01505
  1          MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   =======================================
 13            WEDNESDAY, February 23, 2005
 14            Oakbank United Church
 15             Oakbank, Manitoba
 16   ========================================
 17   
 18                Volume  7
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
01506
  1   APPEARANCES:
  2   Clean Environment Commission:
  3   Mr. Terry Sargeant - Chairman
      Mr. Barrie Webster - Member
  4   Mr. Wayne Motheral - Member
      Mr. Doug Abra      - Counsel
  5   Mr. Dave Farlinger - Technical consultant
      Ms. Cathy Johnson  - Secretary to Commission
  6   Ms. Joyce Mueller  - Secretary
  7   Manitoba Conservation:
  8   Mr. Trent Hreno    - Chair, Project Admin Team
      Mr. Bruce Webb     - Chair, Tech Advisory
  9                        Committee
      Mr. Stewart Pierce - Counsel
 10   
 11   Manitoba Floodway Authority:
 12   Mr. Rick Handlon   - Counsel
      Mr. Jim Thomson
 13   Mr. Doug McNeil
      Mr. Doug Peterson
 14   Mr. Cam Osler      - Intergroup Consulting
      Mr. John Osler     - Intergroup Consulting
 15   Mr. David Morgan   - TetrES Consulting
      Mr. George Rempel  - TetrES Consulting
 16   Mr. Robert Sinclair -  KGS
      Ms. Marci Friedman-Hamm - KGS
 17   
 18   Participants:
 19   Mr. Bob Starr      - Ritchot Concerned Citizens
      Mr. Bob Bodnaruk   - RM of Springfield
 20   Mr. Steve Strang   - RM of St. Clements
      Mr. Orvel Currie   - Counsel to Municipalities
 21   Mr. Doug Chorney   - Coalition for Flood
                           Protection North
 22   Mr. Kerry McLuhan  - Coalition for Flood
                           Protection North
 23   Mr. Rob Loudfoot   - 768 Association
      Mr. Y. Shumuk      - 768 Association
 24   Paul Clifton       - Paul Clifton
      Mr. Jeff Frank     - Rivers West
 25   Gaile Whelan Enns  - Manitoba Wildlands
      Earl Stevenson     - Peguis Indian Band
01507
  1   Participants:  (continued)
  2   
  3   Mr. Jake Buhler    - Cooks Creek Conservation
      Mr. Lloyd Crooks   - Cooks Creek Conservation
  4   Mr. Jon Stefanson  - Cooks Creek Conservation
      Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel
  5   
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
01508
  1               INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
  2   Presentation by Municipalities
      (Wayne Clifton)                     1514
  3   
      Cross-examination of Municipalities
  4   (Wayne Clifton)
      Cross-examination by MFA            1562
  5   Questions by Panel                  1649
  6   Evening Presentations:
  7   Mr. Bob Galoway                     1673
      Mr. Karl Pohl                       1675
  8   Mr. Myron Gavaga                    1687
      Mr. David Grant                     1694
  9   Mr. Hugh Arklie                     1704
      Mr. Bob Bodnaruk                    1710
 10   Mr. Randy Znamirowski               1728
      Mr. Norman Traverse                 1737
 11   Mr. Bruce Allen                     1740
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
01509
  1                  INDEX OF EXHIBITS
  2   60     Presentation of Mr. Wayne Clifton   1562
  3   61     Karl Pohl's presentation to the     1686
             Clean Environment Commission
  4   
  5   62     Letter from Mr. Galoway             1727
  6   
      63     Mr. Grant's presentation            1728
  7   
  8   64     Mr. Bodnaruk's presentation         1728
  9   
      65     Mr. Arklie's presentation           1749
 10   
 11   66     Mr. Znamirowski's presentation      1749
 12   67     Mr. Traverse's presentation         1749
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
01510
  1                INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS
  2   UNDERTAKING NO.                            PAGE
  3   
  4   
  5   2      Provided by Wayne Clifton - Provide 1624
             working papers re hydraulic
  6          conductivity, boundary conditions,
             calibration points, calibration,
  7          sensitivity, and floodway staging)
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
01511
  1   WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005
  2   UPON COMMENCING AT 1:00 P.M.
  3   
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we come to order,
  5   please.  Order please.  Welcome back.  We are
  6   ready to proceed with today's proceedings.
  7               First on the agenda today is a
  8   response to an undertaking by Mr. John Osler on
  9   behalf of the Floodway Authority.  Mr. Osler?
 10               MR. J. OSLER:  Good afternoon.  I had
 11   an undertaking coming from page 1153, lines two to
 12   six of the transcript, in which Mr. Stinson
 13   requests.
