01227 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Tuesday, February 22, 2005 14 Oakbank United Church 15 Oakbank, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 Volume 6 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01228 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. Peter Hayes - Consultant for Municipalities 21 Mr. Gary Palmateer - Consultant for Municipalities Mr. Orvel Currie - Counsel to Municipalities 22 Mr. Doug Chorney - Coalition for Flood Protection North 23 Mr. Kerry McLuhan - Coalition for Flood Protection North 24 Mr. Rob Loudfoot - 768 Association Mr. Y. Shumuk - 768 Association 25 Paul Clifton - Paul Clifton Mr. Jeff Frank - Rivers West 01229 1 Participants: (continued) 2 Gaile Whelan Enns - Manitoba Wildlands Earl Stevenson - Peguis Indian Band 3 Mr. Jake Buhler - Cooks Creek Conservation 4 Mr. Lloyd Crooks - Cooks Creek Conservation 5 Mr. Jon Stefanson - Cooks Creek Conservation 6 Mr. George Sokol -Cooks Creek Conservation 7 Mr. Ron Dubinsky - Cooks Creek Conservation 8 Mr. Verner Johnson - Cooks Creek Conservation 9 Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel Mr. Alf Poetker - Consultant 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01230 1 2 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS 3 4 Cross-examination of Manitoba Floodway Authority 5 Cross-examination by Ms. Carey 1245 6 Cross-examination by Ms. Kennedy-Courcelles 1268 7 8 9 Presentation by Cooks Creek Conservation 10 1289 11 Presentation by Rural Municipalities 12 1349 13 Cross-examination of Rural Municipalities 14 Cross-examination by Mr. Handlon 1426 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01231 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 52 Environmental Management System 1244 3 4 53 Presentation: Surface Water 1347 5 Management Issues Related to the 6 Red River Floodway Expansion. A 7 Presentation to the Manitoba Clean 8 Environment Commission, February 9 21, 2005. Presented by : Cooks 10 Creek Conservation District 11 54 CVs for experts for Cooks Creek 1347 12 Conservation District 13 55 Submission: Surface Water 1348 14 Management Issues in Cooks Creek 15 Conservation District Related to 16 the Red River Floodway Expansion 17 Project. A submission to the 18 Manitoba Clean Environment 19 Commission February 2005 20 21 56 Floodway East Side Drainage Plan, A 1348 22 Plan to Upgrade the Agricultural 23 Drainage Network that finds Outlet 24 into the East Side of the Red River Floodway. A Preliminary report. 25 Submitted to: Cooks Creek 01232 1 Conservation District, R.M. of 2 Springfield. June 2004 3 4 57 Proposal Regarding Red River 1348 5 Floodway Expansion Impacts on East 6 Side Agricultural Drainage 7 Services. Presented to the Manitoba 8 Floodway Expansion Authority, 9 Hydraulic Engineering Department by 10 the Cooks Creek Conservation 11 District, November 15, 2004 12 13 58: Presentation: RM of Springfield, 1499 14 RM of St. Clements, RM of East St. 15 Paul, and Coalition for Flood 16 Protection North of the Floodway, 17 Presented by: Peter Hayes and Garry 18 Palmateer 19 59 Submission: Submissions before the 1499 20 Clean Environment Commission on the Red River Floodway Expansion 21 Project, the Rural Municipality of Springfield, the Rural Municipality 22 of St. Clements and the Rural Municipality of East St.Paul 23 24 25 01233 1 2 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 3 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 4 5 1 Provide update of water quality 1256 6 data 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01234 1 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 2 UPON COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, could we 5 call the meeting to order, please. Good morning, 6 and welcome back. First off, I'm told that I 7 inadvertently referred to the Floodway Authority 8 as Manitoba Hydro. If such is the case, I 9 apologize profusely. Some of the faces are the 10 same faces as we saw last year during Manitoba 11 Hydro hearings, so thus my confusion. 12 I think we have another busy day ahead 13 of us. Off the top, we have two people who wish 14 to ask a few questions of the floodway panel. I'm 15 assured that neither will be terribly lengthy. 16 Following that, Cooks Creek Conservation District 17 will make their presentation. Cross-examination 18 of Cooks Creek will be delayed until later today 19 or tomorrow morning, and that's to allow for 20 accommodation for the three municipalities to make 21 their presentation. One of their consultants has 22 to leave to catch a plane late this afternoon 23 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I was 24 wondering if we could follow up with an 25 undertaking with respect to our environmental 01235 1 management system? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. 3 MR. MCNEIL: We have a few slides and 4 Doug Peterson is going to present them. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Order in the room, 6 please. 7 MR. PETERSON: Good morning, Mr. 8 Chairman and Commission and everybody else in the 9 room. A question came up about environmental 10 management systems last week, at which time we 11 started giving answer about our construction phase 12 and environmental protection plans. And there was 13 some confusion, I guess, on how all of this fit 14 together. So I thought what I would do is give 15 you my understanding of environmental management 16 systems, what they are, and how the Manitoba 17 Floodway Authority uses that system in its 18 environmental management work. 19 So, environmental management systems 20 are a means of -- a means for an organization to 21 get a better handle on how it deals with its 22 environmental issues. What I have done is I have 23 gone back to the basic international standard. 24 The International Organization of Standardization 25 in 1996 adopted what they call their standard, 01236 1 14001. And the Canadian Standards Association, 2 the same year, adopted that standard. What that 3 standard does is it defines what an environmental 4 management system is as part of the overall system 5 that includes organizational structure, planning 6 activities, responsibilities, practices, 7 procedures, processes, and resources for the 8 developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and 9 maintaining the environmental policy of an 10 organization. So, I will go on to say what all of 11 that means and how we apply that. 12 Also part of the ISO standard is an 13 appendix which talks about how to use the standard 14 and how to apply it. And one part of that says 15 that an organization, and this is paraphrased from 16 what the standard says, so those that have it, 17 purchased it, this isn't word for word for what is 18 exactly in the standard. An organization has the 19 freedom and flexibility to define its boundaries 20 and may choose to implement this standard to the 21 entire organization or to specific operating units 22 or activities of that organization. 23 So what we have done so far is we've 24 used this standard in development of our 25 construction phase, environmental protection 01237 1 plans. We haven't gone beyond that to the entire 2 operation or what is going to happen in five years 3 from now. 4 Basically what the standard does is 5 establish five elements of planning. A policy 6 element, the thinking, planning part, the doing, 7 implementation part, the checking and making sure 8 that you are on your right path, and a management 9 review part. 10 This cycle probably looks familiar to 11 various people for different reasons. It is used 12 in continuous improvement, for example, and that's 13 sort of the purpose behind the cycle. You think 14 of what you want to do, you think of how you are 15 going to do, you check to see if you are still on 16 the road map. You adjust to make sure you are 17 still on the right highway, and then you want to 18 make sure that the highway is taking you to the 19 right place. If it is not, or if there is a 20 better way, you adjust. And that's the concept 21 behind this. It also answers a question that came 22 up yesterday in what is adaptive management. This 23 in essence is adaptive management. Adaptive 24 management is applied to complex systems, whether 25 they are ecological systems or human systems, 01238 1 management systems. So, adaptive management 2 basically says you decide where you want to go, 3 how you are going to get there, you check if you 4 are getting there. If you are not, you adapt your 5 management structure to get where you want to go. 6 What I'm going to do now, and this is 7 basically up to the Commission, is I am going to 8 go through some of the key points and this is just 9 a gloss, this isn't word for word of what the 10 standard says. I'm going to go over some of the 11 key points of the standard and how we have used it 12 in our construction phase, environmental 13 protection plan. The framework of which was 14 submitted to the Commission and to the 15 participants as section 12 of the supplementary 16 filing. It was done I think November 1, or 17 thereabouts. Would that be of use or -- 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Quickly go over it, Mr. 19 Peterson. 20 MR. PETERSON: And I will go over that 21 quickly then, as you say. What the standard says 22 is that environmental management services or 23 systems should be incorporated into the overall 24 approach. What we have said in the framework that 25 we have submitted is that we recognize that the 01239 1 construction phase, environmental protection plan, 2 and I will probably just call that the plan from 3 now on instead of saying all five or six words. 4 The plan should be integrated into the overall 5 protection measures of the project. What I have 6 in brackets and throughout here when I talk about 7 the framework is the sections of the supplementary 8 filing that covers this. 9 So, the five steps; policy, the 10 standard says that top management shall define 11 what the environmental policy is. What we have 12 said in the plan is that MFEA, or the Manitoba 13 Floodway Authority, will establish a policy, and 14 we were asking that that policy be committed, or 15 that the consultants and contractors that work on 16 this project during the construction phase commit 17 to that policy. 18 Planning is the step where you 19 identify what regulations you have to meet, what 20 licence you have to meet, what the environmental 21 aspects are that the organization can control and 22 must control during the process in order to meet 23 this policy of hopefully a good, environmentally 24 sound project. We have addressed that in 25 different places in the framework. There is an 01240 1 appendix that lists different regulations and acts 2 and protocols. As well, there is a section that 3 describes -- that the purpose is to provide and 4 maintain environmental protection during the 5 construction phase. What we have done is we have 6 listed about a dozen different aspects of the 7 environment that we expect that plan to address. 8 They include the water regime, groundwater, dust 9 control, noise control and various other aspects 10 that are listed in the supplementary filing. 11 The next phase is implementation and 12 operation. The standard says that you should have 13 a structure and assigned responsibilities, 14 training and awareness and competence within the 15 organization, a communication both internally and 16 externally. A big part of this -- and don't 17 forget the standard is for procedures. It tells 18 you how to organize it. It doesn't tell you what 19 to do, but the types of things you should do. It 20 says there should be a procedure for 21 documentation. There should be a procedure for 22 operation control. And it specifies that there 23 should be a procedure to address emergencies. 24 On the right hand side, you see all of 25 the different places that -- and I've only listed 01241 1 one bullet for each thing -- places where each of 2 those aspects of the standard are addressed. And 3 I draw your attention to there is a specific 4 section on emergency response requirements. 5 As well, part of the implementation is 6 pollution prevention, and part of the standard is 7 pollution prevention. So a lot of the things that 8 will be in the eventual plan will be designating 9 how things will happen, how the contractors should 10 set up their sites, where they should refuel their 11 equipment and things of that nature. 12 Checking and correcting: It is nice 13 to have a plan and it is nice to think you are 14 going on the right road, but it is also, as Dr. 15 Webster pointed out, it is also very important to 16 monitor and make sure that you are on the right 17 track. If you find places where you are 18 wandering, to bring your system or your actions 19 back on to track. Keep good records of everything 20 that you are doing, and that there be an audit of 21 what you are doing. 22 All of these aspects are included in 23 the framework. There is sections on monitoring 24 and reporting, there is sections on how to deal 25 with non-conformances. There is sections that 01242 1 address the records. And there is a section that 2 says that the process will be audited. 3 The last step, and this is the 4 management review. Again, the standard is based 5 on the fact that the entire corporation buys into 6 this, and that the people that hold the purse 7 strings and the people that hold the power are 8 involved and committed to this. So there is an 9 environmental review, or a top management review 10 process, and the adaptive part, the program 11 adjustments. These are dealt with in the 12 framework outline as submitted. 13 So, in response to the question about 14 environmental management systems, we talked about 15 the environmental protection plan or construction 16 phase environmental protection plan. And this is 17 why we did that, because it has been incorporated 18 in how we are doing business. And the Manitoba 19 Floodway Authority is committed to ensuring high 20 standards for environmental management are met 21 through all of its actions and the actions of its 22 agents. 23 It has been said a number of times 24 here that not that the floodway isn't needed, but 25 they want to make sure that the floodway is being 01243 1 done right. And the Manitoba Floodway Authority 2 isn't a for profit organization. We are not here 3 to get anything out of this. We are here to 4 deliver a public infrastructure. We want to do it 5 right as well. 6 So, what we used was the construction 7 phase environmental protection plan framework that 8 was submitted as our example of how we are using 9 the environmental management system standards, the 10 international standard, in our activities. 