
 16   final construction of the expansion, the intent is
 17   to try and address some of those points.  In fact,
 18   we indicated where bridges were going to be
 19   decommissioned, we would try to seal off any, you
 20   know, springs or seepage areas, and I assume that
 21   you are referring to similar things along these
 22   other areas.
 23               MR. STINSON:  Dr. Webster mentioned
 24   concerning using cement to seal the breaches.
 25   That was after those comments.  And as
01165
  1   Mr. Sargeant has indicated, can -- and I ask you
  2   the seven breaches in the aquifer, today, can they
  3   be sealed to prevent the possibility of any, and I
  4   say possibility, of any contamination or any Red
  5   River going back through those breaches?
  6               MR. SMITH:  Just to be clear, when you
  7   say seven breaches you are referring to the main
  8   locations where there is springs occurring?
  9               MR. STINSON:  The seven breaches in
 10   the aquifer that are shown on the beautiful
 11   diagram, the foldout in appendix M, I believe.
 12               MR. SMITH:  Those are locations where
 13   groundwater is coming up from the bedrock aquifer
 14   through, they are referred to as springs.  The
 15   nature of that is that you have a differential
 16   pressure in the bedrock.  If you seal those
 17   points, the pressure remains, along the low flow
 18   channel there will be points where it could come
 19   out and create a new spot to break out.  Again, we
 20   will try to seal those as part of our
 21   construction.  That will be addressed.
 22               MR. STINSON:  Okay.
 23               MR. REMPEL:  Just one second.  I think
 24   we finally found the reference, and it was
 25   Mr. Smith that spoke about practical, not Dr.
01166
  1   Morgan, but I have just handed it to Mr. Smith to
  2   look at.
  3               MR. SMITH:  What you referred to, it
  4   is on page 475, 476, and Dr. Webster had his
  5   question, is it possible to put a barrier in at
  6   the site of the finger of the sand and gravel
  7   coming across the floodway, is it possible in fact
  8   in reconstructing the floodway to remediate the
  9   problem that occurred with the lowering of the
 10   general water table east of the floodway in the
 11   course of constructing the new floodway.  That
 12   reference was to say, could we in fact -- we
 13   talked about a cutoff wall at Spring Hill, could
 14   you continue with a cutoff wall for the entire
 15   length of the floodway.  And to that I answered
 16   that was not practical.
 17               MR. STINSON:  Therefore I may have to
 18   reask the question and ask it.  The breaches in
 19   the aquifer, is it practical, is it possible, has
 20   there been a study done to seal those breaches
 21   prior to continuing on with the expansion?
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Smith answered all
 23   of those except the last about studies.
 24               MR. STINSON:  Is there a study?
 25               MR. SMITH:  Let me start by saying
01167
  1   that during the original construction there was
  2   considerable effort in an attempt to do that.  In
  3   terms of we have considered it in the course of
  4   this preliminary design, yes, if that's what you
  5   are looking for.
  6               MR. STINSON:  But none as of now,
  7   correct?
  8               MR. SMITH:  I said, yes, we have
  9   considered it.
 10               MR. STINSON:  Okay, thank you.  Again
 11   I wanted to ask these questions of Mr. Gilroy
 12   since he was the CEO of the MFEA.  On Tuesday
 13   morning, I know this is belaboured, stay with me
 14   for a second, Mr. Sargeant, please.  He mentioned
 15   in the morning in his opening remarks, I know he
 16   wasn't cautioned concerning that, he indicated
 17   that they were only going to be deepening in
 18   locations, very small locations, up to two feet.
 19   Approximately an hour and a half later Mr. McNeil
 20   indicated there was to be no deepening and he has
 21   said that several times since.  My question has to
 22   be is Mr. McNeil being left -- or Mr. Gilroy being
 23   left out of the loop?  Is this like full
 24   disclosure, or if it now is that there is going to
 25   be none because the EIS says it is going to be two
01168
  1   feet, which you are asking to get approved, has
  2   there been a supplement filing to show that there
  3   is going to be no deepening?  Or why not?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  There has been no
  5   supplementary filing.  We started the hearings
  6   last Monday, and Mr. Gilroy spoke on Tuesday.
  7   Just to explain to the Commission, Mr. Gilroy's
  8   speech was written the previous week, and as I
  9   indicated and corrected what he said in my
 10   presentation later the same morning on Tuesday, I
 11   had not had a chance to re-review his speech.  And
 12   we had decided on the weekend, amongst all of the
 13   engineers involved on this team, that we can
 14   announce that we are not going to deepen because
 15   that's the plan.
 16               MR. STINSON:  Will you be filing a
 17   supplement now?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  What we will be doing
 19   then is revising the construction drawings as part
 20   of the tender packages.  It is good news.  It has
 21   less effect, much less effect because we are not
 22   deepening.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Carry on, Mr. Stinson.
 24               MR. STINSON:  Mr. Thomson, the
 25   original floodway, and I asked this question
01169
  1   specifically to you.  The original floodway, what
  2   was it built to carry, how many CFS was it built
  3   to carry?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  I would be better to
  5   answer that question, Mr. Chairman.  The original
  6   floodway was designed to carry a secure
  7   60,000 cubic feet per second.  We have determined
  8   since the flood of the century when the floodway
  9   carry 65,000 cubic feet per second, that it could
 10   probably carry up to 95,000 cubic feet per second,
 11   but it is not secure.  Bridges would be inundated
 12   with the possibility of overtopping, all of the
 13   closures at highways and whatnot would be
 14   temporary closures, so it is not as secure.  But
 15   the original design was for 60,000 cubic feet per
 16   second.
 17               MR. STINSON:  I asked that question of
 18   Mr. Thomson, because the way I read it the
 19   original floodway was built for 100,000 CFS, but
 20   it is only through the building of the bridges
 21   that it has impeded the flow down to 60,000 CFS;
 22   am I correct, Mr. Thomson?
 23               MR. CARSON:  I can take that one.
 24   Rick Carson.  No, that's clearly not correct.  The
 25   channel was designed with security for
01170
  1   60,000 cubic feet per second with no bridges
  2   submerged, just as Mr. McNeil said.  And the
  3   100,000 CFS was the estimate of the day at the
  4   maximum water level of 778 feet, but we have since
  5   refined that and we know it is less than the
  6   100,000 CFS.
  7               MR. STINSON:  That's where I got it
  8   that the estimate was at 100,000, but now you have
  9   said it is not.  That's where I got it.
 10               MR. CARSON:  That's correct.
 11               MR. STINSON:  Thank you.  Appendix L,
 12   425 of the EIS.  It says 1996 and 2004 ice jams.
 13   I know it is different for me going into ice jams.
 14   It says in 1996 and 2004 severe ice jams occurred
 15   in the Selkirk/Breezy Point areas.  Both of these
 16   ice jams can be linked to the operation of the
 17   floodway gates by the timing criteria used above.
 18   Does or does that not mean that the operation of
 19   the gates has some, and I quote that, some, effect
 20   on ice jams?
 21               MR. CARSON:  Could you repeat where
 22   the source of that statement is?
 23               MR. STINSON:  Appendix L --
 24               MR. CARSON:  Can I look at the
 25   context?
01171
  1               MR. STINSON:  Most definitely.
  2   Appendix L, 4, sub 2, sub 5.
  3               MR. CARSON:  In the first paragraph.
  4               MR. STINSON:  I didn't keep the whole
  5   page.  It says in 1996 and 2004, severe ice jams
  6   occurred in the Selkirk/Breezy Point areas, both
  7   of these ice jams can be linked to the operation
  8   of the floodway gates by the timing criteria used
  9   above.
 10               MR. CARSON:  I see the context now.
 11   What Acres did and reported in this study was they
 12   looked at previous ice jam events to see whether
 13   they actually occurred before the gates were
 14   operated for the floodway or after.  And for these
 15   particular events, I think what they are saying
 16   there is that possibly you could link it with the
 17   floodway because the jam occurred after the gates
 18   were operated.
 19               MR. STINSON:  So it is some.  Yes,
 20   thank you very much, I appreciate that.  The next
 21   thing is concerning the infamous 11 million dollar
 22   slush fund for mitigation.  Is there any rationale
 23   why $11 million was not mentioned in the EIS, just
 24   that they said there is going to be a mitigation
 25   fund?  Why now is it just $11 million?