 14               "Could the breaches in the aquifer be
 15               sealed prior to continuing on with the
 16               expansion of the floodway?"
 17   Acknowledge those are the general terms and they
 18   are not verbatim.  And the discussion was could we
 19   find the exact quote.
 20               We went back and took a look at the
 21   meetings notes that came out of rounds one, two
 22   and three, could not find a direct reference to
 23   that particular quote, although I direct the
 24   Commission and others to the round three issues
 25   identification summary that's found on page 3D,
01512
  1   that's appendix 3D, 156 and 157 of the EIS filing,
  2   where there were three particular references.  And
  3   that's issue number 9.16.200, and they materialize
  4   in the round three identification summary as
  5   issues 300, 301 and 324, which were all issues
  6   raised about groundwater quality and groundwater
  7   intrusion.
  8               Mr. Stinson also provided the EA study
  9   team with two sets of questions on March 5, 2004,
 10   and also on March 22, 2004, in which he talks
 11   about the potential for breaching in the floodway
 12   channel.
 13               The important point here is that
 14   Mr. Stinson's involvement in the process, and
 15   others like him, helped to identify the issues
 16   early in the process, and subsequently they were
 17   able to be integrated in the project design phase.
 18   And as we talked about at some time over the last
 19   couple of weeks, the key issue here is that the
 20   design of the channel itself was altered to
 21   accommodate this and other concerns related to
 22   groundwater.
 23               I believe that completes that part of
 24   the undertaking.  If there is any further
 25   questions from the Commission or Mr. Stinson, I
01513
  1   would be welcome to entertain them.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Osler.
  3               We will now turn to the main item of
  4   business for this afternoon, and that is further
  5   presentation on behalf of the Coalition for Flood
  6   Protection North of the Floodway, and I would turn
  7   it over to Mr. Currie, ask him to introduce his
  8   colleague, and then we will have Mr. Clifton sworn
  9   in.
 10               MR. CURRIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 11   I guess I would just like to make it clear on the
 12   record that this is really the portion of the
 13   three RMs presentation.  The last was in fact ours
 14   as well, but I'm not sure whether the Coalition
 15   will adopt everything we say.  We hope they would.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  I stand corrected yet
 17   again.
 18               MR. CURRIE:  I don't mean it that way,
 19   but just for the record.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  I can't keep it
 21   straight between the Coalition and -- maybe I
 22   should just give credit to everybody.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  The group, okay.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  The northern group.
 25               MR. CURRIE:  With that, what I would
01514
  1   do then, Mr. Chairman, is ask that Mr. Clifton
  2   briefly introduce himself to the Commission and
  3   the members of the audience and the MFA.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Good afternoon,
  5   Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, and good
  6   afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
  7               My name is Wayne Clifton,
  8   C-L-I-F-T-O-N.  I'm a civil engineer with a fairly
  9   diverse past and training.  My undergraduate
 10   degree is in civil engineering.  My initial work
 11   experience was in the transportation area.  My
 12   post graduate training was in, initially in
 13   highway transportation and materials, and
 14   subsequent post graduate work was in engineering
 15   geology, geotechnical engineering.
 16               My work history, my career, initially
 17   was in the civil engineering construction,
 18   principally related to highways and bridges.  But
 19   with the onset of the second generation of uranium
 20   industry and the new mining regulations, and new
 21   environmental regulations in Saskatchewan in the
 22   late 1960s, I became one of the early
 23   practitioners addressing the issues related to
 24   environmental management of the uranium industry,
 25   dealing with some of the most toxic substances
01515
  1   that we know in our industrial society, in an area
  2   of principally fractured rock and pristine
  3   groundwater conditions.
  4               In the early 1970s we had very few
  5   tools to deal with these issues, and I started
  6   what turned out to be a 30-year collaboration with
  7   my colleagues at the University of Saskatchewan in
  8   working on developing tools to address the
  9   analysis of environmental impacts, principally on
 10   the groundwater system, and have worked in that
 11   area for 30 odd years.
 12               During that career I have worked both
 13   as a principal investigator, as a manager of
 14   impact assessment, as a technical advisor to
 15   federal panels, a technical advisor to governments
 16   on evaluation of issues related to protection of
 17   groundwater and surface water systems, many of
 18   them in very sensitive socio-economic conditions
 19   where they are areas of great public concern.
 20               So that's a very brief background of
 21   my own history.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Clifton.
 23   I will ask the Commission secretary to swear you
 24   in please.
 25               (WAYNE CLIFTON:  SWORN)
01516
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  You may proceed, sir.