11 And hopefully that answers the 12 question that the Chair had about environmental 13 management systems, and what ISO 14000 is and how 14 it fits into it. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 16 Mr. Peterson. Just one question arising out of 17 this. How will you ensure that the many different 18 contractors abide by the environmental protection 19 plans, the construction phase on environmental 20 protection plans that you implement? 21 MR. PETERSON: Peterson speaking. We 22 have done two things. Well, first of all, a lot 23 of it is going to be written into the tender 24 documents. So they are going to submit, say this 25 is what we are going to do through the tendering 01244 1 process. The consultants will be one of our eyes 2 in the field to do that. As well, we just 3 recently, I think it was two weeks ago, hired a 4 very senior person to manage that for us, and we 5 also have a junior person. I think Mr. McNeil 6 alluded to that. There is three of us plus Mr. 7 McNeil that are looking at solely the 8 environmental management within the Corporation, 9 or I guess we are not a corporation, Crown entity 10 now. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other 12 undertakings, Mr. McNeil? 13 MR. MCNEIL: Not this morning. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 15 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, before we 16 go on, could we enter the Environmental Management 17 System as exhibit 52. 18 19 (EXHIBIT 52: Environmental Management 20 System) 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: We will turn now to the 23 two people that have questions. And I would 24 remind both to be brief, be relevant and as much 25 as possible not repetitive of what others have 01245 1 asked. 2 Could you please introduce yourself 3 for the record and then proceed to direct your 4 questions to the panel. 5 MS. CAREY: My name is Karen Carey. 6 I'm a resident of Springfield. I'm a little 7 overwhelmed, because some of the questioning that 8 I heard yesterday was very elaborate. I have not 9 attended any of the hearings, except for the ones 10 that are out here, and I just want to thank you, 11 first of all, for being out here. It enables a 12 lot of us to come and participate that would 13 normally not be able to. And I want to applaud 14 our council for making that happen. 15 I was listening to the questioning 16 yesterday and the questioning brought up a lot of 17 questions in my mind. I'm hoping as a 18 layperson -- they may be simple questions to you, 19 but just be patient with me, I don't understand 20 everything, of course, to the level that you do, 21 so clarification for me probably means 22 clarification for a lot of people that are 23 listening here today. 24 Some of the questions -- one of the 25 questions that came up yesterday was about 01246 1 mitigation, the mitigation fund, am I calling that 2 the right thing? The money that's set aside to 3 deal with problems that occur? 4 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. It is 5 for unpredicted problems that occur with the 6 environment. 7 MS. CAREY: I understand there were 8 some questions yesterday so I will try not to 9 repeat, but build on that. One of the questions 10 that came out is the fund isn't actually put there 11 all at once, it is put there in pieces every year? 12 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. We 13 prepare a budget for each upcoming year, and what 14 we have done with that $11 million for cash flow 15 purposes is allocated about a quarter of it for 16 each of the next four years. 17 MS. CAREY: So, if at the end of the 18 first year you haven't spent your allocation, what 19 happens to it? 20 MR. MCNEIL: It stays there, and it 21 will still be allocated to that purpose. 22 MS. CAREY: So the fund builds on 23 itself? 24 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. 25 MS. CAREY: I want to take a step back 01247 1 for a minute and talk about when the original 2 floodway was built. And I heard some comments I 3 think yesterday about when the original floodway 4 was built, and mitigation of the negative impacts 5 of that. And I thought I heard that there weren't 6 any negative impacts from the construction of the 7 original floodway. Did I hear that or was I wrong 8 in what I heard there? 9 MR. MCNEIL: No, I don't think that 10 any of us up here said that there weren't from the 11 original floodway. 12 MS. CAREY: So when the original 13 floodway was built we did have some negative 14 impact on the local wells and so on in the area? 15 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. One of 16 the biggest impacts was the lowering of the water 17 table in the vicinity of the floodway. 18 MS. CAREY: Do we know how much it 19 cost us the first time around to help people with 20 deepening their wells or digging new wells? 21 MR. MCNEIL: I don't have that 22 information, offhand, no. 23 MS. CAREY: So, we know that there was 24 negative impacts the first time around, right, and 25 we have a fund established to take care of 01248 1 potential negative impacts the second time around. 2 What are we doing to be proactive and make the 3 process afterwards as easy as possible for people? 4 MR. MCNEIL: We have got a rough 5 outline at this point in time in that, first of 6 all, the Province does have a procedure, a 7 process, if anybody was to have a problem with 8 their own personal domestic water supply. And we 9 will build on that, we will be working with Water 10 Stewardship, but we take the prime responsibility 11 in this area if it is directly related to our 12 project. Even if it isn't, if somebody is in the 13 vicinity of the floodway and suspects that they 14 have a problem with their well, I'm sure we will 15 be involved. And we would expect the call will 16 likely come to us first, in any event. 17 MS. CAREY: I'm talking about 18 proactive, things that happen before the project 19 starts, that would help with mitigation 20 afterwards. For example, going and testing all of 21 the wells in the vicinity to a certain extent, 22 based on where the mitigation problems occurred 23 last time. If we went out -- the thing is, you 24 know, with people with wells, right, we don't all 25 test our wells all of the time, we don't always 01249 1 test for water quality, we don't test for how deep 2 down the water is in the well, so we come to you 3 after the floodway is expanded and we say, I'm 4 having a problem with my well. First of all we 5 have to somehow prove that it was the floodway 6 that had caused that problem. So if there was a 7 test taken beforehand that measured maybe the 8 water depth and the quality of the water, then 9 when I came to you afterwards with a dry well you 10 could, with some confidence, accept my claim and 11 say, yes, that's caused by the floodway. 12 MR. MCNEIL: Those are very good 13 comments and, in fact, we have undertaken a 14 program of monitoring. We are going to continue 15 with that program, in your words, to be proactive. 16 And there are other areas too. For example, when 17 we are dewatering at the bridge site or aqueducts, 18 we are going to form a committee, and that will 19 involve either municipal officials and/or the 20 property owners in the vicinity of that bridge to 21 work with us to be proactive. And if it is 22 necessary to develop mitigation, to work with the 23 property owner on that mitigation plan. So, yes, 24 we are being proactive. 25 MS. CAREY: Was my understanding 01250 1 yesterday from the questioning that the testing 2 and things that you have done is just on municipal 3 wells, you haven't done anything on private 4 properties? 5 MR. MCNEIL: I will turn this over to 6 Bert Smith at this time. 7 MR. SMITH: Bert Smith speaking. Our 8 existing program for the baseline data, there is 9 several different sources, but we did 25 private 10 wells where we did sampling and testing for the 11 water quality, potable and heavy metals. And we 12 also did about another 200 where we did field 13 conductivity testing, and we interviewed I guess 14 those 200 people. And we also did interviews of 15 those people to get a better understanding of what 16 depth their wells were at, what the installations 17 consisted of, just to try and improve the data 18 basis. In addition, we worked with the Provincial 19 data base. There is about 8,000 private wells 20 registered on that, it is called GW Drill, and 21 that gives us basic information on the wells in 22 the area. That was done on the private wells 23 separate from the wells, the new wells we 24 installed, plus other wells that we used that 25 existed along the floodway. 01251 1 MS. CAREY: That's 225 in total along 2 the whole stretch of the floodway on both sides? 3 MR. SMITH: The focus was primarily 4 from highway 59 north to Lockport where the 5 majority of the wells were. 6 MS. CAREY: Okay. Thanks, that 7 answers a lot of my questions on that. Some of 8 the mitigating impacts that you talked about or 9 some of the ways of mitigating impacts that you 10 talked about included trucking in water, buyout, 11 relocation, and those kind of things. I don't 12 know how feasible it is to do things like trucking 13 in water for livestock operations and so on. I 14 don't know how that would be even a possible 15 solution for somebody that has, you know, 16 agricultural property, which is what we have a lot 17 of in Springfield. 18 MR. SMITH: The construction 19 dewatering around the bridges is where there is 20 some localized lowering of the levels. For the 21 most part the project otherwise will not change 22 the existing water levels. So, the whole purpose 23 of having a mitigation strategy is you have 24 several options to deal with. And the first line 25 is to avoid having that impact, and that's what 01252 1 our approach will be. And, you know, so there are 2 various things that we will look at to not impact 3 on the private wells in the area, and that will 4 include both monitoring, but also you can do 5 things like -- I won't get into details -- but 6 pump the water that you pump out, you recircle it 7 back into the ground beyond the area that you are 8 working in so that people in a greater radius 9 aren't affected. So something like trucking in 10 water would be an extreme backup. The intent was 11 to give people a comfort level that at worst their 12 water supply would be maintained, or there would 13 be steps taken to ensure they didn't have a 14 problem. 15 MS. CAREY: When you talk about that 16 artificial drying out, what do you call that 17 again? The artificial -- 18 MR. SMITH: You mean the dewatering, 19 construction dewatering? What that means is that 20 if you put a well in right at the location where 21 you are going to install the bridge piers, you 22 want to lower the water level pressure from the 23 aquifer adequately so that the construction 24 activity can be completed. And so it is like a 25 bowl, if you will, or a cone, immediately around 01253 1 the area of work. And then that spreads out from 2 the centre of the work, and with distance -- you 3 know, it is usually localized to the work area. 4 MS. CAREY: I think about businesses 5 that we have along the floodway that would be 6 majorally impacted by that kind of an operation. 7 We have Oasis beach, for example, which is a 8 really popular destination for city folks from 9 Winnipeg and for people from Springfield. That's 10 a manmade attraction that pumps water up through a 11 well. And what are we going to do to compensate 12 people whose livelihood -- and they employ dozens 13 of people from the community too in summer months, 14 and this is going to be happening over the summer. 15 What are we going to do to compensate people like 16 that for their loss of business? 17 MR. SMITH: Again, the construction 18 dewatering would be very localized around the 19 bridges. I can assure you that the Oasis well 20 will not be affected, the Oasis resort area that 21 you referred to. 22 MS. CAREY: Do you know where they 23 are? 24 MR. SMITH: Yes. 25 MS. CAREY: Okay. 01254 1 MR. SMITH: And I also know that the 2 municipal wells on Oasis Road are a lot closer to 3 the Highway 59 bridge, and so we have to ensure 4 that we are not going to affect those wells. And 5 in fact by doing that, points further out would 6 not be affected. 7 MS. CAREY: All right. My second set 8 of questions, I guess I wanted to ask you a bit 9 more about the assessments that are done with 10 regard to the water quality. You talked yesterday 11 about how you do assessments on water quality at 12 the south inlet, or that the data that you 13 received was from assessments taken at the south 14 inlet. Is that correct? 15 MR. SMITH: That was one of the 16 points, yes. 17 MS. CAREY: Is that -- 18 MR. SMITH: It is the Red River water 19 that we are talking about there. 20 MS. CAREY: Yes. And I understand 21 from the questioning yesterday that that data is 22 20 years old that we were using -- 1985 and back, 23 right? 24 MR. MORGAN: There is data sets from 25 the '70s to current. The stuff that was published 01255 1 in the EIS was from 1985. But the data, what it 2 shows -- and I think this is what we were 3 discussing, there was a discussion about bacteria. 4 And we said that that 1985 data shows there is 5 bacteria in the river water. We accept that. If 6 you look at the data sets to 2000, it still shows 7 there is bacteria. And because, since we accept 8 that, we did the detailed studies that we talked 9 about yesterday and are documented in the reports. 10 MS. CAREY: I understand that. But I 11 guess what I'm getting at is that the published 12 information that's in that report is 20 years old. 13 And what I heard yesterday when that line of 14 questioning came up was, well, we can get the 15 current data and provide that, but I didn't hear 16 "we will." So I'm wondering if you are going to? 17 MR. MORGAN: We can get it. It is all 18 public data, and we can -- 19 MS. CAREY: I understand that, but 20 most of us wouldn't even know where to start to go 21 and find it. 22 MR. REMPEL: I think we offered 23 yesterday that if it is useful we can readily 24 provide the update of data to the current year. 25 MS. CAREY: I think it would be 01256 1 useful, particularly since from 1985 on. I mean, 2 we have had the flood of 1997, and bacteria levels 3 during a flood I would think would be of 4 considerable importance to a project like this 5 because we are talking about flood waters. It is 6 just something that I thought would be more 7 relevant than having old published data, would be 8 to have the current data. 9 10 (UNDERTAKING # 1: Provide update of water quality 11 data) 12 13 MS. CAREY: I also have a question as 14 to whether there is data taken throughout the city 15 and at the edge of the city in the river, or is it 16 just at the south inlet? 