01172
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  The final estimates for
  2   the project that included a line item, $11 million
  3   for environmental mitigation fund, was included in
  4   the EIS supplementary filing.
  5               MR. STINSON:  So, that's in the
  6   supplement.  Thank you.
  7               MR. CARSON:  Could I add to my answer
  8   just a second ago there?  Certainly Acres stated
  9   that there could be a linkage to the operation of
 10   the gates, and that was really the objective of
 11   their study that was going on in parallel with
 12   another study of the transmission of water through
 13   the floodway and through the Red River in
 14   Winnipeg.  And we subsequently found that the
 15   floodway by no means can hasten the arrival of
 16   water in Selkirk.  So, this statement is really
 17   out of context and not correct.
 18               The explanation of the transmission of
 19   flow through the floodway and through Winnipeg is
 20   in section 8 of our main report of the preliminary
 21   engineering report.
 22               MR. STINSON:  I have difficulty,
 23   because I have asked to see the various technical
 24   things, and I have been relying on the technical
 25   people's advice, and then when I go back and I
01173
  1   read the EIS, I find interpretations by -- it is
  2   almost, I don't know whose words they are saying,
  3   but I have to rely on the technical and that's why
  4   I went to the appendix.  So is this statement
  5   incorrect or correct?
  6               MR. CARSON:  Well, I guess it is
  7   correct the way it is stated.  They are saying
  8   there could be a link.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  Can I clarify?  It is in
 10   the EIS also, Mr. Stinson, that's kind of a
 11   screening level thing, they said it is possible.
 12   What happened later is Mr. Carson got a hydraulic
 13   modeling study done, and they used the 1996
 14   conditions because it was possible to do it.  And
 15   then, as he said, when that analysis was done
 16   with, the sophisticated computer models, they said
 17   it could not hasten the flow of water.  The
 18   existing floodway or the expanded floodway would
 19   not hasten the flow of water.  So at that level
 20   they are able to take it off the table, it is not
 21   an effect of the floodway.  So the first level
 22   that Acres did was really a screening level which
 23   focused on the years that KGS had to look at.
 24   Does that help?
 25               MR. STINSON:  I will carry on.  Thank
01174
  1   you very much.  Ownership of the floodway.  When
  2   the floodway is finished in 2009, and I am sure it
  3   will and actually hope it is, but done safely,
  4   does that mean that the Floodway Authority is
  5   responsible for the floodway?
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  That question has been
  7   asked and answered many times.
  8               MR. STINSON:  If they are, would they
  9   not be concerned what is going into the floodway?
 10   Would you be concerned with what is going into the
 11   cave, to that channel, would you be concerned?
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  In what regard?
 13               MR. STINSON:  My next question is
 14   going to be, sir, how much rainfall in a 24 hour
 15   period does it take for the combined storm sewer
 16   and drain system to overflow into the city, and at
 17   Kildare drop raw sewage into the floodway?  Would
 18   it be 10 millimetres, half an inch?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  I can't say specifically
 20   because I can't recall the criteria in which that
 21   system is designed.  I can tell you that land
 22   drainage systems in general are designed for one
 23   in ten year summer rain storm events.  But the
 24   presence of fecals in the Kildare outfall as a
 25   result of what occurred last November was a
01175
  1   blockage of grease in the sanitary sewer which
  2   overflowed to the land drainage sewer.  It had
  3   nothing to do with rainfall in that instance.  In
  4   fact, the sanitary sewers are designed not to
  5   receive storm water.  That is why the two pipe
  6   system.
  7               MR. STINSON:  Where I was coming from
  8   is concerning the liability aspect as a Crown
  9   corporation, because me as the taxpayer are going
 10   to be responsible if anyone is injured within the
 11   floodway or anything from the floodway.  Has there
 12   been any insurance or anything in place to protect
 13   me as a citizen from the Floodway Authority being
 14   sued for somebody running into an embankment,
 15   running into -- they sue everybody for things all
 16   over now.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't really want to
 18   answer, but my understanding -- I don't want to
 19   necessarily answer for the Floodway Authority.
 20   But my understanding of the Provincial Crown
 21   agencies and Provincial Government is that they
 22   are self-insured.
 23               MR. STINSON:  Thank you.  I would like
 24   to move on to Dr. Webster's questions, which I was
 25   very impressed and pleased with them.  I heard
01176
  1   today, I think there is 25 wells being monitored,
  2   is that correct, right now, 25 more?
  3               MR. SMITH:  We have a total of 25
  4   private wells being monitored, but in addition
  5   there are provincial wells.
  6               MR. STINSON:  How many provincial
  7   wells?
  8               MR. SMITH:  Another 19.
  9               MR. STINSON:  So, we are looking at
 10   ballpark 50 wells?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  44.
 12               MR. SMITH:  That's for the potable
 13   water parameters.  There is an additional 175
 14   wells that were monitored for field parameters.
 15               MR. STINSON:  That's for the entire
 16   28-mile stretch of the floodway?
 17               MR. SMITH:  Yes.  And the focus was on
 18   the area roughly from highway 59 north up to
 19   Lockport.
 20               MR. STINSON:  How far back from the
 21   floodway is the farthest well that is monitored?
 22               MR. SMITH:  Our particular program
 23   focused on the wells close to the floodway.  The
 24   provincial data, separate to that, would cover the
 25   region.
01177
  1               MR. STINSON:  Would it go back as far
  2   as Anola?
  3               MR. SMITH:  We are referring to
  4   appendix M, drawing H2G and H3G.  These drawings
  5   show the location of the wells monitored.
  6               MR. STINSON:  And how far back does it
  7   go?
  8               MR. SMITH:  There are some out towards
  9   Anola and in that area.
 10               MR. STINSON:  I draw your attention
 11   now to appendix 5C, page 5, you have a figure 5C1.
 12               MR. MORGAN:  It is similar to the one
 13   that he is going to put up.
 14               MR. STINSON:  I don't have a marker,
 15   but if you show highway 44 north and highway 206,
 16   that happens to run straight down into Dugald or
 17   Oakbank here.  Now keep going up one more.  From
 18   what I see on the map, that shows the boundary of
 19   the area that the wells were checked, is that
 20   correct, in the study zone?  Or just a mile south
 21   of 44 it appears, because there is no dots for
 22   wells there.
 23               MR. SMITH:  Yes, the north limit was
 24   roughly due east from the outlet.
 25               MR. STINSON:  Okay.  Are you aware
01178
  1   that the junction of 206 and 44 going north, which
  2   is going to be approximately three miles from the
  3   floodway, four miles, that there is a subdivision
  4   of over 100 homes?  Why would they not be included
  5   in your boundary within that close range?
  6               MR. SMITH:  You are referring to
  7   some -- I understand an area a mile north of
  8   essentially the outlet structure then?
  9               MR. STINSON:  44 and 206 there is a
 10   subdivision up there, it is called Goodman's
 11   estate.  But then even closer to the floodway --
 12               MR. SMITH:  Let's be clear first.  So
 13   you are a mile north of 44, it is a mile north of
 14   the outlet structure, and the ground water flow
 15   pattern is basically east to west from the river.
 16               MR. STINSON:  I just ask why did they
 17   stop it there?
 18               MR. SMITH:  That would have been the
 19   main reason, because it is beyond the limits of
 20   the project.
 21               MR. STINSON:  On the east side of
 22   Birds Hill Park we have an awful lot of homes
 23   included in there, and if it flows away from
 24   there, why were they included?
 25               MR. SMITH:  East of Birds Hill Park
01179
  1   your carbonated bedrock aquifer is still flowing
  2   eastwards to the river -- sorry, west towards the
  3   river.
  4               MR. STINSON:  Okay.  And north, I
  5   don't know if you are aware of it, but Wellinks
  6   Antiques and Bistro, which is on 44 highway
  7   approximately half a mile from the floodway, there
  8   is a subdivision right there, it is approximately
  9   50 homes.  It as well is not included on your well
 10   locations.