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  Thank you.  My
  3   presentation relates to the groundwater concerns
  4   of the rural municipalities of St. Clements, East
  5   St. Paul and Springfield.  I was contacted by the
  6   RM of Springfield on behalf of the three
  7   municipalities in the late fall of 2004, and had
  8   early discussions with them regarding the
  9   environmental impact assessment of the floodway
 10   expansion.
 11               My mandate, put in simple terms, was
 12   really to review the documents and to assess
 13   whether the interests of the three municipalities
 14   were adequately reflected in the considerations
 15   published within the documents.
 16               My presentation this afternoon
 17   records, or outlines my conclusions which were
 18   previously communicated in a brief written report
 19   that was submitted to Mr. Currie.  So with that, I
 20   will commence with my presentation.
 21               The opinions that are expressed in
 22   this presentation are mine.  They are based on
 23   documentation provided to the intervenors up until
 24   mid January, thereabouts, in 2005.  But the
 25   presentation that I'm going to give you does not
01517
  1   incorporate all of the changes necessarily that
  2   have been verbally indicated during the hearings.
  3   I have only attended the hearings over the last
  4   several days, so I'm perhaps not fully conversant
  5   with the changes that have taken place.  But with
  6   that caveat, the deficiencies are mine, and I'm
  7   not in any way saying to the proponent that I
  8   disagree with them.  As a matter of fact, far from
  9   that, I congratulate the proponent on getting a
 10   very complex and difficult project to this point
 11   in very, very short -- in a very, very short time
 12   frame.  I have some knowledge of the degree of
 13   difficulty involved and I salute them for their
 14   achievements.  It has been a lot of work in a very
 15   short time.
 16               Now, what I will point out is perhaps
 17   some areas where we have some differences of
 18   opinion in some of the conclusions reached, and of
 19   course, that's what we are here to discuss today.
 20               The summary of concerns are centred
 21   around the overview of the groundwater resource
 22   and they focus on specific issues related to
 23   conservation, management, monitoring, many of them
 24   centred around the interpretation of the CEAA
 25   requirements, particularly with respect to
01518
  1   application of the cumulative effects assessment.
  2               We will end, or I will end with some
  3   recommended conditions of approval.  And in
  4   summary, just to summarize, that the
  5   municipalities are recommending approval of the
  6   project.  But they are recommending approval of
  7   the project and seeking the intervention of the
  8   Commissioners with some specific conditions of
  9   approval that will leave the municipalities whole
 10   with respect to their interests and the interests
 11   of their residents in the groundwater resource.
 12               So in summary, we have concerns, we
 13   recommend approval, but we are seeking specific
 14   conditions to address those concerns.
 15               Some of the concerns relate to who is
 16   the proponent, and the fact that the proponent,
 17   there may be multiple proponents here.  We will
 18   talk about the assessment methodology and about
 19   the ongoing uncontrolled discharge of very
 20   valuable, very high quality water which is
 21   impacting the region's future; the fact that the
 22   authority and its successors must become a
 23   responsible manager of the groundwater resource,
 24   that the impact, while it is portrayed as site
 25   based or at best local in our estimation is much
01519
  1   more extensive than that.  While, again, while it
  2   is portrayed as being construction related only,
  3   we believe again that it has much longer term
  4   effects than that.  And that centres particularly
  5   around the cumulative effects assessment which we
  6   believe is not accurately interpreted.  The
  7   ongoing, the ongoing contamination of the aquifer
  8   that is there is not being addressed to our way of
  9   thinking.  Commitment to transparent community
 10   based monitoring program, arms length dispute
 11   resolution, and as I said before, conditions of
 12   approval.
 13               So that, Mr. Chairman, is a fairly
 14   broad menu, but I will try to briefly describe
 15   those.  I think the concerns are elaborated to a
 16   greater extent in the written submission that was
 17   provided earlier.
 18               Who is the proponent?  Well, in the
 19   documents provided, the Expansion Authority is the
 20   proponent for licensing, design and construction,
 21   and the Stewardship department for operations.  I
 22   simply draw that to the attention of the
 23   Commission, that it is important that the
 24   conditions of approval also apply to the operator.
 25   Conditions of approval for design and construction
01520
  1   should endure and survive through to the
  2   operations of the facility.  And I won't say
  3   anything further about that, but I will address
  4   the issue of impact assessment, of the
  5   methodology.  And this has been in front of the
  6   Commission several times, including while I have
  7   been in the audience, and I will be brief.