17 MR. REMPEL: No, there is data points 18 that are measured by the province in various 19 locations upstream and downstream of the City of 20 Winnipeg. And the City of Winnipeg I believe has 21 12 different stations, typically at bridges, where 22 water quality data is taken regularly. I think it 23 is every two weeks. And that's also available in 24 the public data base. 25 MS. CAREY: What about in the floodway 01257 1 itself? 2 MR. REMPEL: I don't think there is 3 any regular monitoring stations on the floodway. 4 MR. MORGAN: Yes, there wasn't regular 5 monitoring stations on the floodway, although 6 maybe Doug Peterson can speak to this, but there 7 is a plan for regular monitoring done before, 8 during, and after construction along the floodway. 9 MS. CAREY: That's great, I'm really 10 glad to hear that. I'm wondering also as well 11 about after the construction is complete and on an 12 ongoing basis, is there going to be some 13 monitoring of the water in the floodway? 14 MR. PETERSON: Peterson speaking. 15 That's one of the things that we separated out. 16 We were looking at the project in three phases; 17 one is before construction, gathering that 18 background data so we have an idea of what has 19 happened before us; during construction, because 20 things will be changing and we want to make sure, 21 as I said earlier, that what we are doing isn't 22 creating problems and we can correct them 23 beforehand. So that there is two aspects to that 24 protection plan, and that's both monitoring our 25 activities and monitoring the effect of our 01258 1 activities. 2 As well in section 12 of that same 3 document there is a different subsection on 4 monitoring and follow-up. And that's what we are 5 doing right now, is developing those monitoring 6 plans, how many stations we are going to have, 7 where they are going to be, what parameters we are 8 going to look at, how frequently we are going to 9 look at them, is it going to change in 10 pre-construction, construction, and post 11 construction? Those plans will be developed. 12 We originally thought we would submit 13 those later in the project, but at that time we 14 were thinking more of the post construction plans, 15 but since we are going to have to do something now 16 and during construction, those plans are being 17 developed and they will be submitted to the 18 regulators as soon as we have them available. 19 MS. CAREY: Okay. It just seems to me 20 that something like the floodway is just a really 21 convenient place for somebody to do some illegal 22 dumping. And because there isn't any regular 23 monitoring being done right now, how do we know 24 what is happening, how do we know what it is doing 25 to the water that is flowing through there, and as 01259 1 a result, what is it doing to the river when it 2 gets back to the river. So I would think some 3 ongoing monitoring would really be a good thing 4 for the floodway. 5 MR. MORGAN: Just to clarify on the 6 water quality monitoring data in the EIS; we did 7 have water quality monitoring data at the inlet 8 and outlet from 1978 to 2003, and it is in the 9 surface water quality, section 6.3. However, and 10 this is what the discussion was yesterday, the 11 data did not include fecal or total coliforms, and 12 the reason for that is this project does not 13 create fecal and total coliforms, so they weren't 14 focused on as much. But we can still get that 15 information, the same information for fecal 16 coliforms and other parameters which are not 17 changed by the floodway. That database is a 18 public database available from Manitoba 19 Conservation, and we can print it out and supply 20 it to the Commission, if they need that. 21 MS. CAREY: I guess from the 22 perspective of the people in the community, the 23 water that's running through the floodway is what 24 the concern is, and whether the project creates 25 that problem or has to handle the water with that 01260 1 problem in it, really to us it doesn't make a big 2 difference, it is still water with a problem and 3 it is still needs to be addressed. So... 4 MR. REMPEL: Just to expand a bit on 5 that database that Dr. Morgan was talking about. 6 It is fairly extensive and it does take the data 7 of 2003. This is an example of the parameters 8 that were measured, and that table compares them, 9 or the discussion compares them to surface water 10 quality guidelines as well. So there is 11 pesticides, there is fertilizers, hardness, 12 phosphorous, nutrients and so on, are all listed 13 there. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Where is it from, Mr. 15 Rempel? 16 MR. REMPEL: It is page 69 of the EIS. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Where is this 18 monitoring? 19 MR. REMPEL: This is at St. Norbert, 20 and it is data up to 2003. 21 MS. CAREY: We spent a lot of time 22 yesterday talking about that Oasis Road area, 23 those wells, that whole area around there. And 24 you showed a picture yesterday, I don't know if 25 you can pull it back up again, of the Birds Hill 01261 1 area and the sand and gravel, and then the clay 2 and the floodway and then the area beside it. Do 3 you know which one I'm talking about? 4 MR. MORGAN: Is that the cross 5 section? 6 MS. CAREY: There was a cross section 7 one, yes. Not the one with the little springs and 8 stuff in it -- that's the one, perfect. Boy, you 9 are good. 10 I guess what I see here isn't what I 11 see when I drive down Highway 59, and when I drive 12 over the bridge across the floodway. Like, as I 13 approach the bridge crossing the floodway, even 14 before I get to it, there is gravel. I'm 15 surrounded by gravel pits. There is Fox Estates, 16 I think it is called, on one side. There is an 17 abandoned gravel pit on the other side that the 18 trucks play around in. Then there is the 19 floodway. And when I come across the floodway it 20 is all gravel again. There is Spring Hill, there 21 is Oasis, so I'm surrounded by gravel. Yet when I 22 look at that picture, it shows the gravel ending 23 and clay beginning before the floodway, but that's 24 not what I see. 25 MR. MORGAN: And that's just 01262 1 representative of one area. Mr. Smith can discuss 2 the local area there. That was just kind of a 3 representative area of the whole kind of north 4 region. 5 MS. CAREY: Okay. Fair enough. 6 MR. SMITH: The thing to appreciate, 7 this is the surface plan showing the groundwater 8 contour levels. This would be pressure of the 9 water, or in this case water table in the Birds 10 Hill area, and here pressure in the bedrock. But 11 here is the point where you are driving across 59 12 north bridge, and as you correctly point out there 13 is a local gravel pit, or at least a former gravel 14 extension. Now, you see the way the contours pull 15 over here? That represents those extensions of 16 the gravel pit that you had mentioned that are 17 just local, and they do end right at the bridge 18 area, just a little bit to the west and north of 19 the bridge. So the cross section that we showed 20 is a little bit north of that point, where the 21 limit of the sand here isn't quite up to the 22 floodway. And there was a local extension of this 23 extensive gravel pit area, or gravel deposit 24 rather, sand and gravels, just eastward across 25 where the floodway extends. So that's where we 01263 1 got into some discussion yesterday on these cutoff 2 walls right at that location, just locally to 3 prevent -- see here on this section, a little bit 4 to the north, there is a natural clay till area 5 that prevents this water from readily draining to 6 the floodway, whereas right at the Oasis Road 7 area, where you indicated, there was a local tail 8 of the sand and gravel that extended eastward. 9 And that was removed as part of the construction 10 of the floodway, and it was already being 11 naturally removed in the development of those 12 pits. 13 MS. CAREY: So you are telling me then 14 that all of that gravel that extends from the east 15 to the west, you took it all out when you built 16 the floodway and you filled that all in with clay? 17 MR. SMITH: That gravel area, zones or 18 lens, whatever, was removed. I don't know the 19 history, whether it was removed in part prior to 20 construction of the floodway and maybe the 21 remnants were finished off at that time. But 22 nevertheless, there was a clay cutoff wall 23 constructed on the east side, the Birds Hill side 24 at that time. 25 And maybe I should make this clear. 01264 1 At the time that that floodway was constructed, 2 the Oasis Road wells did not exist. The 3 municipality was not pumping there. We are 4 talking back in to the 1960s. So the natural flow 5 of part of that sand and gravel deposit was 6 eastward across that -- or sorry, to the west, 7 from east to west, across where the floodway was 8 constructed. So when they constructed the 9 floodway and they put in that clay cutoff wall or 10 plug, the intent was for the most part to prevent 11 that water from just draining out, or draining 12 down to a new lower level. However, if you 13 totally cut it off, it would mean all of the water 14 flowing from further east in the uplands of the 15 Birds Hill Park would want to pass through there, 16 as it normally did, and it couldn't, then it would 17 have caused a backup. 18 So as part of that construction there 19 was a low level, or a lower zone of pervious 20 granular placed in there to allow some flow to 21 continue, and represent what had been occurring 22 naturally. And that's what is there today. So 23 there is about an estimated 250 gallons per minute 24 that does flow under that cutoff wall into the 25 floodway, and that was as designed. That's not a 01265 1 leak that couldn't be stopped, it was an 2 intentional thing. Because if you hadn't done 3 that, you would have created problems to the 4 people living in the upper area. 5 MS. CAREY: By doing that, by having 6 that gravel underneath the floodway, there is a 7 potential for groundwater contamination; correct? 8 MR. SMITH: The water level to the 9 east of that cutoff wall is much higher, a much 10 higher level, much higher elevation, so the water 11 wants to flow in a down gradient direction. So it 12 works against contamination moving to the east. 13 MS. CAREY: I know, but I'm not going 14 to be, you know, I'm not being selfish and saying 15 just because I live to the east, I don't have to 16 worry. What about all the people that live to the 17 west? Just because the water flows east to west, 18 it doesn't mean for us that there isn't a concern. 19 I understood from where we get water, we don't get 20 groundwater, we get what is under the groundwater; 21 right? 22 MR. SMITH: Where do you live? 23 MS. CAREY: Well, I am talking about 24 the wells and things that are in that area. Like, 25 people don't just dig down ten feet and have a 01266 1 well, right? They don't pump up groundwater, they 2 go down deeper to what is called the aquifer, 3 right? 4 MR. SMITH: You are talking about the 5 bedrock carbonate aquifer. That is still 6 groundwater -- groundwater as opposed to surface 7 water. 8 MS. CAREY: I understand, but that is 9 water that has gone through a filtration process 10 and ended up pretty clean once it gets down there, 11 right? 12 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair, I wonder, 13 just for the sake of the reporter, if maybe the 14 question could restart after the answer has been 15 given, because both people are talking over one 16 another. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Point taken. Just give 18 one another the chance to answer. Ms. Carey, do 19 you have a question? There is a stand off here. 20 MS. CAREY: Sorry, I thought it wasn't 21 my turn. 22 I guess what I'm worried about is that 23 that sand and gravel is a perfect conduit for 24 water and the contaminants that are in it to leach 25 down to people's water supply. And if it is there 01267 1 and it is there under the clay, the potential is 2 there. Because we have so many wells and, you 3 know, bridge supports and everything else that go 4 down deep into the clay and possibly through the 5 clay and down deeper, that we have conduits that 6 can lead pollutants and contaminants down into the 7 water supply. And that area particularly I guess 8 concerned me because I could see and feel, and 9 everything, all of the gravel all around me, and 10 realized that the water is traveling right through 11 a gravel deposit. So to me that's a really 12 sensitive area. 13 MR. SMITH: It is a valid concern. 14 And again our studies addressed that potential, 15 and in our cross section or modeling, where we 16 picked sensitive areas intentionally, represented 17 what we knew to be the actual conditions of the 18 soil based on a lot of testing locally. And then 19 from that we said let's make it worse, let's make 20 it 100 times worse and see what happens. And 21 that's what we did in our models. And we were 22 still able to demonstrate that there was some 23 potential for movement, but not -- I guess we said 24 it was not a significant volume of water, and it 25 wouldn't be moving that far that fast. However, 01268 1 because there is that potential, it is important 2 to monitor and have some mitigation strategies in 3 place. And that's certainly a fundamental to this 4 whole program, is to give you that level of 5 comfort. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Carey, I would 7 point out that we heard a lot about this yesterday 8 and we will hear more about this later on today 9 when the municipalities make their presentation. 10 MS. CAREY: Thank you very much. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 12 Could I ask the other person to come forward, 13 please? 14 MS. COURCELLES: Cheryl Kennedy 15 Courcelles. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and please 17 direct your questions to the panel. 