 11               MR. SMITH:  The focus here was to
 12   monitor the wells in closer proximity to the
 13   floodway.  That's where our priorities have been,
 14   and if we have indicators there, ultimately we
 15   would move outwards further into the regional
 16   aquifer.  Again, if you understand the flow system
 17   is going from east to west towards the floodway,
 18   and towards the Red River, the likelihood of
 19   impacts east of the floodway are very low in terms
 20   of water quality.
 21               MR. STINSON:  But most of the wells
 22   shown on here are east of the floodway?
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Where are you going
 24   with this, Mr. Stinson?
 25               MR. STINSON:  I wanted to look at the
01180
  1   restriction of the area that they looked at for
  2   the monitoring.  Like Dr. Webster was saying, I
  3   just think it would be imprudent, or very prudent
  4   to expand your, for your own protection and my
  5   protection indirectly, of the monitoring of the
  6   wells outside.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Any comment?
  8               MR. SMITH:  Let me just say that the
  9   intent of the program for monitoring will be to
 10   submit a plan to the regulatory authorities for
 11   review, and also get input from the public, and
 12   the RM such as yourself.  So if we see that it
 13   warrants monitoring in these areas, certainly we
 14   would add that to the program.
 15               MR. STINSON:  Since we are in that
 16   area, highway 44, the bridge at highway 44; when I
 17   looked at the time schedule in the EIS it shows
 18   from June 2007 to February 2009, and there has
 19   been some -- I have heard almost in my head, and
 20   I'm not saying it is correct, I have heard two
 21   different times it is going to be closed, that we
 22   are going to be able to use highway 44.  I would
 23   like you to be more specific, and the reason why I
 24   have concerns is that during the summer, if the
 25   summer operation is in use, I'm really on an
01181
  1   island with Dunning Road being shut down and with
  2   44 highway shut down.  So what is the time
  3   schedule specific for 44?
  4               MR. THOMSON:  That schedule is --
  5   won't be finalized until we are a little further
  6   into the design process to know when we are going
  7   to start construction, but we will be ensuring
  8   that there is a usable detour at 44.
  9               MR. STINSON:  Thank you.  When I read
 10   the EIS I came up with three different locations
 11   on the amount of times the floodway has been used,
 12   including spring and summertime.  I heard Mr.
 13   McNeil today, and I look forward to his answer and
 14   ask the question, how many times the floodway has
 15   been used all over.  Now, I want to talk about the
 16   decommissioning of bridges, in specific the CPR
 17   bridge, the Keewatin bridge, when it is -- is it
 18   being replaced?
 19               MR. THOMSON:  Yes.
 20               MR. STINSON:  So the pillars of it,
 21   are they going to be removed?
 22               MR. THOMSON:  Let me look.  No, all of
 23   the piers, in fact, will be strengthened and
 24   raised.
 25               MR. STINSON:  So, they won't be pulled
01182
  1   out?
  2               MR. THOMSON:  That's correct.
  3               MR. STINSON:  The reason I say that
  4   is, when they were put in it was a flow of in
  5   excess of 3,000 US gallons per minute that came
  6   out, and when it was finished they were able to
  7   grout it down to 20 US gallons per minute, is
  8   where my concern was, is that not correct, Mr.
  9   Carson --
 10               MR. CARSON:  No, I'm just --
 11               MR. STINSON:  I just have concerns for
 12   it because once it is pulled out, we are going to
 13   have major dewatering and other bridges.
 14               The inlet structure, it was built in
 15   the 1960s using technology of 1960s, and I'm sure
 16   it was built on state of the art at that time.  We
 17   are now in 2005.  Was there any consideration
 18   looked at of trying to see if there is a design in
 19   2005 or 2004, a design for an inlet structure that
 20   will accommodate the Province of Manitoba without
 21   artificial flooding?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  The inlet control
 23   structure is definitely a unique structure in the
 24   way it operates.  But there is nothing today that
 25   would suggest that we would change the way that
01183
  1   structure operates.  It is sound, it is 40
  2   something years old and it still works in
  3   accordance with its original design and will
  4   continue to operate.  And if we see an extreme
  5   flood, it has the capacity to be able to go to
  6   elevation 778.  Now, in terms of artificial
  7   flooding, to try to avoid that, the only thing
  8   that you can do is expand the channel in such a
  9   way to accommodate that extra water.  And that
 10   would almost double the cost of this project.
 11               MR. STINSON:  So, I'm correct in
 12   assuming that no new technology was looked at for
 13   the inlet structure?
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  It wasn't necessary.
 15               MR. STINSON:  Okay.  Thank you.  I
 16   want to talk about the ponding effect.  I
 17   travelled over 44 Highway at the floodway this
 18   summer and I was amazed at the amount of water,
 19   and I couldn't understand why we had the water,
 20   and I appreciate you explaining to me why we had
 21   ponding on the north end of the floodway.  Am I
 22   correct that Ducks Unlimited had signed some
 23   little deal with the floodway people that the
 24   culverts would be closed and it would cause
 25   ponding back as far as Dunning Road, is that
01184
  1   correct?
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  There used to be an
  3   agreement in place for that but that agreement has
  4   since been rescinded, and they are not interested
  5   in that operation any longer.
  6               MR. STINSON:  With that ponding, was
  7   there any consideration in the entire floodway
  8   concerning West Nile, because we have horses and
  9   it is a major concern for me, because we have
 10   stagnant water in the floodway, is there any
 11   consideration for the protection of us for West
 12   Nile?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  The ponding is not going
 14   to continue and it didn't continue this year.
 15               MR. STINSON:  Okay.  Can you say with
 16   the studies that are done to date that all
 17   endangered species, aquatic and vegetation, are
 18   going to be protected, or are there more studies
 19   still being done for that?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  I guess partly to answer
 21   your question, the Federal Department of Fisheries
 22   and Oceans is interested in in-water species,
 23   mussels, fish and whatnot.  They recognize that
 24   the channel itself, first of all, it is human made
 25   and second of all it is poor fish habitat.  When I
01185
  1   say fish I mean invertebrates and everything else
  2   that may exist within the low flow channel.
  3               So the only other thing that I wanted
  4   to add is that regrading the low flow channel to
  5   ensure that water continues to flow and doesn't
  6   pond in the low flow channel, the elimination of
  7   that agreement with Ducks Unlimited to make sure
  8   that water doesn't pond and fish don't stay is all
  9   improvements that are being proposed and will be
 10   made in order to accommodate DFO's concern over
 11   fish over-wintering in the floodway channel.  So
 12   those are just some of the aspects of the design
 13   of the floodway expansion, but I think Dave wants
 14   to talk to some other issues.
 15               MR. MORGAN:  Just on the aquatic that
 16   was assessed, as described in the guidelines on
 17   the aquatic species at risk, and no federal or
 18   provincial species listed as endangered or
 19   threatened are anticipated to occur in the area
 20   affected by the project.  And I will look for the
 21   vegetation.  They are good questions, they haven't
 22   been asked for the whole hearings talking about
 23   the environment.
 24               MR. STINSON:  From what I read, I was
 25   under the impression there are still studies going
01186
  1   on.  Is that possible?
  2               MR. REMPEL:  I think you are referring
  3   to when the EIS was done, we had not yet been able
  4   to do a late summer, fall vegetation survey.  That
  5   survey was done and then reported on in the
  6   supplementary filing.
  7               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, there was a survey
  8   done in the supplemental filing, I think section
  9   4.
 10               MR. STINSON:  Okay, thank you.
 11               Just on the aquifer that's leaching
 12   out approximately, I believe it is 1,700 -- last
 13   question -- 1,760 Imperial gallons that is coming
 14   out, I believe that's an estimate, that is what
 15   was said.
 16               I have some friends who are major
 17   users of water in western Manitoba for potato
 18   farming, and for them to use that much water or
 19   draw that much water, they must have a licence to
 20   put a well in for it.  And I believe one of you
 21   gentleman said last Thursday, Wednesday or
 22   Thursday, I apologize, I don't have it exact --
 23   maybe it was Mr. Bowering that said you are not
 24   required to have a licence.  Is that correct?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  I think that was answered
01187
  1   in an IR or the TAC thing, so if we get a minute
  2   we will find it.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think it was answered
  4   last week, and the question was -- it wasn't --
  5   you need a licence for use of the water, and this
  6   was spillage.