18 MS. COURCELLES: First of all, on 19 behalf of the Manitoba people, I would like to 20 take this opportunity to thank everybody that has 21 been working very hard on this issue of unwanted 22 water and what do we do with it, so I really do 23 appreciate the efforts. But on the same token, I 24 think I would also like to extend to all of the 25 Manitoba people that -- according to yesterday's 01269 1 front page of the Free Press, the definition of 2 health being stated as mind, body and spirit, and 3 I guess perhaps I'm wondering if the $11 million 4 mitigation fund is going to be enough to be able 5 to mitigate all of Manitoba people's health 6 regarding -- under that definition of mind, body 7 and spirit. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have heard a 9 lot about the mitigation fund and it has been well 10 described and what its intent will be. And it was 11 indicated to us yesterday that the $11 million is 12 a sum that will be set aside out of the current 13 budgeting. But in answer to a question from me, I 14 believe, they said that if that ran out, there 15 would be other money available. So I think that 16 your question has been well answered already. 17 MS. COURCELLES: Excellent. And I 18 guess it would be the prospect for all of us 19 fellow Manitobans that are perhaps on the outside 20 of the floodway, not just south, I do reside in 21 St. Adolphe on ten acres on the Red River, but to 22 my fellow counterparts here, again I'm just 23 wondering if the adverse cumulative effect of the 24 health of Manitoba people -- I'm wondering if the 25 dollar amount has been correctly put forward under 01270 1 figuring out the cost benefit ratio of this 2 particular plan? But based on that, did the MFA 3 study the drainage ditches and perhaps a waffling 4 system of letting the drainage waters in the RM of 5 Ritchot -- did you study that -- before it reaches 6 the Red River? Because ultimately, as we all 7 know, we have got more water coming to us, and how 8 come, and that is causing artificial flooding and 9 causing the fact that you need to operate the 10 gates. 11 MR. MCNEIL: The waffling concept was 12 considered when the IJC undertook their studies in 13 1999 to 2001, thereabouts, and it was dismissed as 14 not being effective for a very large flood, 15 something over 1997. However, having said that 16 though, they did conclude that for smaller streams 17 towards, you know, the start of those streams, 18 that that kind of a storage system would be 19 effective. In fact, the University of North 20 Dakota has an ongoing study with respect to that 21 waffling concept. But it is not effective for 22 flood protection, the amount of flood protection 23 that we are looking at for Winnipeg. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McNeil, would it be 25 possible for the benefit of others in the audience 01271 1 to briefly describe what waffling means? 2 MR. MCNEIL: Sure. The concept is to 3 try and store as much water in the uplands of the 4 watershed. So for all of the tributaries that 5 contribute water to the Red River, which is called 6 the main stem of the system, is to store water in 7 the uplands high up in the system on each of those 8 tributary streams to dampen the effect of the 9 total flow that reaches the main stem. The 10 reality is that for really large floods you 11 couldn't store all of that water with natural 12 means. 13 And the waffle term comes from, now 14 that we have modified the landscape from what it 15 was naturally, to basically mile roads, and in a 16 sense those mile roads create a waffle type 17 system, and if you could apply gate structures and 18 whatnot to the drainage systems, particularly the 19 culverts that cross under those road systems, you 20 might be able to store enough water in each of 21 those square miles. And that was the concept that 22 was proposed. As I said, it was determined to be 23 ineffective for very large floods. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 25 MS. COURCELLES: So perhaps I would 01272 1 agree with you on a very large flood, but living 2 in the RM of Ritchot under non-spring event, you 3 are going to put the water on us. So to me that 4 is not a flood event, that is just the operations 5 of the expansion of the floodway. And therefore 6 would a waffling system or some sort of system 7 like that help prevent putting that extra rain 8 water into Winnipeg? 9 MR. MCNEIL: I suppose it may help for 10 those smaller events in the summertime. However, 11 70 percent of the water typically comes from the 12 U.S., and we don't have any control over the 13 amount of water that comes north to us. So even 14 if there was the incorporation of that concept in 15 Manitoba, it wouldn't be totally effective because 16 of the amount of water coming from the States. 17 MS. COURCELLES: Thank you. 18 MR. MCNEIL: There are, in fact, in 19 one of the watersheds, I'm struggling to remember 20 which one it is, down southwest of Morris, they 21 have in fact incorporated a similar concept, more 22 for the spring situation to hold water on the 23 land, not so much for flood protection but also 24 for increasing the groundwater for productive use. 25 MS. COURCELLES: But it isn't really a 01273 1 system that the MFA looked at for I guess the long 2 term -- 3 MR. MCNEIL: No, because it was 4 dismissed very early on in the IJC studies. 5 MS. COURCELLES: And it was thought to 6 be a better proposal to just go ahead and flood 7 the RM every summer now? 8 MR. MCNEIL: The current project, 9 because we are not changing the operation and we 10 are not changing what could occur without the 11 floodway expansion in terms of flooding, was 12 determined to be the most cost effective project 13 to protect Winnipeg, yes. 14 MS. COURCELLES: So I guess I'm 15 looking for a dollar value then that you have 16 placed on my life and the lives of the people that 17 are affected in the RM, our animals, our way of 18 life. We are -- for four generations the 19 Courcelles family has lived on the banks of the 20 Red River and we were certainly planning on 21 continuing that tradition on. So I would like to 22 know what dollar value -- if I'm not cost 23 effective in our way of life, then -- 24 MR. MCNEIL: That's not what I said. 25 If you were at my presentation last Tuesday, what 01274 1 I indicated is that different areas require 2 different forms of flood protection. And St. 3 Adolphe is protected with a community ring dyke. 4 In Winnipeg it doesn't make sense to protect it 5 with a ring dyke, it makes more sense to use other 6 methods, storage such as Shellmouth reservoir, 7 diversion channels like Portage and the floodway. 8 The other thing is that this project 9 is not making your situation any worse over and 10 above the existing floodway. And in fact, it is 11 going to make it slightly better. For a repeat of 12 a 1997 flood, with the expanded floodway, water 13 levels will be lower, slightly lower than they 14 were in 1997 up to and including Ste. Agathe. So 15 you fall within that area. So if you are 16 protected to '97 plus two now, you are better 17 protected for the '97 flood after the floodway is 18 expanded. And for the 700 year flood that we are 19 designing to, you are not going to see any 20 difference. And as I said -- 21 MS. COURCELLES: I beg to differ with 22 you. Last summer alone I saw a difference, and 23 that was no flood event. 24 MR. MCNEIL: We are not expanding this 25 floodway for summer operation. That is a separate 01275 1 project. It is a future planned project. And the 2 floodway expansion has no impact on summer 3 operation, and summer operation has no impact on 4 floodway expansion. That's why it is separate 5 project. 6 MS. COURCELLES: Does the floodway 7 expansion use any parts of the existing operation 8 system or gates? Are you using any of the same 9 material? 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Where are you going 11 with this, Ms. Kennedy Courcelles? These are 12 obvious questions that have been answered many 13 times. 14 MS. COURCELLES: He is saying it isn't 15 part of it, and I am saying that would be like -- 16 THE CHAIRMAN: No, he said that the 17 expansion project, which is the issue before us, 18 has no impact on summer operations. Summer 19 operations may or may not continue with the 20 existing facility, and it would be no different 21 after the expansion. 22 MS. COURCELLES: And I guess the fact 23 that you are widening it, et cetera, to me it does 24 affect. 25 MR. MCNEIL: Actually, we don't talk 01276 1 about it, but after expansion there will be a very 2 small benefit of a few inches of a lower water 3 level right at the inlet control structure, if 4 summer operation were to occur after expansion. 5 But it is so small that it is not really 6 considered a benefit or an advantage. But the 7 bottom line is we are not doing anything in this 8 project to enhance or detract from summer 9 operation, and summer operation can be done into 10 the future without this project. 11 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. I'm wondering 12 if you have a system in place that, whether it is 13 a flood event or whether it is just under 14 operation rules, that you would be protecting or 15 telling the wildlife that backwater is coming? 16 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry, I don't understand 17 your question? 18 MS. COURCELLES: Well, for generations 19 now we have been -- 20 THE CHAIRMAN: This was a question 21 that you asked last week and was dealt with last 22 week. 23 MS. COURCELLES: There was no answer. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, he did talk 25 about -- or I shouldn't say he, but somebody from 01277 1 the panel talked about the communications process 2 that is planned to be put in place to let citizens 3 know. 4 MS. COURCELLES: That would be the 5 citizens. I guess I'm worried about the foxes, 6 the rabbit, the deer, the eagles. The Red River 7 in the RM of Ritchot is a bird watching area, the 8 Red River all the way up to the lakes is a 9 migratory river that feeds -- 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I mean, I think 11 this is a very legitimate concern, but it is 12 beyond the scope of our review here. And if you 13 do have concerns with that, you will have to take 14 them to other branches of Government. 15 MS. COURCELLES: I guess it would go 16 back to the cost effective analysis. I'm just 17 trying to figure out how you figure that the 18 current expansion was a better alternative to the 19 alternative diversion, which would alleviate water 20 quality and the killing of the way of life of the 21 people, of the country people? I'm just trying to 22 figure out, $3,000 per capita versus $1,000, and 23 where did all of our health issues and concerns, 24 what dollar value did you put on them, other than 25 the price of, you know, the obvious of -- how did 01278 1 you come up with 3,000 versus 1,000? 2 MR. MCNEIL: I can answer that, Mr. 3 Chairman. The $3,000 is an approximate cost if 4 you take the 110 million and divide it by the 5 30,000 approximately residents in the valley that 6 benefited from that project. And the $1,000 per 7 capita is the price of this project, 665 million 8 divided by approximately 660,000 residents in 9 Winnipeg and downstream that benefit from the 10 project. 11 In terms of the health issues, what we 12 mention in the EIS supplementary is that that has 13 been a concern since the 1997 flood. You are 14 right, it is hard to put a dollar value on those 15 kinds of issues. But Manitoba Government has 16 taken the health issues very seriously, and they 17 have made improvements in consultation with the 18 Emergency Measures Organization to better train 19 people to deal with health effects of emergencies 20 like flooding, fires and whatnot. They have 21 trained all kinds of people and they are more 22 ready for the next emergency situation to deal 23 with health effects. 24 MS. COURCELLES: I guess I would be 25 looking for the MFA to have in their systems 01279 1 perhaps a psychologist or a spiritual advisor that 2 is going to sit in our schools and in our elderly 3 homes on a weekly basis now. By the mere basis of 4 the project, you have now turned our lifestyle 5 into a water tub, or a bathtub, that we don't know 6 when it is coming, we don't even get to control 7 the tap. 8 MR. MCNEIL: I disagree. This project 9 is going to be a slight benefit to those people 10 upstream, and in the bigger floods it is not going 11 to be any worse than the existing situation. 12 That's what we are assessing, we are assessing the 13 effects of this project. 14 MS. COURCELLES: Well, I'm glad that 15 you are checking that out. 16 Going back to the cumulative mental 17 effects for the people, and again that would be, I 18 consider the people everybody that is outside of 19 the floodway, and that when we look at it from 20 apples to apples or apples to oranges, that 21 665 million versus 1 billion to build an 22 alternative diversion that would not affect 23 anybody's water quality, the missing dollar amount 24 is one 747, it is one plane. So as a leading 25 nation, as Canada being a leading nation, to deny 01280 1 its people the right of history and the right of 2 heritage based on the price of one plane to build 3 the thing correctly, again, I guess I'm looking 4 for -- how did you come up with the money? Sorry. 5 MR. REMPEL: Maybe you could help us 6 out by clarifying what alternative you are talking 7 about for the 1 billion? I don't recall that. 8 MS. COURCELLES: To the alternative 9 diversion, so that would be the plans of -- well, 10 it would be like the Portage diversion, exactly 11 that, building one of them as opposed to -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Isn't that essentially 13 what they are doing? 14 MS. COURCELLES: Essentially they are 15 going to flood the south and destroy the water 16 quality up here. So a diversion would be a system 17 built like Portage la Prairie, that would come 18 from the -- well, supposedly at either Ste. Agathe 19 or Richardson Coulee and then go around. 20 MR. MCNEIL: Are you talking about a 21 longer channel than what exists now, so starting 22 further south and then going further north? 23 MS. COURCELLES: Quite honestly, all 24 the details, I do not know, but I know that the 25 country people have suggested this from day one. 01281 1 And actually if you ask the city people they will 2 say the same thing, why have we not -- in order to 3 maintain the quality of life in the province and 4 to not put city against rural, in order to 5 maintain our human rights, that the correct thing 6 for the environment, the fish, the birds, the Red 7 River, would be to build a system like Portage la 8 Prairie diversion. 9 MR. MCNEIL: Again, that was looked at 10 under the IJC studies. It was called the east 11 side diversion, and there could be modifications 12 to that. But, again, it was dismissed early on as 13 a viable economic and environmentally acceptable 14 project as an option to the project that's before 15 us. 16 MS. COURCELLES: Correct. That it was 17 an option. I guess -- 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Question, please. 19 MS. COURCELLES: Sorry -- it would be 20 that I would be interested in finding out the 21 numbers, as I'm sure the people would be, that if 22 you do actually start taking a look at the long 23 term health issues that you are going to have to 24 now deal with that the province has never had to 25 deal with, that perhaps the cost benefit analysis 01282 1 wouldn't be quite as different as you thought it 2 was. 3 MR. MCNEIL: Just to help you out, 4 there is no doubt that a flood bigger than 1997 5 will be a major event for the valley and for the 6 city and for those downstream. But consider the 7 frequency of that event versus building a new 8 channel and taking out thousands of acres of 9 already productive, and the environmental impacts 10 of such a new channel that you are suggesting, it 11 would be phenomenal. It would be much more 12 disruptive each and every year in between the 13 large floods than the effect of flooding for a 14 larger flood. 15 And the focus here, and I keep 16 bringing this back, our focus is what is the 17 effect of our project over and above the existing 18 floodway. 19 MS. COURCELLES: That would be 20 interesting that you would say that -- 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you direct 22 yourself to questions that are relevant to the 23 issue before us. 24 MS. COURCELLES: As stated earlier, it 25 seemed to me that you had said that the Portage 01283 1 diversion had no adverse effects on the 2 environment? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Please, questions that 4 are directly relevant to the issue before us. 5 MS. COURCELLES: I was just furthering 6 his last comment. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: You were debating with 8 him. 9 MS. COURCELLES: I was asking him if 10 they answered already whether or not there was 11 adverse effects with the Portage la Prairie 12 diversion. 13 MR. MCNEIL: The subject of these 14 hearings are floodway expansion. Portage 15 Diversion is not included because there is no 16 changes to that project as a result of this 17 project. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: And last week I ruled 19 your questions about Portage diversion and 20 pollution to Lake Manitoba out of order, and I 21 will do it again today. 22 MS. COURCELLES: Did the MFA study the 23 ancient principles of Feng Shui when looking at 24 wind and water? 25 THE CHAIRMAN: That's out of order. 01284 1 Please move on. 2 MS. COURCELLES: That would be wind 3 and water management. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Please move on. 5 MS. COURCELLES: Did the MFA have a 6 spiritual consultant? 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Out of order, please 8 move on. 9 MS. COURCELLES: Under the ISO 10 environmental standards that you had just put up 11 this morning, will you give the RM of Ritchot 12 citizens advance warning on how we counsel our 13 children in watching the wildlife drown? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, that's out 15 of order too. That's not an answer that can be 16 answered in a hearing such as this, and it is not 17 relevant to the matters before us. 18 MS. COURCELLES: It is relevant to the 19 citizens -- 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I realize it is a very 21 real concern to you and many others in the valley, 22 but it is not an issue that we can deal with in 23 these hearings. It is not relevant to the issue 24 before us. 25 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. Perhaps this 01285 1 one isn't relevant as well. Last year we just 2 built on the river bank of St. Adolphe, and we 3 built at 772 plus two, 774, and the floodway gate 4 was operated at 778. How much water would that 5 put on us? 6 MR. MCNEIL: You are saying if it is 7 operated to 778 -- we haven't had a flood large 8 enough to result in a water level at the inlet 9 structure of 778 yet. With the existing floodway, 10 it would be a flood a little bit smaller than the 11 1826; with the expanded floodway it would be the 12 700 year flood. The profile back to St. Adolphe, 13 I would guess about a foot higher, so that would 14 be about 779. So then you would -- there would be 15 a water level of approximately 5 feet above your 16 protection level with your ring dyke or mound or 17 whatever you have for your protection. 18 MS. COURCELLES: So -- 19 MR. MCNEIL: But that's no different 20 than if we experience a 700 year flood today 21 without the expansion, we are not changing that 22 water level. 23 MS. COURCELLES: Okay. I guess the 24 question would be then, why did we build at 774? 25 MR. MCNEIL: That was explained by Mr. 01286 1 Bowering. The province has taken an approach to 2 increase the regulations for flood protection for 3 the largest recent flood. So after the '79 flood, 4 then the criteria was the 1979 water level plus 5 two feet of free board. And the '96 flood, which 6 was the next largest flood, was approximately 7 equivalent to that, so flood protection more or 8 less was adequate for the '96 flood. But then the 9 '97 flood came along and it was approximately five 10 feet higher at the inlet, and diminishing to zero 11 somewhere south in the valley. And so it was 12 inadequate, and government reviewed the situation 13 and said, okay, we are going to increase the flood 14 proofing criteria to the new highest experienced 15 level of '97 plus two feet. And by the way, to 16 help out the residents in the valley, they got 17 together with the feds and provided $110 million 18 to provide protection to that level. 19 MS. COURCELLES: And that was for a 20 five year time, I believe anybody that's building 21 in the area now doesn't qualify. It cost us 22 $53,000 to build the pad to sit the house on. 23 MR. MCNEIL: And that's no different 24 than any other jurisdiction. Residents in the 25 city that are in the flood plain must adhere to 01287 1 the criteria of flood level at their cost of 2 development. And it is no different in any 3 community in North America. If you build in the 4 flood plain, to protect you government establishes 5 these standards and you must adhere to them. It 6 is no different than having appropriate water and 7 wastewater facilities for the property as well. 8 MS. COURCELLES: I guess in the 9 country we ask the question, if we have to build 10 at the flood plain protection levels, then why are 11 we seeing the Forks being built at a low level? 12 MR. MCNEIL: The Forks walkway was a 13 decision that was made well over ten years ago. 14 And at the time, knowing the frequency of 15 flooding, it was expected that in the summertime 16 it would only be flooded once out of every ten 17 years. And at the time that was deemed to be 18 acceptable by the developers and the designers of 19 the day. 20 Since then, though, since the '97 21 flood, the walkway has been pretty much been 22 flooded at least once throughout the summer period 23 every year since then, related to meteorological 24 conditions over the last ten years. 25 MS. COURCELLES: So, therefore, they 01288 1 continue to be able to just build everything right 2 on the ground as opposed to up on hills? 3 MR. MCNEIL: The walkway, if you are 4 talking about the walkway -- 5 MS. COURCELLES: More than just the 6 walkway. 7 MR. MCNEIL: Let me talk about the 8 walkway. The walkway is still within that flood 9 plain zoned area. There are no habitable 10 structures allowed down there. There is the 11 electricity for the lights but it is dismantled 12 for each spring event. So everything that was 13 developed along the walkway within the flood plain 14 was developed in accordance with the flood 15 proofing legislation. Open air recreation 16 structures are allowed in the flood plain. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Kennedy Courcelles, 18 could you bring your questioning to a close? You 19 indicated to me last night that you had a couple 20 of questions, and this has extended beyond a 21 couple. 22 MS. COURCELLES: Thank you, I thank 23 you for your time. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would 25 propose that we take a morning break a little 01289 1 early, rather than split up the presentation by 2 Cooks Creek. So let's break right now and come 3 back just after 25 after, half past by the clock 4 on the wall at the back of the room. 5 (Proceedings recessed at 10:15 and 6 reconvened at 10:30 a.m.) 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we have order in 8 the room, please? 9 Thank you. We now have presentation 10 on behalf of the Cooks Creek Conservation 11 District. I'm told it will take about an hour and 12 a half which should take us right to lunch time. 13 Could I ask each of you to introduce yourselves 14 for the record? And we will, also since this is 15 evidence that you'll be giving, we will swear you 16 in. I would ask the Commission secretary to deal 17 with that, please? When they state their names 18 for the swearing in, we will get the introduction. 19 MR. SOKOL: George Sokol, chairman of 20 Cooks Creek. 21 MR. DUBINSKY: Ron Dubinsky, 22 vice-chairman of Cooks Creek and farmer. 23 MR. JOHNSON: Verner Johnson, 24 producer. 25 MR. CROOKS: Lloyd Crooks. 01290 1 MR. STEFANSON: Jon Stefanson, 2 consultant. 3 MR. POETKER: Alf Poetker, 4 consultant. 5 MR. BUHLER: Jake Buhler, manager 6 Cooks Creek. 7 MR. CHICOINE: Daryl Chicoine, counsel 8 to Cooks Creek. 9 10 (WITNESSES SWORN) 11 12 MR. SOKOL: Good morning, Mr. Chair, 13 Commission, Floodway Authority and concerned 14 citizens. My name is George Sokol, as I said, 15 chairman of the board, and I will now put Lloyd 16 Crooks, our representative on. 17 MR. CROOKS: Thank you, George. 18 Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I will be 19 essentially coordinating our presentation this 20 morning. I will begin with me giving some of the 21 background information on the district and 22 information leading up to the issues that we wish 23 to present to the Commission this morning. And I 24 will be assisted in that task with these two 25 gentlemen, these two producers here, Ron Dubinsky 01291 1 and Verner Johnson. The technical portion of the 2 presentation, which will be by far the largest and 3 most significant, will be presented by Jon 4 Stefanson, consulting engineer to the district, 5 and he will be assisted by Alf Poetker. And Jake 6 Buhler, the conservation district manager will be 7 available for any local knowledge, or to be called 8 on for any questions in that area, but he will be 9 giving the summary to our presentation as well. 10 So just let me begin by saying the 11 Cooks Creek Conservation District has been in 12 operation for 26 years. It was incorporated in 13 1979 under the Conservation Districts Act. 14 The member municipalities of the 15 conservation district include the RMs of 16 Springfield, Tache, Ste. Anne, Reynolds and 17 Brokenhead. Each of these municipalities has 18 representation on the conservation district board, 19 or one of its subcommittees at least, and the 20 programs in the district and their activities are 21 funded through a combination of government grants, 22 contributions from the member municipalities, and 23 whatever partnerships that they may arrange with 24 other agencies and organizations. 25 The mandate of the -- there are 15 01292 1 conservation districts in the Province. Cooks 2 Creek was the fifth one to be established. The 3 mandate of the conservation districts are to 4 conduct conservation and resource management 5 activities within their boundaries. And these 6 activities may include soil conservation programs, 7 wildlife habitat management, conservation 8 education, and naturally surface water management 9 is also a big issue. 10 And while each of these districts may 11 have a different focus, the main reason that the 12 Cooks Creek Conservation District was established 13 was for the purpose primarily of surface water 14 management, primarily as it relates to 15 agricultural activities. That function dominates 16 their activities and their budgeting process. 17 On the screen, you will see a map of 18 the conservation district. It is approximately 19 862 square kilometres in size, and as the name 20 suggests, its boundaries are based primarily on 21 the drainage area of the Cooks Creek and its 22 tributaries, with the addition of the areas on the 23 western side that, as it was pointed out, that 24 drain directly into the floodway itself. These 25 straight lines there, that represents the 01293 1 floodway, the east berm of the floodway. 2 The district extends from the Richer 3 area northwest to approximately highway 44, just 4 north and east of Birds Hill Provincial Park. The 5 towns in the district include Richer, Anola, 6 Dugald, Oakbank and a number of smaller 7 communities. Rural residential development is an 8 important component of the landscape, primarily in 9 the areas surrounding the Birds Hill Provincial 10 Park and in those regions closer to the City of 11 Winnipeg. 12 Effective water management is critical 13 to the area, and in particular as it relates to 14 agriculture. Before the construction of the 15 existing floodway, streams and drainage channels 16 found their way from the region westward into the 17 Red River and the Seine River. When the floodway 18 was constructed, these channels were directed into 19 the floodway through outlet structures designed 20 and constructed specifically for that purpose. 21 Over the years, the surface water 22 management system feeding into the floodway 23 outlets has been continually upgraded. In some 24 instances, the channels emptying into the outlets 25 have caught up with the capability of the outlets. 01294 1 That is the channels entering the floodway cannot 2 be further upgraded. The bottom of the channel 3 can't be lowered any further because they have 4 already reached the elevations of the sills of the 5 existing outlets. 