  7               MR. STINSON:  So if I had the money
  8   and I dug a trench that drew out that much aquifer
  9   water at one time, would I have to have a licence?
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm not sure that
 11   that's a relevant question to the Floodway
 12   Authority.
 13               MR. STINSON:  My question is they are
 14   getting license for the floodway, we are losing
 15   enough water, pristine water to service 30,000
 16   people, and there is no license even being looked
 17   at?  But Mr. Peterson --
 18               MR. PETERSON:  Peterson speaking.  I
 19   answered that question, and we were advised by
 20   Water Stewardship, who issues water rights
 21   licences, that a water rights licence was not
 22   required.  We don't issue the licences, we just
 23   contact people that do.
 24               MR. STINSON:  I understand you don't
 25   issue licences, I appreciate that.  I read
01188
  1   somewhere, and I cannot find it, concerning the
  2   St. Andrews dam, the locks at St. Andrews.  There
  3   is some indication that they have to be looked at,
  4   and I believe it related to the full flow of the
  5   floodway backing up into the city as far as the
  6   south Perimeter to zero out.  And there was
  7   supposed to be some look at the St. Andrews locker
  8   dam, but yet I could not find it in the EIS.  Was
  9   there a study done on it?
 10               MR. REMPEL:  We did not see that
 11   expansion of the floodway would affect the
 12   operation of the St. Andrews lock and dam.  I
 13   think there was something in perhaps in the
 14   guidelines that asked us to consider the St.
 15   Andrews lock and dam, and we did consider it.  But
 16   the expansion does not change its operation.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  So to your knowledge
 18   then, there will be no changes to the St. Andrews
 19   lock and dam necessitated by the expansion?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct, yes.
 21               MR. STINSON:  I would like to thank
 22   you, Mr. Sargeant, for the indulgence on my
 23   getting carried away sometimes, and Commission,
 24   and members of the Floodway Authority.  I know it
 25   is not an easy task, I appreciate it, I will see
01189
  1   you in the next two weeks.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Stinson.
  3   Next, sir, please introduce yourself for the
  4   record and proceed to ask your questions.
  5               MR. ARKLEY:  My name is Hugh Arkley
  6   and I live in the RM of Springfield, I have no
  7   preamble except to say this is my first
  8   participation in these proceedings, and I hope I
  9   don't put my feet too far down my throat.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  We are pretty easy
 11   going.
 12               MR. ARKLEY:  It is hard to get up to
 13   speed that quickly, so I have a group of three,
 14   maybe four questions that I don't think will take
 15   very long.  And I apologize if they have been
 16   dealt with before.
 17               The first question is, when was the
 18   last 700 year flood?  Is there any geological or
 19   archeological evidence of a 700 year flood within
 20   the last 15,000 years, or is there any Aboriginal
 21   oral history of a 700 year flood?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  Doug McNeil speaking
 23   first and then I am going to turn it over to Mr.
 24   Carson.  The largest flood on record is 1826.  It
 25   is deemed to be a one in 290 year return event.
01190
  1   It is based on the records from the late 1800s,
  2   particularly Sir Sanford Fleming who was scouting
  3   for a CPR railway crossing of the Red River.
  4   However, in recent years following the 1997 flood,
  5   there was research specifically by Manitoba Mines,
  6   as well as Natural Resources Canada, and they
  7   discovered through tree ring analyses of oaks
  8   buried in the banks of the Red River that 1826 was
  9   actually the largest flood since the late 1600s.
 10               Now I'm going to ask Rick Carson to
 11   just talk briefly of a statistical analysis that
 12   Alf Warkentin of Manitoba Water Stewardship
 13   undertook to look at larger floods in the last
 14   thousand years or so.
 15               MR. CARSON:  Yes.  Mr. Warkentin
 16   developed a statistical model, I will call it, of
 17   the Red River Valley.  And he constructed this
 18   model using the processes that really drive the
 19   occurrence of floods in the spring, and they are
 20   basically four major ones.  Firstly, there is the
 21   occurrence of a wet fall, wet autumn before the
 22   snow fall comes.  And if the ground is very
 23   saturated and has a very high groundwater level,
 24   that will contribute to the flood in the next
 25   spring.  Obviously another contributor would be
01191
  1   snow fall during the winter, and of course there
  2   are lots of records of snow depths over the Red
  3   River Valley and he analyzed that.  And thirdly
  4   there was the rate of runoff in the spring that is
  5   driven by how quickly it warms up and solar
  6   radiation on the snow and so on.  The then fourth
  7   contributor would be rainfall during the snow melt
  8   event.  So we had four parameters there, and they
  9   are all essentially independent.  The wet fall
 10   really has nothing to do whether there is going to
 11   be rainfall in the spring or a fast snow melt in
 12   the spring.  So he developed this model and let it
 13   run over a period of, a simulated period of I
 14   believe it was 10,000 years, so that there could
 15   be combinations of all of these parameters
 16   happening at different times, and what he
 17   determined was that, from that statistical
 18   analysis, that a one in 1000 year flood would be
 19   something like 300,000 cubic feet per second, as
 20   compared to the 1826 flood which was 226,000 cubic
 21   feet per second.
 22               All of this is an estimation with the
 23   best efforts of engineering techniques that we
 24   have, but the best scientific knowledge shows that
 25   it is just a matter probably of all of these
01192
  1   events lining up, and the moon and the stars
  2   lining up, if you want to think of it in those
  3   terms, and causing a super flood.
  4               MR. ARKLEY:  But we don't know if it
  5   ever happened, when we talk about the one in 700
  6   year flood, the assumption that we make to get
  7   initiated is it has happened at least once in the
  8   last 700 years, when in fact all we really know is
  9   there was a really bad flood 300 years ago.
 10               MR. CARSON:  Well, there was 175 years
 11   ago --
 12               MR. ARKLEY:  I was referring to the
 13   tree ring analysis, it was the late 1600s, say
 14   1700.
 15               MR. CARSON:  Yes, 1700, that's right.
 16   So that's the evidence that exists.  And the best
 17   scientific projections are that the one in 700
 18   year flood could occur next year.  I'm not saying
 19   this spring, because we have lost some of the
 20   contributors, but there is no reason why it
 21   couldn't occur a year from now.
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  Doug McNeil speaking.
 23   What I would like to add to that is what is
 24   pertinent to selecting the 700 year design for
 25   this project is that it provides the maximum
01193
  1   benefits, when you consider the avoided costs
  2   associated with what we call a 700 year flood
  3   versus the cost of building this project.
  4               And the hydrology of the day 100 years
  5   from now may indicate that the 700 year flood is
  6   larger or smaller in the return frequency.  And
  7   that's why we kind of hate to use that.  What we
  8   are designing the floodway for is to handle
  9   140,000 cubic feet per second versus 60,000 cubic
 10   feet per second, and that 140,000 cubic feet per
 11   second provides the maximum benefits.  And today,
 12   based on the statistics of the hydrology, it
 13   equates to a 700 year flood.
 14               MR. ARKLEY:  Thank you.  My second
 15   question deals with the $11 million mitigation
 16   fund.  By the end of the day today, the Province
 17   of Manitoba will have spent $11 million out of its
 18   annual budget.  My question is its administration,
 19   will it be set aside at the issuance the licence,
 20   and will it be held inviolate for any other
 21   purposes, and will it earn income if it is unused
 22   such that the income is reinvested back in the
 23   fund so the fund can grow, if that's possible?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  The $11 million fund is
 25   part of the $665 million project estimate.  And
01194
  1   the money isn't just sitting there, the
  2   appropriations are made each year with the
  3   Provincial Government, based on a cash flow
  4   protection that we make as to how fast we are
  5   going to spend money.  We spend it first on the
  6   Provincial side, and then we go to the Federal
  7   Government and make a claim for their 50 percent.
  8   So it is part of the budget estimate, and the
  9   budget estimate has been approved by both the
 10   Province and the Federal government.  And we will
 11   proceed on that basis.
 12               Now, is it set up as a separate
 13   account, if we expend monies out of that fund?