6 With the expansion of the floodway and 7 the associated replacement of the existing 8 outlets, an opportunity exists now that will allow 9 the outlets to be designed and constructed in such 10 a way as to allow for surface water management 11 system upgrading into the distant future. 12 The Cooks Creek Conservation District 13 asks that the Floodway Authority take into full 14 consideration the district's future needs in 15 serving the agriculture industry of the area, as 16 well as other residents, in the design and 17 construction of these new outlets. 18 The Cooks Creek Conservation District, 19 as is much of Southern Manitoba, is situated on 20 the lake bed of former Lake Agassiz. As the ice 21 from the past Ice Age receded to the north, water 22 accumulated along the front of the ice sheet and 23 created a lake. For about 5,000 years, Lake 24 Agassiz covered much of Southern Manitoba in one 25 shape and size or another, as the ice receded, 01295 1 readvanced and then receded again. Finally, about 2 8,000 years ago, it drained for good northward 3 through Hudson Bay. The entire Red River Valley 4 has been impacted by the presence of this lake. 5 The lake left behind an exceedingly 6 flat plain of clays and silt. Having been 7 deposited over 5,000 years, these materials are 8 very deep in certain portions of the valley. 9 Following the disappearance of Lake Agassiz, 10 vegetation established itself. And as periodic 11 climate fluctuations occurred, vegetation on the 12 landscape shifted back and forth between 13 grasslands and park lands. The organic material 14 left behind from this vegetation over the 8,000 15 years since the lake disappeared has formed a 16 thick horizon of fertile soils. These soils, 17 largely Osborne clays, which are some of the 18 heaviest of the soils in the valley, are very 19 valuable as farmland, most of them being in class 20 1 or class 2 category. 21 However, the major limitation, 22 particularly in the Cooks Creek Conservation 23 District, is poor internal drainage and wetness. 24 In much of the conservation district, the slope of 25 the topography is less than one half metre per 01296 1 kilometre, with an individual quarter section of 2 land the slopes to the borders of that land may be 3 measured in centimetres. 4 The clay soils, although fertile, have 5 very low permeability; that is water moves through 6 the soil very slowly. When they reach the 7 capacity to hold water, the excess water just sits 8 on the surface, perhaps sometimes for days. 9 In addition to these problems, the 10 local climate also creates some challenges. While 11 the prairies are perceived by many at least to be 12 a very dry area, troubled by spells of drought, 13 and this area is part of the prairies, long time 14 producers in the area tell us that they have never 15 lost a crop to drought. 16 Southeastern Manitoba receives more 17 rainfall than areas to the west. And you don't 18 have to go very far for an example. The Steinbach 19 climate station, which is not in the district 20 specifically but is representative of the area, 21 has a long term average rainfall for the May to 22 September period of 362 millimeters. 23 Fanneystelle, which is about 30 kilometres 24 southwest of Winnipeg, is situated on similar 25 soils, similar topography, and the average 01297 1 rainfall for that same period over the long term 2 is 330 millimeters. Perhaps more important though 3 is the difference in the figures for the month of 4 June, probably the most critical month since crops 5 are in an important development stage, and 6 activities such as weed control and pest control 7 are very timely in June. 8 Fannystelle averages 78 millimeters of 9 rain, Steinbach gets 95. The result then is 10 ponding and localized flooding on the fields and 11 strong reliance on the local surface water 12 management system. 13 I'm going to bring our producers in 14 now to deal with the issues as it relates to the 15 agricultural industry in the area. These 16 gentlemen farm on land that drains into the 17 floodway area, and they depend on that land for 18 their livelihood. I believe we're going to start 19 with Ron Dubinsky. 20 MR. DUBINSKY: Thank you, Mr. Crooks. 21 Mr. Chairman and Commission, my name is Ron 22 Dubinsky. I have been farming for over 20 years, 23 I've been married eight, and I have three children 24 who will hopefully one day operate the family 25 farm. I'm the third generation to presently farm 01298 1 3,500 acres located in the rural municipalities of 2 Springfield and Tache and are located 4 miles east 3 of the floodway. 4 Currently produced is grain, oil 5 seeds, special crops, pedigree seed crops, and I 6 also operate a custom seed cleaning plant. 7 Agriculture today is faced with some 8 difficult challenges. Returns from crops such as 9 wheat have been steadily declining in recent 10 years. Costs of inputs such as fertilizer, 11 chemicals and fuel have been increasing yearly. 12 The loss of other policies such as the Crow rate 13 have drastically increased the cost of 14 transportation to export markets to producers. 15 With these economic conditions, producers are 16 shifting their production to higher value crops to 17 keep their operations viable. These higher value 18 crops such as beans, corn, sunflowers, require 19 higher input costs and more specialized equipment 20 for a successful harvest. 21 High value crops are also less 22 tolerant to standing water than cereal crops, 23 therefore, net losses can occur after only 24 24 hours of standing water. With more money invested 25 in a crop, there is more risk of money to lose due 01299 1 to standing water. In agriculture field 2 operations such as seeding, spraying and 3 harvesting, the timing is very essential. Even 4 small delays due to standing water add up to big 5 losses for the producer. 6 Existing crops that are growing can 7 also suffer from great devaluation. For example, 8 the crop will be worth less at the point of sale, 9 or yield losses can occur also from standing 10 water. These losses can sometimes be avoided by 11 better water management system. Sometimes lower 12 value crops are chosen for this very reason if 13 they only provide small returns. 14 Every acre in use must be productive 15 to provide a positive return and a viable future 16 for generations to come. Thank you. And I'll 17 turn it over back to Mr. Crooks. 18 MR. CROOKS: Thanks, Ron. Now Verner 19 Johnson. 20 MS. JOHNSON: Hello, Mr. Chairman. 21 My name is Verner Johnson. I've lived in the area 22 southeast of Dugald all my life. I started 23 farming there in 1985 with approximately 24 1,500 acres. Today, along with my wife and young 25 children, we farm close to 6,000 acres. The farm 01300 1 is located 8 miles due east of the floodway. 2 That's exactly where the farm is. Some of the 3 land is a lot closer. All of our water drains 4 into the floodway from our entire farm, so it is a 5 great concern to all of us in that area. 6 In the Cooks Creek Conservation 7 District, 15 to 20 per cent of the yield lost from 8 standing crops is because of wetness. This is an 9 average, year over year number. Sometimes it can 10 be zero, sometimes it can be 50 or 60, but 15 to 11 20 per cent average per year is lost due to 12 wetness. 13 Average annual loss to the district is 14 $7.4 million. These numbers are arrived from, on 15 an average basket of crops, our average gross 16 return per acre is $250; 20 per cent of that is 17 $50. So 148,000 crop land acres in the watershed 18 district, calculating those numbers, comes to 19 7.4 million. Half of these losses we estimate 20 could be avoided through better drainage. And 21 these numbers are not exaggerated numbers, these 22 are factual conservative numbers. Just to give 23 you an example, $50 an acre equals about 7 bushels 24 of canola, which is easily lost, or 12 bushels of 25 wheat which is easily lost due to standing water 01301 1 on the land. 2 Some of the reasons leading to these 3 losses are we need to get the standing water off 4 the crop within 24 to 36 hours, depending on the 5 type of crop that's out there. If it's on longer 6 than 36 hours, it's either dead or too sick to 7 provide a return. Timing of field operations as 8 well, seeding, spraying, harvesting -- the other 9 thing that's been brought to mention already is 10 the heavy rainfall patterns that we have in 11 southeastern Manitoba as compared to other areas. 12 In other parts of the province, they are looking 13 to conserve water. Here we get plenty and in rain 14 events that happen three, four, five inches at a 15 time. So surface water management to us is 16 critical. And of course, the heavy clay texture 17 of our soil doesn't allow any water to permeate 18 down. 19 In 2001, $789,000 paid to producers 20 unable to seed, that is from Manitoba Crop 21 Insurance; in 2004, $959,000 paid out. That's 22 just paid out for acres not able to seed, that's 23 not included in the crop losses. 24 Showing accumulation of water on crop 25 land after a summer rain, and as you can see, it 01302 1 doesn't matter what the farmer does to bring the 2 water to the ditch, it ain't going anywhere. 3 That's a good illustration of what our problems 4 are. 5 One thing I wanted to bring to the 6 attention is that we're not trying to compete with 7 the floodway capacity in the springtime. Our 8 problems are in June and July when the floodway is 9 completely empty, as we drive back and forth to 10 Winnipeg over an empty floodway and come back a 11 few miles east and there's water laying all over 12 the land. 13 The other things that have changed 14 over the years, when the floodway was built back 15 in the '60s, they were able to -- farms at that 16 point were a certain size. And just to give you 17 an example, there might have been six or eight 18 farmers on a section of land. Well, due to 19 economics, now you've got one or two farmers on a 20 section of land. The ability for a farmer to 21 drain the water off that land is far greater now 22 than it was 30 or 40 years. Because if you've got 23 six or eight guys, if they needed to drain the 24 land, the water ran across each other's property 25 and they needed to cooperate, and that always 01303 1 didn't happen. But now when you've got one farmer 2 farming a section of land, he is free to drain 3 that land to the public drainage system on a more 4 timely manner. 5 The other ability is that the 6 technology and equipment that we have nowadays, 7 you know, there's laser guided equipment that's 8 available, and many farmers have it, in order to 9 be more efficient at draining the water. So 10 what's happened is that the public system of 11 drainage has not kept up with the farmers' system 12 of drainage. 13 The net returns per acre, as Ron was 14 mentioning, are incredibly small. We need every 15 acre to be productive to remain viable. Our farms 16 are larger and we have to be that way in order to 17 be viable. There is no other alternative. We 18 can't go back to farming 160 acres of land and 19 expect to be viable. That's just something that's 20 been dictated to us by economics, so we have to 21 deal with that. We can't change that, we just 22 have to deal with it. 23 Losses go beyond the farm gate. We're 24 not just talking about losses to the farmers. We 25 live in communities, we live in a province that 01304 1 depends largely on agriculture to bring new money 2 into the economy every year. In our local economy 3 here, there is millions of dollars that are lost 4 on an average on a yearly basis. These dollars 5 just don't stay in farmers' pockets, they get put 6 back into the economy. That helps everybody. 7 There's also lots of dollars being paid out 8 through crop insurance that wouldn't necessarily 9 have to be paid out if there was a better system 10 of drainage. 11 The floodway is the start of this. 12 Drainage also includes our local drains as well, 13 but the floodway is before us right now and it is 14 a project that's taking place. 15 And when we talk about drop 16 structures, these structures are going to be in 17 place for 50, maybe 75 years, and they are 18 concrete drop structures. We can't come back in 19 10 years and say, well, we need this one lowered. 20 They will look at us and laugh and say, why 21 wouldn't you talk about that when it was being 22 built? That's what we're doing right now. The 23 elevation of these drop structures is critical to 24 future drainage in our area. 25 In summary, I can't emphasize enough 01305 1 the importance of surface water drainage to the 2 agricultural communities east of the floodway. 3 We're not asking for much here, some small design 4 changes to the inlet structures that have already 5 been proposed. I believe these changes to be 6 straightforward and a common sense approach to 7 allow for the future upgrading of agricultural 8 drains. And like I said, when I say future, these 9 drains are expected to be there for 50 to 75 10 years. The lowering of these structures to the 11 level of our recommendations is critical to the 12 future of surface water management in the area 13 east of the Red River Floodway. Thank you. 14 MR. CROOKS: Thanks, Verner. In order 15 for the local agricultural producers to be 16 successful, as we've just heard, continual 17 upgrading of the surface water management system 18 is necessary. However, the conservation district 19 recognizes that that can't be conducted without 20 some foresight and some careful consideration. 21 In recognition of that, the 22 conservation district will be undertaking a 23 surface water management strategy. The process 24 has begun to seek out a consulting firm to carry 25 out the task on behalf of the district. Appendix 01306 1 "A" in the submission given to the Commission 2 provides a copy of the district resolution, which 3 was passed in January, which sets this process in 4 motion. And Appendix "B" in the submission to the 5 Commission was a report prepared in June of 2004, 6 floodway east side drainage plan, a plan to 7 upgrade the agricultural drainage network that 8 finds outlet into the east side of the Red River 9 Floodway, a preliminary report prepared by 10 Stefanson Watershed Services and Cochrane 11 Engineering for the district. That indicates 12 their commitment at least as early as June of last 13 year to begin the process of developing a 14 strategy. 