 14   Yes, it will be a separate account and it will be
 15   replenished through appropriations.  And that's
 16   why it is easy for me to say, if at the end of the
 17   day -- and by the way, I don't think that we are
 18   going to spend it all -- but if at the end of the
 19   day we need more money for environmental
 20   mitigation, then we will go to government to make
 21   an appropriation for that specific purpose,
 22   hopefully still within the overall project budget
 23   of $665 million.
 24               MR. ARKLEY:  So upon the issuance of
 25   the licence, there isn't going to be a cheque cut
01195
  1   for $11 million that goes into an account that
  2   says this is for mitigation?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  No.  What we have done, I
  4   think what we have said is for cash flow
  5   projections we have projected about 2 million,
  6   two, two and a half million dollars a year that
  7   would be expended on that specific item.  And so
  8   government will make an appropriation for that
  9   amount each year.  And it could be that it builds
 10   itself up to the point where we don't use it all,
 11   and then there will be some determination at the
 12   end of the day how that money would be used.  But
 13   if government doesn't need to spend it, they are
 14   not going to spend it.
 15               MR. ARKLEY:  I understand that.  Are
 16   you saying that over the course of four years it
 17   is anticipated that the $11 million will be spent?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  No, what I'm saying is it
 19   is there for unpredicted events, it is there as a
 20   safe guard.  We have identified specifically to
 21   the Government that we had need a budget for
 22   environmental mitigation, and they have accepted
 23   that.
 24               MR. ARKLEY:  The numbers, though, is
 25   frozen at $11 million?
01196
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  No, it is not, that's
  2   just an estimate that we made and built into the
  3   overall budget for this project.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Can I follow on
  5   Mr. Arkley's question on that?  So, Mr. McNeil,
  6   you are saying that if, just for example, the 11
  7   million is spent in the first six years, it is not
  8   over and done with, there will be some ongoing
  9   program of compensation?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes.  We anticipate that
 11   beyond the construction of this project, if
 12   necessary, we will identify funds for continuous
 13   monitoring and mitigation, if necessary.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  So the $11 million is
 15   not finite?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  Say that again,
 17   Mr. Chairman?
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  The $11 million is not
 19   finite.
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  Not finite?
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  It is not a fixed
 22   amount that once it is gone, it is gone?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Arkley.
 25               MR. ARKLEY:  My third question, this
01197
  1   may not be the correct forum to ask this in, so
  2   you can rule me out of order at your pleasure.  In
  3   the future, will the Manitoba Floodway Authority
  4   include seats for citizen representatives from the
  5   rural municipalities?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Are you asking about some
  7   form of public consultation?
  8               MR. ARKLEY:  No, the Floodway
  9   Authority is a Crown corporation, so presumably,
 10   barring some kind of cataclysm, it will last in
 11   perpetuity, and the membership on the board will
 12   have to change as time goes on.  Will some seats
 13   be reserved for citizens of the municipalities?
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm not sure about that.
 15   Currently the board of directors is made up of
 16   senior administrative government officials.
 17               MR. ARKLEY:  Yes.  Do you think there
 18   should be any chance for citizens to sit on the
 19   board?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  I couldn't answer that,
 21   but I can take that back to my CEO.
 22               MR. ARKLEY:  My final question is
 23   based on my understanding that Manitoba Water
 24   Stewardship, which is a relatively new branch of
 25   government, will operate the floodway, not the
01198
  1   Manitoba Floodway Authority.  And I'm wondering if
  2   it is the intention of the Clean Environment
  3   Commission to conclude its deliberations prior to
  4   the proclamation of the Water Protection Act,
  5   which has gone through two hearings now in the
  6   legislature, will be subjected to a third hearing
  7   and then proclamation.  The Water Protection Act
  8   will be the document that most informs the
  9   behaviour of Manitoba Water Stewardship.  It seems
 10   to be a fairly critical piece of legislation that
 11   is imminent.  Therefore, will these proceedings
 12   anticipate its proclamation, or will conclusions
 13   be arrived before the Water Protection Act is
 14   proclaimed?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chairman, two things;
 16   one, Water Stewardship is not a new department, it
 17   is an old department with a new name.  There were
 18   some administrative changes from Environment and
 19   from Conservation that made up Water Stewardship.
 20   So the same people that operated the floodway
 21   before, continue to operate it, I can tell you
 22   that.  Alf Warkentin is the flood forecaster and
 23   Rick Bowering is responsible for the operation of
 24   that, and they are both within Water Stewardship.
 25               With respect to the operation of the
01199
  1   floodway, it is governed under the Water Resources
  2   Administration Act, which gives the Minister of
  3   Water Stewardship the power to operate the flood
  4   control facilities that protect Winnipeg,
  5   including the floodway.
  6               MR. ARKLEY:  That's fine.  But the
  7   question was, will these proceedings wind up
  8   before the Water Protection Act is proclaimed, and
  9   will that be wise, if that's the case?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  I was just conferring
 11   with Doug Peterson.  We haven't looked at the
 12   Water Protection Act in detail.  We don't know
 13   when it might be proclaimed.  It is significant
 14   legislation.  But, again, nothing that we are
 15   doing under this project -- or what I should add
 16   is that everything that we are doing under this
 17   project with respect to the expansion falls under
 18   existing legislation, like the Environment Act,
 19   CEAA on the federal side, and the operation falls
 20   under the Water Resources Administration Act.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  I would add, Mr.
 22   McNeil, for Mr. Arkley's benefit that the Water
 23   Protection Act is not included in our mandate.  So
 24   any consideration of the effects of the Water
 25   Protection Act is beyond our mandate.
01200
  1               MR. ARKLEY:  It can't be included in
  2   your mandate because it doesn't exist, however it
  3   will exist in a matter of months, and it includes
  4   in its provisions, for example, the need for
  5   "watershed management plans."  It also mandates
  6   the creation of a water quality management zone.
  7   It is a fairly revolutionary piece of legislation
  8   that's pending.  And while I agree that the 700
  9   year flood might happen two years from now, it
 10   might also not happen until 700 years from now.
 11   And to wait a matter of weeks, possibly months to
 12   be guided by the Water Protection Act -- it
 13   doesn't seem to be a prudent course of action.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Arkley.
 15               MR. ARKLEY:  That's all I have for
 16   you.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Did
 18   you wish to ask some questions?
 19               MS. FUGA:  Yes.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think you should come
 21   up now.
 22               MS. FUGA:  Thank you for this
 23   opportunity.  My name is Leslie Ann Fuga, and I
 24   live here in the RM of Springfield.  And I looked
 25   at the most recent map that you put up where you
01201
  1   were monitoring wells, with most interest, because
  2   I live in that northern corner bounded by highways
  3   59, 44 and 206.  And I noticed that you would be
  4   monitoring a good number of wells in that area, is
  5   that correct, from what I saw on that map?
  6               So the red blotches are the areas
  7   where you are monitoring wells, is that true or
  8   not?  I can't really tell.
  9               MR. SMITH:  All of the dots in there
 10   represent individual wells.  There is about 8,000
 11   domestic wells throughout the study area, and
 12   that's what that particular map was showing.  And
 13   there is a red line, I don't know if you can --
 14   this red line here represents the study area.  It
 15   comes right down.
 16               MS. FUGA:  Sorry, could you show me
 17   that line again?
 18               MR. SMITH:  It comes around down
 19   there.  So that's the total study area.  But each
 20   of these dots, we are not doing monitoring at
 21   every well, those are all --
 22               MS. FUGA:  I see, okay.  So there are
 23   25 private wells that you are monitoring within
 24   that area bounded by the red line?
 25               MR. SMITH:  The 25 private wells were
01202
  1   primarily right along the floodway, in close
  2   proximity to the floodway on both the east and
  3   west side.
  4               MS. FUGA:  All the way from the south
  5   to the north?
  6               MR. SMITH:  Primarily from the
  7   TransCanada Highway north, that's where the main
  8   concerns are, where the till -- or rather where
  9   the clay is thick to the south of that, there is
 10   really no concern for direct interconnection
 11   potential.
 12               MS. FUGA:  You are talking about there
 13   in terms of impact on water quality?