15 It is expected that once the strategy 16 has been completed and developed, that improvement 17 of the infrastructure within the district will 18 start in the short to medium term. 19 The Conservation District's initiative 20 is consistent with Manitoba's water strategy and 21 provincial goals. The water strategy from 2003 22 states, as you'll see on the screen, 23 "The objective of Manitoba's water 24 drainage policies is to enhance 25 economic viability of Manitoba's 01307 1 agriculture community through the 2 provision of comprehensive, planned 3 drainage infrastructure." 4 The Manitoba water policy as developed in 1990, 5 policy 6.2 states, 6 "The standard of drainage for an area 7 shall be based on the productive 8 capacity of the soil and on technical, 9 economic and environmental criteria, 10 recognizing watershed community and 11 farm impacts." 12 In addition, as part of the 13 implementation of the Manitoba water strategy, as 14 I understand it at least, the province has 15 embarked on its integrated water resources 16 planning and management initiative. This 17 initiative is still in the development stage but 18 it is expected that over time it will develop 19 plans for water management over most of 20 agricultural Manitoba. 21 Just turn to the impact of the 22 floodway now. As indicated earlier, the floodway 23 forms a significant portion of the western 24 boundary of the district. When it was first 25 established, there were 14 streams and channels 01308 1 that entered the Red River and the Seine River 2 from the east. And when the floodway was 3 constructed, these channels, some of them were 4 combined, and the results were that there were 5 only seven outlets into the floodway coming in 6 from the east. 7 While there have been local concerns 8 over the effectiveness of some of these 9 arrangements, and that will be discussed a little 10 later on, the floodway has indeed provided a net 11 benefit for the district. For example, the 12 opportunity to channel water into the Red River 13 through the floodway has been a benefit to the 14 district. 15 The floodway could easily handle any 16 maximum flows that the surface water management 17 system may deliver to it. And also, as Verner had 18 mentioned, the summer flows are of most concern to 19 agricultural producers, and these flows would 20 enter the floodway at a time when flows in the 21 floodway are low or minimal. 22 In addition, high flows in the 23 floodway do not present a problem to incoming 24 flows. 25 The existing outlets into the 01309 1 floodway, outlets or inlets into the floodway, 2 were designed to the standard of the day in the 3 1960s. However, the further improvements to the 4 surface water management system in the Cooks Creek 5 district are now limited by the elevations of the 6 sills of these outlets. 7 It has been acknowledged by the 8 Floodway Authority that when these outlets are 9 being replaced, and all of those of concern to the 10 district will be replaced, they will be installed 11 with a lower sill elevation than what currently 12 exists. Once again, the Conservation District is 13 requesting that when the new outlets are being 14 designed, consideration must be given not only to 15 the foreseeable future, but they must build in a 16 factor for unforeseen circumstances. 17 The Cooks Creek Conservation District 18 supports floodway expansion. It is important to 19 protect Winnipeg. It's the economic and political 20 centre of the province. It also is home to more 21 than half of the province's population. And the 22 new construction also provides the conservation 23 district an opportunity to improve its surface 24 water management infrastructure. But there are 25 issues to address such as the potential impacts on 01310 1 groundwater quality, during and following 2 construction, and a sustained supply of 3 groundwater after construction. 4 It's worthy of note that the 5 Conservation District is showing some responsible 6 management in this area by taking on a program of 7 its own of locating and sealing abandoned wells in 8 the district for the purpose of protecting the 9 quality of groundwater. 10 Also the concern over the provision of 11 adequate transportation infrastructure is an 12 issue. The district has a significant rural 13 residential population that requires safe and 14 adequate access to the city, where many of these 15 people work. In addition, the agricultural 16 community requires proper access to Winnipeg to 17 deliver their products and to have access to 18 agricultural suppliers in the city and so on. 19 Now, the district is aware that these 20 issues have been and will be brought to the 21 attention of the Commission by others appearing 22 here. So the district is completely cognizant of 23 these issues and fully supports the efforts of the 24 others bringing them to you. 25 Therefore, to avoid repetition, we 01311 1 will focus on the presentation of the issues 2 related to surface water management system in the 3 Cooks Creek Conservation District and how certain 4 actions taken by floodway expansion can be of 5 immense benefit over time. 6 At this time then, I will turn over 7 the presentation to Mr. Jon Stefanson, consultant 8 engineer with the Cooks Creek Conservation 9 District, and he will take you through the 10 engineering aspects of our presentation, and he 11 will be supported by Alf Poetker. Jon. 12 MR. STEFANSON: Thank you. First I 13 would like to make a few comments to reinforce 14 some of the comments that Mr. Crooks has already 15 made about the physical circumstances that we are 16 dealing with. And the purpose of that is to try 17 to make sure that the Commission and others fully 18 understand why agricultural land drainage is 19 important here. It may also serve to answer a 20 question posed to me by Mr. Motheral last week. 21 First a comment about the whole Red 22 River Valley and what it is. This is obvious to 23 most people here, but probably not all. The Red 24 River Valley is not a river valley in the usual 25 sense, it is a basin. It is a basin that is 01312 1 confined by certain topographical features, the 2 Manitoba escarpment to the west provides a clear 3 boundary to the basin. To the east, there is a 4 less definitive rise in elevation that also 5 confines the basin. It is the area where lake 6 Agassiz lingered for the longest time before it 7 finally drained away to the north, longest time 8 outside of Lake Winnipeg. And that has defined 9 the characteristics that we are dealing with 10 today. 11 The importance of agricultural land 12 drainage has to do with three key aspects, lake 13 bed topography, an underlying layer of clay and 14 fertile topsoil. 15 Now, I think most people could easily 16 imagine that when a lake bed has been around for 17 5,000 or so years, drains away, and drains away 18 fairly quickly, that we would be left with a 19 rather flat topography with shallow depressions 20 that would fill with water every time it rains, 21 and that water wouldn't go anywhere. 22 The second thing is a thick layer of 23 lake deposition clay of relatively low 24 permeability -- that is to say when water ponds on 25 the surface, it will not move into the ground, 01313 1 except very slowly, and probably when the clay is 2 saturated, essentially not at all. 3 The third thing is fertile topsoil. 4 Now, we have a layer of topsoil that is a legacy 5 created by thousands of years of grassland growth 6 since the lake drained away. So we have an area 7 that is extremely productive for agricultural 8 purposes, for cropping. But in order for that, 9 for agricultural operations to be successful, we 10 need to introduce manmade facilities to remove the 11 surface water from those shallow depressions. 12 Actually, the Red River Valley is 13 covered by an extensive and intensive network of 14 agricultural drains to serve that purpose. 15 Now, this situation in the Red River 16 Valley is unique in the province, and it is unique 17 at least in terms of the scale on the prairies, 18 this basin where the characteristics are 19 determined by a lake that sat around for 5,000 20 years. 21 Mr. Crooks has also mentioned, and 22 I'll just mention it again, that whereas people 23 may think of the prairies more in terms of drought 24 than excess precipitation, but as you approach the 25 eastern extent of the prairies, you do run into 01314 1 greater annual rainfall. And as he mentioned, 2 local producers say that they don't lose crop to 3 drought, they lose crop periodically to excess 4 precipitation. 5 When we speak of agricultural drainage 6 in this context, we are speaking of a specific 7 type of drainage. The removal of water from 8 shallow depressions and, of course, standing crop 9 on a lake bed topography. When we speak of 10 upgrading the agricultural system, we are speaking 11 of improving the drainage characteristics to 12 better service the land, we are not speaking of 13 expanding the system. 14 Mr. Crooks mentioned that the 15 conservation district is positioning itself to 16 undertake a comprehensive review of the system, 17 surface water management system. I think we 18 should realize that the drainage is not everything 19 here. The Conservation District's mandate goes 20 beyond that to anything involved with surface 21 water management. And so when they look at a 22 strategy for the future, they are dealing with 23 land drainage and any other aspect where the needs 24 and the opportunities can be identified. 25 Most of what I'll be talking about 01315 1 relates to the drop structures into the floodway, 2 and the purpose of putting up this photo is to try 3 and impress in the minds of the Commission just 4 what these structures look like. And this is the 5 component of the drop structure that is at the top 6 of the floodway channel. The top photo is looking 7 towards the floodway and the bottom photo is 8 looking away from the floodway up the incoming 9 drains that are located on floodway property. 10 So the upper photo indicates the 11 concrete component. In the background you can see 12 the entrance to the pipes which are buried down 13 the channel side wall. At the bottom there will 14 be another concrete structure that will dissipate 15 the energy. So I'd like you to keep this photo in 16 mind as we move on. 17 There are three issues that the 18 district feels that require attention in regard to 19 the floodway expansion. The first is hydraulic 20 flow capacity. Now, the original structures when 21 the floodway was first built were built to a 1 per 22 cent frequency standard, that is to say to a 23 standard of the flow that would occur from a given 24 drainage area once in a hundred years in the 25 long-term average. And the channels on floodway 01316 1 property that connect the incoming agricultural 2 drains to the drop structures were designed to a 2 3 per cent standard, or flows that would occur once 4 in 50 years -- flows that would occur or be 5 exceeded, we should be clear on that, flows that 6 will occur or be exceeded once in 50 years. 7 The Floodway Authority has determined 8 that they will replace the structures using the 9 same standards, the structures and the channels on 10 floodway property to the same standards. But in 11 the predesign exercise, they find that when they 12 apply the hydrology of today to determine what the 13 standards mean, that they come up with flows that 14 are substantially larger than were used for the 15 original structures. 16 In any case, the design flows that are 17 used for agricultural systems are not determined 18 in the same method. They are not determined on a 19 frequency basis, they are used by another method. 20 But if you take the results of that and try to 21 relate it to frequency flows, you will find that 22 they are equal to about 10 per cent frequency 23 flows; in other words, flows that will occur or be 24 exceeded once in ten years on the long-term 25 average. 01317 1 So it's pretty evident that the 2 requirements of the, or the capacities that will 3 be built into the floodway structures, which are 4 essentially equal, or correspond to flood 5 protection standards, are far in excess of 6 anything that we could conceive of as being 7 required for agricultural systems. 8 So we are prepared to say, depending 9 on what the final design exercise comes up with, 10 but we are prepared to say that this issue has 11 been taken care of. 12 Now, we move onto the second issue, 13 which is to provide in the design -- this is a 14 rather lengthy title here -- but to provide 15 features in the designs of the structures so that 16 future lowering of the agricultural systems can be 17 accomplished and won't be constrained by the 18 structures. 19 Now, when agricultural systems are 20 upgraded, this generally means an increase in 21 capacity. The purpose of upgrading, of course, is 22 to improve the service to the land. It generally 23 involves an increase in capacity, which means a 24 larger channel, a wider channel and a deeper 25 channel. Wider doesn't concern us in this 01318 1 context, but lowering the channel bottom does. 2 Also when a drainage system is 3 improved in this context, there may be a reason to 4 increase the bottom slope. And just to explain 5 what that means in this context, in the Red River 6 Valley it's common for the public component of the 7 agricultural systems to be designed with a drain 8 bottom slope of 0.02 per cent, which translates 9 into a drop of about a foot in a mile, a drop of 10 about a foot in a mile of channel. These slopes 11 are chosen in design not because they are most 12 effective, but because the topography doesn't 13 allow you to apply a steeper slope. 14 Here we have the deep floodway 15 channel, so we are not constrained in the same 16 way, at least until we advance some distance away 17 from the floodway. So that is another reason 18 for -- that the future upgrading may require 19 channel bottom lowering at the floodway boundary. 20 And there may be other reasons having to do with 21 how we choose to have the system function. 22 So the MFA has recognized that the 23 need to make provisions for future upgrading is 24 valid and they are prepared to go some distance 25 towards providing that. Now, I can't speak for 01319 1 the district, but I think it's fair to say that 2 they appreciate the general approach that Doug 3 McNeil has taken, with the support of Rick Hay and 4 Brian Peter in regard to this matter. But the 5 district now must do everything it can to make 6 sure that the full requirements are fully 7 understood. 