 14               MR. SMITH:  That is correct, yes.
 15               MS. FUGA:  What about water supply?
 16               MR. SMITH:  Well, water supply, if you
 17   are out in this area, as I have indicated earlier,
 18   the floodway -- see, in this area there is a
 19   natural recharge occurring and it is flowing
 20   towards the west, towards the floodway, towards
 21   the river.  But anybody developing wells out here,
 22   the total volume of water that's flowing through
 23   here hasn't changed, the floodway does not affect
 24   that recharge volume and the water that's flowing
 25   there.  What is affecting it is the number of
01203
  1   wells that are being installed, and as it becomes
  2   denser and denser, then the available water
  3   decreases.
  4               MS. FUGA:  So, are you saying that
  5   water that is taken from any of those aquifers
  6   downstream, like to the west, does not affect the
  7   supply that remains on the eastern side?  Like if
  8   water is coming out of the aquifer more quickly
  9   now, is it not depleting the aquifer?
 10               MR. SMITH:  The water is coming from
 11   the east moving west, so if somebody is pulling
 12   water from here and you are further to the east,
 13   you can intercept that water before it gets to
 14   them.  So it is not affecting --
 15               MS. FUGA:  I can intercept it but
 16   let's say I don't, what I'm talking about is the
 17   longevity of my well.
 18               MR. SMITH:  Well, I guess one comment
 19   that I can make is the province is going to do a
 20   regional groundwater model study and that's the
 21   intent, to look at all users within the region,
 22   and ultimately I would assume to put some controls
 23   on that system so that there is not an overdemand
 24   in a certain area that would influence, for
 25   example, your well.
01204
  1               MS. FUGA:  So my question is, if for
  2   example another spring emerges as a result of
  3   floodway expansion, and so now there is more flow
  4   coming out of that aquifer, does that not, or is
  5   it not possible that that will impact the
  6   longevity of my well?
  7               MR. SMITH:  The springs at the
  8   floodway reduce the amount of flow that passes
  9   further west, but it has no effect on the areas to
 10   the east.  The water that's coming from the east
 11   is moving from further east towards the west.  So
 12   a spring at the floodway doesn't reduce the amount
 13   of water available to you somewhere in the middle
 14   of Springfield.
 15               MS. FUGA:  If the water -- for
 16   example, let's take that existing breach that
 17   people have been talking about at 1700 GPM.  So
 18   the water is exiting an aquifer at 1700 GPM,
 19   right.  How quickly is it entering the aquifer?
 20               MR. SMITH:  The water that we are
 21   measuring, it is along the total length of the
 22   floodway, that 1700, it is not at one location.
 23   Again, if it didn't exit there it would carry on
 24   flowing west and exit into the Red River.  That's
 25   the natural system that occurs now.  It is just a
01205
  1   flow system that starts in the east and it
  2   discharges into the Red River ultimately.  So any
  3   number of users along the way intercept it, and
  4   whatever they intercept, then the remainder
  5   carries on.
  6               MS. FUGA:  In my mind, and this will
  7   help if you could just clarify this for me then I
  8   guess I will understand your answer better.  I
  9   imagine, you know, a tub with water coming in at a
 10   certain rate and water exiting at a certain rate.
 11   Is that not the way I should be thinking of an
 12   aquifer?
 13               MR. SMITH:  That's a reasonable
 14   analogy.  So the recharge, the amount coming in is
 15   not changing, it is always coming in.
 16               MS. FUGA:  Right.  But if the water
 17   starts going out more rapidly because now it is
 18   flowing out through a breach, so it is like
 19   somebody is using 1700 GPM, right, which otherwise
 20   wouldn't be used if those breaches didn't exist?
 21               MR. SMITH:  Well, the flow, it is
 22   passing through, in this case it is in the
 23   bedrock, through the area -- again, at your
 24   location, that amount of flow, there is a volume
 25   of water passing through every year.
01206
  1               MS. FUGA:  I'm not talking about the
  2   flow as it exists, I'm talking about the volume of
  3   the water in the tub at any one time, the volume
  4   of water in the aquifer at any one time.
  5               MR. SMITH:  Well, that doesn't change.
  6   You see, it is a bit difficult to understand, but
  7   it is a confined aquifer so it is under pressure,
  8   so there is a -- let's say you put a million
  9   gallons of water recharge or flow into the tub at
 10   the upstream end, and that million gallons passes
 11   past your place and eventually discharges out into
 12   the river.  Now, we add in a bunch of wells and
 13   maybe they are extracting 250,000 gallons, and
 14   then there is another portion that goes to the
 15   floodway, and whatever is left over goes out into
 16   the river.  So there is still that same amount
 17   passing through the system.  Every year it is
 18   renewed and that same volume is passing through.
 19               MS. FUGA:  Are you saying that because
 20   the --
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we keep other
 22   side conversations down, please?
 23               MS. FUGA:  Are you saying that because
 24   that 1700 GPM is occurring to the west of me that
 25   it is not the same as an additional draw down of
01207
  1   1700 GPM that might be occurring to the east of
  2   me, in terms of the effect that it will have on my
  3   water supply?
  4               MR. SMITH:  That's correct.
  5               MS. FUGA:  Okay.  The compensation
  6   that you are offering, what I heard here earlier
  7   today and what I saw at the open house in Dugald
  8   is to restore to pre-flood conditions.  Is the
  9   compensation available only in the event that a
 10   flood has occurred and does not cover construction
 11   due to the expansion, effects of construction due
 12   to the expansion?
 13               MR. SMITH:  Sorry, compensation with
 14   respect to?
 15               MS. FUGA:  Compensation should
 16   somebody's water supply or water quality be
 17   affected, or should they suggest that that is the
 18   case?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  Doug McNeil speaking.  If
 20   it is necessary to mitigate any impacts to
 21   groundwater, whether it is an individual well or
 22   otherwise, that comes out of -- the budget for
 23   that is the environmental mitigation fund, the
 24   $11 million that's part of the $665 million total
 25   estimate for the project.
01208
  1               MS. FUGA:  And damage to water quality
  2   or water supply is covered by that fund?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  Correct.
  4               MS. FUGA:  Okay.  At this time, like
  5   would you be able to tell any of the wells that
  6   potentially might be affected exactly which
  7   aquifer or which vein of which aquifer they were
  8   on?  And what I'm asking for here is, for example,
  9   can you tell whether or not my well is drawing
 10   from the same aquifer as my neighbour's?
 11               MR. SMITH:  The carbonate bedrock
 12   aquifer is, the upper zone is where the majority
 13   of wells are through your area, so I suspect that
 14   you are on the same aquifer, unless your neighbour
 15   happens to be in a shallower system with sand
 16   deposits.  I don't know exactly where you are
 17   located.
 18               MS. FUGA:  But you are saying that
 19   generally speaking, like an aquifer is very large
 20   and the veins are all connected, and if I live in
 21   a certain area I'm drawing on the same aquifer as
 22   my neighbour, or do we know this for sure?
 23               MR. SMITH:  That's correct, what we
 24   are dealing with here is two primary major
 25   aquifers, the bedrock, referred to as carbonate
01209
  1   aquifer which extends from the till area out
  2   around St. Annes, or past Anola, east of Anola.
  3   And there is the second called the Birds Hill sand
  4   and gravel aquifer, which is a more local aquifer
  5   closer to the north of, Highway 59 north there.
  6               MS. FUGA:  So if I were in bedrock,
  7   which is where I am, I am in bedrock on the north
  8   side of the Highway 59, which aquifer am I in?
  9               MR. SMITH:  If you are in the bedrock
 10   you are in the carbonate aquifer presumably.
 11               MS. FUGA:  So the Birds Hill aquifer
 12   you are talking about only sand and gravel, it
 13   doesn't recharge into the bedrock aquifer in that
 14   area at all?
 15               MR. SMITH:  It does actually recharge
 16   into the bedrock, yes, locally there.  The prime
 17   recharge from that bedrock aquifer is from the
 18   east, and there is a local recharge occurring
 19   below Birds Hill Park.
 20               MS. FUGA:  So these breaches that
 21   cumulatively are spewing approximately 1700 GPM of
 22   potable water out, right, did I hear earlier that
 23   the impact of that and mitigating that is not a
 24   part of the mandate of the Floodway Authority?
 25               MR. MORGAN:  Dave Morgan.  What we
01210
  1   said is in the EIS what we are assessing is the
  2   expansion project.  And so when we do that
  3   assessment, we compare as to, is it going to be
  4   any different, is there going to be any more than
  5   the 1700 breaches that are currently there?  So
  6   what we have assessed is that the expansion of the
  7   floodway project and all of the mitigation that
  8   goes with it should not increase that flow of
  9   groundwater into it.  So that was the assessment
 10   that we did.
 11               We didn't look at remediation measures
 12   as part of the project specifically, although
 13   there is some work being done on the low flow
 14   channel to infill it and stop erosion, which could
 15   be a benefit in the future, but there wasn't a
 16   remediation to try and slow that 1700 or whatever.
 17               MS. FUGA:  Okay.  Yet if I understand
 18   correctly, wherever there is a breach, that is
 19   also a potential site for groundwater
 20   contamination?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, potentially, and I'm
 22   not sure if you were here this morning, but we
 23   went through, there was an analysis done at a lot
 24   of the sensitive sites to determine -- firstly, we
 25   have looked at, with calibrated models we looked
01211
  1   at what is the -- would contamination of the
  2   aquifer and nearby wells be expected?  And we said
  3   no, the expansion should not, it is not expected
  4   to do that.  What we also did was sensitivity
  5   analysis which looked at worst case conditions,
  6   and that helps determine where you should put
  7   monitoring in to look for unanticipated, very
  8   unlikely unanticipated effects, that's where the
  9   mitigation fund comes in.  If there is
 10   unanticipated effects, the mitigation fund will
 11   look at ways of mitigating with new wells or
 12   whatever, or compensation.
 13               MS. FUGA:  Do you expect that by
 14   widening the floodway we will create more places
 15   where water will, or potable water will begin to
 16   flow in that same way as they exist now in the
 17   existing floodway?
 18               MR. MORGAN:  We don't expect that.
 19   There was one location near the Birds Hill aquifer
 20   where there was some potential, and the Floodway
 21   Authority made a commitment that if there is any
 22   leakage on the Birds Hill aquifer, that will be
 23   remediated by putting in a clay cutoff wall to
 24   prevent that additional leakage.  So it is not
 25   expected after mitigation.
01212
  1               MS. FUGA:  Digging the floodway to the
  2   current level in that area created these leakages,
  3   is that true -- like construction of the floodway?
  4               MR. MORGAN:  Construction of the
  5   original floodway did, yes, draw down, and there
  6   is, I guess you could say it created the leakage.
  7               MS. FUGA:  But you are saying that
  8   doing more excavation to that same depth is not
  9   going to create any more?
 10               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, generally so.  The
 11   only place, because it is not going any -- it is
 12   not going any deeper into the aquifer.
 13               MS. FUGA:  So you are saying that
 14   everything, like that the water has already
 15   drained down to the level of the aquifer?
 16               MR. MORGAN:  In most areas except for
 17   the area around Birds Hill.
 18               MS. FUGA:  That one area?
 19               MR. MORGAN:  In the sand and gravel
 20   aquifer it is higher, so that's the area where
 21   particular attention is being paid to mitigate
 22   against any further leakage there.
 23               MS. FUGA:  But an expanded floodway
 24   will create more water flow, more pressure, and
 25   thereby more risk of contamination of --
01213
  1               MR. MORGAN:  Actually, it won't, it is
  2   the opposite.  An expanded floodway, if you have a
  3   wider floodway the water doesn't have to be as
  4   deep to pass the same amount of water through
  5   there.  And so by expanding the floodway you
  6   actually bring down the level.  For say a 1997
  7   flood, it would be about a metre lower in the
  8   region of Birds Hill, therefore there would be
  9   less pressure, downward pressure.
 10               MS. FUGA:  How about when that
 11   water -- or perhaps I misunderstand, but is it not
 12   possible that that water might one day stop
 13   flowing, that those wells, those springs may run
 14   dry, as sometimes wells and springs do?
 15               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, I guess it is
 16   possible.
 17               MS. FUGA:  That's why I'm having a
 18   hard time understanding that we are all on the
 19   same aquifer.  Like, could not my neighbour's well
 20   run dry and I would still have water?
 21               MR. MORGAN:  I guess it depends on the
 22   depth of the well.  If the water table is drawn
 23   down, then the depth of the screening in the well,
 24   the one with the higher screening would run dry
 25   first.
01214
  1               MS. FUGA:  What do you mean by
  2   screening?
  3               MR. MORGAN:  When you put down a well
  4   it is encased, and at the bottom you have gravel
  5   and screening around that allows the water to go
  6   in.  That's the elevation of the screening of the
  7   well, that's where the water is drawn in from.  So
  8   there are different depths in different wells.
  9               MS. FUGA:  So it is possible --
 10               MR. MORGAN:  As I was saying, the
 11   expansion of the floodway is being designed so as
 12   not to affect elevations.
 13               MS. FUGA:  But any one of those that
 14   are existing might stop, right, running, and would
 15   that not become an abandoned well situation, for
 16   example?
 17               MR. MORGAN:  I guess I'm not sure --
 18   you are talking in general about wells?
 19               MS. FUGA:  And the risk of
 20   contamination from the expansion of the floodway.
 21   It is most specifically directed to, I don't
 22   understand how addressing the existing leakage is
 23   not a part of the mandate of the Manitoba Floodway
 24   Authority.  And you know, I would, I will go
 25   forward with that, but my question is, is it not
01215
  1   possible that one of those springs will stop
  2   running and thereby create a direct conduit for
  3   contamination of the aquifer, just like an
  4   abandoned well?
  5               MR. SMITH:  Just to clarify, you are
  6   talking now about the springs in the base of the
  7   floodway channel?
  8               MS. FUGA:  That's right, or any new
  9   ones that may be created.
 10               MR. SMITH:  They are running because
 11   the groundwater level, the piezometric pressure in
 12   your bedrock aquifer is above the base of the
 13   channel.  We are not doing anything to reduce that
 14   pressure.  I guess maybe through development, if
 15   you overdevelop the area, then there could be a
 16   scenario like that, but --
 17               MS. FUGA:  But that's what I'm saying,
 18   any additional spring that is created as a result
 19   of expansion, which I understand you are saying
 20   you anticipate there won't be any except possibly
 21   the one near Birds Hill Park; right?
 22               MR. MORGAN:  Yes.  We are not
 23   anticipating to add any more springs.  So you are
 24   looking at a existing situation, you are saying,
 25   without the project, even without the project
01216
  1   there is possibility that demand in the area could
  2   draw the wells down, draw the whole water table
  3   down to a level where the springs stop and could
  4   be reversed.  That's true.  That is something I
  5   think is best addressed in the regional assessment
  6   being done, not as part of this project, but
  7   because it is important to do whether or not you
  8   have this project.  But the Minister of Water
  9   Stewardship has talked about a regional model to
 10   understand demands throughout the area and what
 11   the effects could be of those demands on the
 12   groundwater.  So that's being done, not within
 13   this project, but outside of the project, because
 14   it is important with or without this project.
 15               MS. FUGA:  So with respect to the
 16   quality of water coming into the floodway, have
 17   you considered Devils Lake and what the impact of
 18   the Garrison Diversion Project would have?
 19               MR. MORGAN:  Yes, we did consider that
 20   and they are not a significant impact.  We
 21   considered them as future projects and they really
 22   don't have any major impact in terms of amount of
 23   water.
 24               MS. FUGA:  Not in terms of the amount
 25   of amount of water, but in terms of contamination
01217
  1   and the quality of that water?
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  That's beyond the scope
  3   of this review.
  4               MR. MORGAN:  The project won't
  5   affect --
  6               MS. FUGA:  It won't change the quality
  7   of water flowing through the floodway?  It is Red
  8   River water that would be flowing in the floodway.
  9               MR. MORGAN:  I'm not sure if we are
 10   getting into a Devils Lake discussion here.
 11               MS. FUGA:  No, we are not, not at all.
 12   I just wonder, that will change the quality of the
 13   water in the Red River, will that not change the
 14   quality of the water in the floodway?  And then
 15   have you looked at what that effect would be?