8 The proper expression I think for the 9 situation was well expressed by somebody from the 10 MFA in response to a TAC question, and they said 11 the following, and I quote: 12 "Local authorities will therefore be 13 afforded the opportunity to upgrade 14 the capacity of the land drainage 15 system without being constrained by 16 the structures of the system's 17 outfall, mainly the floodway." 18 Without being constrained by the structures, that 19 is key. As Verner has alluded to, once the outlet 20 structures are constructed, they will be very 21 difficult and expensive to alter. 22 In the predesign exercise they 23 identified, or they suggested a lowering of the 24 new drop structure, the lowering of the inlet to 25 the new drop structures of .6 metres as compared 01320 1 to the structures that are being replaced. And 2 Mr. McNeil last week indicated that this is simply 3 conceptual and it will be determined in the final 4 design. 5 We have examined the survey 6 information on the incoming drains and arrived at 7 our own figures of what a reasonable allowance 8 would be for the foreseeable upgrading. And by 9 that, I mean the upgrading that is likely to occur 10 in the near or medium term, what we can foresee in 11 terms of our current approaches to land drainage. 12 And we feel we need to go a bit beyond what the 13 authority so far has indicated in from the 14 predesign exercise. 15 In the predesign exercise, it is 16 indicated that the existing structures are 40 17 years old, which of course we know. They 18 speculated that the structures had 10 to 20 years 19 of useful life left. That will give you a total 20 life of a structure of 50 to 60 years. It also 21 recommended that they use concrete pipes instead 22 of the current corrugated metal pipes, and they 23 indicated that the purpose of that would be to 24 extend the life of the structure. 25 So I think it's fair to say that if 01321 1 these structures are properly designed and 2 properly constructed, properly maintained, and 3 periodically repaired when they get a little 4 older, and provided we don't expand the floodway 5 again, that these structures could last for 60, 6 80, or maybe well beyond that in terms -- before 7 they would need to be replaced. So we're 8 suggesting that when it comes to the future needs 9 of, possible future needs in terms of agricultural 10 system upgrading, that we think in terms of the 11 same sort of time frame. 12 We can deal now with what we can 13 reasonably foresee, but we also need to make 14 allowance for what we cannot foresee. Agriculture 15 has changed over the 40 years that the floodway 16 has been in existence. It will likely change 17 further within the practical, or before these new 18 structures need to be replaced. Decisions that 19 will be made further into the future about how 20 these systems will be upgraded or designed will be 21 made by people who won't even be born for a number 22 of years yet. 23 So for the moment, we are proposing an 24 additional lowering of .8 metres beyond what we 25 can reasonably foresee. In other words, the .8 01322 1 metres really accounts for the unforeseeable. 2 Now, this of course has to be related 3 to structure design and so on. 4 The slide now indicates, for sampling 5 of the main drains, what we are talking about in 6 terms of making provisions for the foreseeable 7 future and for the unforeseeable. 8 Now, the more difficult parts I pass 9 onto Alf Poetker. So I will ask him to comment on 10 this slide as to what these figures mean and how 11 they were arrived. 12 MR. POETKER: The recommended 13 elevations of the inlet structures to the floodway 14 were derived on the basis of the foreseeable 15 drainage channel lowering, plus an additional 16 allowance for future channel reconstruction or 17 reconfiguration that is not currently 18 contemplated. 19 The first number in each of the 20 formulas shown on this slide has been computed 21 using an empirical drainage formula that was 22 developed for the Cooks Creek Conservation 23 District. This is detailed on pages 7 to 15 of 24 the June 2004 report which is attached as Appendix 25 "B" to the Cooks Creek submission to this hearing. 01323 1 The calculations have been undertaken 2 by Cochrane Engineering using detailed survey and 3 design information through the entire reach of 4 each drain. Elevations of the field drains 5 created by the individual producers along the 6 municipal drains have been used in establishing 7 the required water surface elevations. 8 In addition to the calculated 9 elevations for each drain, a further allowance has 10 been made of 0.8 metres, as has already been 11 mentioned by Mr. Stefanson. 12 One example of potential future 13 channel reconfiguration is the Seine River 14 tributary diversion. This is explained on page 22 15 and shown in figure 14 of the aforementioned June 16 2004 report. A preliminary calculation of the 17 required lowering of the Prairie Grove drain, if 18 this diversion is undertaken, indicates that an 19 additional 0.4 to 0.5 metres would be required 20 over and above the 0.95 metres that is calculated 21 for the Prairie Grove drain alone. To allow for 22 refinement of the calculations and for factors 23 unknown, this has been increased to 0.8 metres for 24 purposes of our recommendation. 25 The figures shown in this slide 01324 1 represent the present and future drainage system 2 requirements which will ultimately be needed at 3 the floodway property line. 4 Back to Mr. Stefanson. 5 MR. STEFANSON: The predesign exercise 6 indicated, just fairly casually, an approach to 7 how these structures and approaching channels 8 would be designed. We are proposing something 9 slightly different, and I'll just run you through 10 it. 11 The basic approach that we are 12 suggesting is that the channels on the floodway 13 property which connect the agricultural drains of 14 the floodway boundary with the drop structures, 15 and these channels can be in some cases one, two, 16 three miles long. We are suggesting that they be 17 designed for the 2 per cent capacity, according to 18 the criteria that the MFA has established. And 19 that's simply designed as independent entities 20 without regard to the provision for future 21 lowering that we are talking about. 22 Because of the increase in hydrology, 23 these structures will be -- these channels will be 24 larger than the previous ones, and almost 25 inevitably that means, of course, that they will 01325 1 be wider and deeper if normal efficient channel 2 design parameters are used. So it's almost 3 inevitable that they will arrive at the floodway 4 boundary with a channel bottom that is lower than 5 that of the incoming agricultural drain. So there 6 will be a drop structure at that location to 7 handle the transition from one level to another. 8 Drop structures, of course, are simply devices to 9 lower the water from one level to another without 10 erosion. 11 The next step would be to design the 12 structure into the floodway in such a way that it 13 would have a temporary sill at the level of the 2 14 per cent channel bottom, and a provision to lower 15 it as required. What we're talking about here, of 16 course, is simply conceptual. We're not relating 17 it to any particular structure location, we're 18 just simply defining an approach and how this will 19 shake out in terms of each location will be 20 determined in the final design exercise. 21 What we're suggesting is that the 2 22 per cent channel on the floodway property and the 23 structure, drop structure at the floodway boundary 24 are components that will be required in any case. 25 They do not specifically relate to the provision 01326 1 for lowering the channel in the future, lowering 2 the incoming agricultural drainage channel in the 3 future. The provision at the outlet structure 4 that will allow the lowering of the effective sill 5 is the part that is added to account for future 6 agricultural drain lowering. 7 And this is just a sketch to run 8 through that again so that it's clear, hopefully 9 clear. This is simply a schematic, it's not 10 related to anything, any location. It's not even 11 to scale or in proportion, it simply is an attempt 12 to relate the features that make it up. 13 I'll just run through it. This 14 represents the ground surface. I have ignored the 15 embankments because they are off to one side. 16 This is the ground surface and the side wall of 17 the floodway channel and the base. This would 18 represent the bottom, the existing bottom of the 19 agricultural drain that's coming into the floodway 20 boundary, and continues on, on the dotted line, as 21 per current existing situation, to the drop 22 structure, and this would represent the lip of the 23 drop structure. And then this line would 24 represent the bottom of the culverts that are 25 buried in the floodway wall. 01327 1 We are suggesting then that the 2 per 2 cent channel be designed as an independent entity, 3 as I mentioned. And this would very likely bring 4 it below the agricultural drain of the floodway 5 boundary, and you would have a drop structure at 6 this location. 7 And at the outlet structure into the 8 floodway, we would see a provision, which I'll 9 talk about in a minute, that would allow the sill 10 to be lowered as required in the future. 11 Now, cost of course is a very 12 important factor to consider, and we're suggesting 13 that our approach is cost effective. The channel 14 structure, the drop structure at the channel 15 boundary, although as we say we consider this to 16 be part of the facilities that will be installed 17 in any case, but we are just simply suggesting a 18 simple sheet steel piling and rock structure which 19 has been used by Water Stewardship, or more to the 20 point, by the old Water Resources Branch over very 21 many years on the channels that were their 22 responsibility. 23 It also allows for lowering fairly 24 easily, because the weir of the structure is made 25 up of the top of the sheet steel piling, and these 01328 1 can be cut down or driven further into the ground, 2 or whatever, to lower that weir as required in the 3 future. 4 Now, the provision for inlet lowering 5 at the outlet, we are suggesting a permanent sill 6 at an elevation that is below the incoming 2 per 7 cent channel, and a stop log, concrete stop log 8 feature to raise the sill from the permanent sill 9 up to the level of the bottom of the 2 per cent 10 channel. And just as sort of an aside, the stop 11 log feature would also allow adding stop logs at 12 those locations where there is any concern about 13 high floodway levels or overflow that may back 14 out. And probably Skholny Creek location is the 15 only one where that is relevant. 16 To cover that again, this is a sketch 17 of a component of a drop structure and it 18 relates -- I hope that you can relate this back to 19 the photograph that we showed earlier. It is the 20 concrete component that is set on the top of the 21 floodway channel. 22 The flow is -- just to make sure that 23 you're oriented properly -- the flow would enter 24 from the upper right-hand and flow down to the 25 lower left-hand. And in terms of the photograph 01329 1 that you're looking at, you're looking at it in 2 this direction. So we have the concrete structure 3 and the round holes here that would connect to the 4 pipes that are buried down the slope of the 5 channel wall. 6 Now, we have added an indication, and 7 again this is just an indication, an indication of 8 a stop log feature here. And just to make sure 9 that this is understood, the 2 per cent channel 10 would be at the same elevation as the top of the 11 top stop log. There's more to it, of course, in 12 terms of hydraulic design, but for simple 13 explanation. 14 And one thing I would like to point up 15 on here is that the permanent sill elevation 16 represents the ultimate lowering that can occur. 17 And what we're suggesting by using this approach, 18 whether you choose one elevation or another for 19 that permanent sill elevation is not an important 20 cost factor. So we have, I would suggest that we 21 have some flexibility to add something a little 22 extra without being all that concerned about the 23 cost of it. 24 Just some comments about how we say 25 this would work. With the upgrading of the 01330 1 agricultural system -- of course this may occur 2 more than once over the life of the drop 3 structures -- when lowering does occur, a lowering 4 of the agricultural system at the floodway 5 boundary, then we would see a lowering of the drop 6 structure at the floodway boundary. And if that 7 lowering of the agricultural system essentially 8 wipes out that structure and further lowering is 9 required, then there would be a lowering of the 2 10 per cent channel on floodway property, and a 11 corresponding removal of stop logs to correspond 12 to the new elevation of the 2 per cent channel. 13 I think I'll just go back, just to run 14 through that again on the basis of this sketch. 15 When the agricultural system is to be lowered, and 16 I mentioned that this could happen more than once, 17 then this drop structure would be lowered 18 accordingly. And if we got to the point where we 19 are at the bottom of the 2 per cent channel and 20 more lowering is required, then we would lower the 21 2 per cent channel and remove equivalent stop logs 22 at the structure. 23 Again, this is where the actual -- 24 this is the area where we make the provision for 25 lowering of the agricultural system. 01331 1 Okay. We are going onto another issue 2 here, and that is the possibility of adding 3 additional drop structure outlets at new 4 locations. And when the original floodway was 5 constructed, of course it cut across the paths of 6 existing agricultural drains which were flowing 7 westward. In some cases, the flows from these 8 drains were diverted along the floodway within 9 floodway property, but outside of the embankments. 10 And in some cases two or three drains, flows from 11 two or three drains were combined into one outlet 12 structure. And why this was done, I can only 13 presume it was to save some capital cost. 14 But intuitively most people would 15 think that to take the channel directly into the 16 floodway would be more effective than running it 17 down, diverting it along the floodway for one, two 18 or three miles before you empty it into the 19 floodway. 20 The district has looked at the 21 situation to see where there might be locations 22 that were feasible for additional structures and 23 that would