 16               MR. REMPEL:  If that does happen, that
 17   would happen regardless of whether the floodway is
 18   expanded or not.
 19               MS. FUGA:  But there is more water --
 20   maybe I misunderstand, is there not more water
 21   going into an expanded floodway?  Is that not the
 22   purpose of the expanded floodway?
 23               MR. REMPEL:  For severe events it will
 24   carry more water, yes.  But we did look at the
 25   potential effects under cumulative effects of
01218
  1   Devils Lake, and certainly it was considered and
  2   it was felt that there would be no real overlap of
  3   effects, and so we judged that it was not a
  4   significant adverse effect, not a likely effect
  5   either.  I'm not sure where it is in the EIS
  6   exactly, but it is discussed.
  7               MS. FUGA:  Thank you.  I think I'm
  8   done for now, thank you.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much.
 10   Do we have any other members of the general public
 11   who wish to ask questions at this time?  We don't
 12   appear to --
 13               MR. STRANG:  Mr. Chairman, I have some
 14   further questions.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  With all due respect,
 16   Reeve Strang, our procedures are that each
 17   individual or each group only gets one shot at it,
 18   and your counsel did have three and a half to four
 19   hours earlier today and did engage in a rather
 20   extensive cross-examination.
 21               MR. STRANG:  The questions that I have
 22   are quite simple and I don't expect to take more
 23   than a few minutes.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay, Mr. Strang, Reeve
 25   Strang, I will hold you to that commitment that
01219
  1   they are simple and short.
  2               MR. REMPEL:  Mr. Chairman, in the
  3   meantime could we just read into the record a
  4   couple of references to water quality that Marci
  5   Friedman would like to read in?
  6               MS. FRIEDMAN-HAMM:  Marci
  7   Friedman-Hamm speaking.  There have been several
  8   questions about where private wells have been
  9   sampled and where monitoring wells have been
 10   sampled, so I just would like to give the
 11   references of where that information can be found.
 12   In appendix R, groundwater investigations by SNC
 13   Lavalin, Wardrop, appendix D, table 6, those are
 14   the private well sampling results.  In the back of
 15   that report there is a large fold-out drawing,
 16   drawing A00002-A, location of wells sampled, that
 17   shows where the private wells were sampled, the 25
 18   private wells that we spoke about.  In appendix M,
 19   table 3, that contains the results for 19
 20   monitoring wells sampled, also table 4, table 3
 21   and 4, 19 monitoring wells sampled.  The locations
 22   for those are in the drawings.  Some you will find
 23   in drawings HOO2, HOO3, and others you would have
 24   to go to appendix O for.
 25               MR. REMPEL:  That's it.  Thank you.
01220
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  And Reeve
  2   Strang, I hope they are few in number as well.
  3               MR. STRANG:  They are, Mr. Chairman.
  4   I want to thank you for allowing me this time.
  5               The first question may be very simple.
  6   For the many test holes that have been drilled
  7   into the floodway area during your studies, my
  8   first question is, have they been properly sealed,
  9   and if they have been, how were they sealed?
 10               MR. SMITH:  Yes, there would be -- I
 11   will confirm this, but I believe they were
 12   backfilled with bentonite seals.
 13               MR. STRANG:  The next question is,
 14   under the number of 1700 gallons per minute which
 15   we keep hearing about going out to the floodway,
 16   and there was comment made regarding a spring
 17   north of Dunning Road across from the park, and to
 18   my understanding the weir that was built and
 19   tested was located south of Dunning Road.  Was
 20   consideration given to the spring north of Dunning
 21   Road with the number of 1700 gallons?
 22               MR. SMITH:  We currently have another
 23   weir program in progress.  We established a weir
 24   at Highway 44 as well as Dunning Road to pick up
 25   that flow in that area.
01221
  1               MR. STRANG:  Has there been any
  2   results from that?
  3               MR. SMITH:  Not as yet.  We are right
  4   in the midst of that work.  That work is in
  5   progress as we speak, so it will be forthcoming.
  6               MR. STRANG:  Mr. Chairman, that
  7   information will be shared, of course?
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  One would hope.
  9               MR. STRANG:  Thank you.
 10               The other question that I have is
 11   regarding summertime operation.  And what that is,
 12   to my understanding, is that the summertime
 13   operation is done by the Manitoba Water
 14   Stewardship Board, and my understanding also is
 15   that a target of nine is used which is related to
 16   about one and a half foot depth above the walkway
 17   in the Forks.  So with that -- and this question I
 18   have asked before.  I'm curious, is there any
 19   plans or has there been any conversation regarding
 20   changing that number and using the ability of the
 21   floodway during summer time operation to keep the
 22   Forks dry and usable?
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that's been
 24   answered a number of times in the last week.
 25               MR. STRANG:  I might have missed that
01222
  1   one, Mr. Chairman.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  I think the answer, and
  3   Mr. McNeil will correct me if I'm wrong, was that
  4   may be considered in the future but that is beyond
  5   the scope of these hearings.
  6               MR. STRANG:  Okay.
  7               MR. MCNEIL:  And Mr. Chairman, it is
  8   described in section 8.2 of the supplementary EIS.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 10               MR. STRANG:  And this will be the last
 11   question that I have.  Under the question that our
 12   legal counsel gave forward regarding the primary
 13   dykes in the City of Winnipeg, and that the fact
 14   that $7 million has been allocated to that through
 15   the Federal/Provincial Disaster Finance Program,
 16   my first part of that is, is that a temporary
 17   dyking system that's being done there?
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  No money has been
 19   allocated to that.  And, yes, it would be a
 20   temporary dyke that would be raised in time for
 21   that event, should it occur.
 22               MR. STRANG:  So it would be raised and
 23   then taken down; is that correct?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
 25               MR. STRANG:  To my understanding, you
01223
  1   are saying that no application has been submitted
  2   for that at this time?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  What do you mean by an
  4   application?
  5               MR. STRANG:  To my understanding, is
  6   there not an application process to access that
  7   disaster financial program?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  No, the city, as does any
  9   municipality when threatened with an emergency
 10   like a flood, reacts at the time.  And DFA
 11   programs, disaster financial assistance, are not a
 12   guaranteed thing.  Governments come together to
 13   make a decision during each emergency event,
 14   whether it is a fire or flood, as to whether or
 15   not they are going to provide funding to assist
 16   the municipalities with their preemptive costs as
 17   well as damage restoration.
 18               MR. STRANG:  Right.  So at the time
 19   that it would have to be implemented, the bill
 20   would be sent it in and it would be approved or
 21   not approved?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  That's the normal
 23   procedure.
 24               MR. STRANG:  Thank you, gentlemen, for
 25   your time.
01224
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  I would say to the
  2   floodway panel, I would ask you to be present
  3   tomorrow morning first thing in the morning, there
  4   was one other citizen of this community who asked
  5   to appear, but she had to go home because her kids
  6   were arriving home from school.  So she had a
  7   number of questions.  I don't believe that there
  8   will be any others, but --
  9   
 10             (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION)
 11   
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Following that we will
 13   have the Cooks Creek Conservation District, and
 14   following them the municipalities will begin their
 15   presentation.  Mr. Rempel.
 16               MR. REMPEL:  Could we read one more
 17   figure into the record for reference, please?
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Of course.
 19               MS. FRIEDMAN-HAMM:  One more figure
 20   pertaining to the location of information on
 21   baseline monitoring, and this is in appendix M in
 22   the drawing section, drawing H14 G and H15 G, and
 23   it shows the location of conductivity sampling for
 24   the 175 private well conductivity samples that
 25   were taken as part of the baseline studies for
01225
  1   this project.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chairman, one last
  4   thing, I'm going to submit to your secretary hard
  5   copies of the presentation material that Dr.
  6   Morgan presented this morning when we were being
  7   cross-examined by the three municipalities.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. McNeil.
  9   Anything else?  Okay, that brings us to a close
 10   for today, see you all tomorrow morning bright and
 11   early at 9:00 o'clock.
 12   
 13               (Adjourned at 4:50 p.m.)
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
01226
  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