  8               The impacts assessed according to
  9   duration, less than five years is short term,
 10   greater than five years is long term.  That's
 11   important because five years is essentially the
 12   construction period for the facility.  They are
 13   assessed according to magnitude, and the magnitude
 14   definition is clear.  Small, there is no
 15   measurable effect.  Moderate, impact is an effect
 16   that could be detected with a well designed
 17   monitoring system.  And I would underline that for
 18   the Commissioners.  That's an important
 19   consequence, because it can only -- the moderate
 20   effects can only be detected if there is a
 21   comprehensive, well designed, representative
 22   monitoring system that gathers information from
 23   before construction, through into the long term
 24   during operations.  Very important aspect.  Large
 25   impacts are those that are readily detectible
01521
  1   without monitoring.  If my well goes dry, to me,
  2   that's an obvious large impact.  And those scalers
  3   are very clear in the EIS.
  4               There is impacts assessed according to
  5   geographic extent, and they are site local and
  6   regional.  The site impact is within the
  7   right-of-way.  If it extends beyond the
  8   right-of-way to an area -- the extent of the area
  9   impacted by changes in water levels or water
 10   flows, that's a local impact.  Again, important to
 11   note.  Regional is beyond the local area.  So, the
 12   definition is self-limiting.  By definition all
 13   groundwater impacts are either local or site.
 14   There are no regional impacts according to the
 15   EIS.  Even though this is a very, very large
 16   regional resource, but it is not a regional
 17   resource from an assessment perspective.  And I
 18   point that out simply because, not by any way
 19   suggesting that the authority is attempting to
 20   mislead anybody, but it is important from impact
 21   assessment to understand that that's a scaler
 22   that's used in the assessment.
 23               And it also defines the mitigation
 24   requirements, it defines requirements that the
 25   proponent commits to.  And I would say I didn't
01522
  1   cotton to that until rereading chapter 2 of the
  2   EIS in the last ten days, that it became -- that I
  3   became aware, and that's my fault, not anybody
  4   else's, on the definition of a local impact.
  5               In my comments and in my discussion,
  6   my definition of region is different.  I define
  7   region as extending beyond one jurisdiction.  So
  8   if it extends beyond one municipality or the
  9   boundaries, multiple jurisdictions, to me, that's
 10   a regional impact.  But that's not the scaler that
 11   the assessors were using in defining this.
 12               So I mention this impact assessment
 13   methodology, because by this definition, and
 14   essentially within the documents limiting the
 15   impact assessment to the construction phase, it is
 16   short term only.  So the majority of assessment is
 17   short term and local.  The consideration of long
 18   term effects is absent in large part from the
 19   documents, but in our view, it needs to be there
 20   for completeness, because long term impacts are
 21   extremely important to the groundwater users that
 22   use the water from this aquifer system.
 23               Now I draw your attention to this
 24   figure, and I'm sorry, I should have put the
 25   figure number, but it reinforces what I was saying
01523
  1   about the scaler.  And this is the scaler for
  2   potentially significant biophysical impacts on the
  3   environment.  And for short term impacts, if the
  4   scalers, if the effects are only moderate and
  5   local, mitigation is not required.  So that says
  6   that virtually all construction impacts do not
  7   require mitigation.
  8               If, on the other hand, the long term
  9   impacts, which are not largely considered within
 10   the documents, if they are local and moderate,
 11   they would require mitigation.
 12               And so this is an area of significant
 13   concern to the municipalities.  And I have heard
 14   in the last two days a discussion that the
 15   Authority had said that they are committed to
 16   mitigating those impacts, but that is not what
 17   I -- my response is a formal response to the
 18   documents, and that is not what the documents have
 19   said.
 20               I will run quickly through the
 21   reinforcement of the aquifer.  It is a very large
 22   aquifer system, as has been explained many times,
 23   flows from east to west.  Birds Hill sand and
 24   gravel deposits cover about 150 square kilometres
 25   of unconfined aquifer, very high quality water
01524
  1   recharge to the bedrock aquifer.  It is a source
  2   of very high quality traditionally to the three
  3   municipalities, and that has been a competitive
  4   and lifestyle advantage for both the
  5   municipalities and the residents; hence the level
  6   of concern for this particular issue within the
  7   municipalities.
  8               These aquifers support well in excess
  9   of 30,000 persons in the three municipalities, and
 10   demand is growing quite rapidly.  The
 11   municipalities expect ever increasing exploitation
 12   of the groundwater and are concerned that it be
 13   protected for the future.
 14               Some water planning has been done
 15   within the region.  I reference the Selkirk and
 16   District Planning Area Board that has been
 17   mentioned previously as being prepared by Wardrop
 18   in 1999.  And it is a useful document in that it
 19   assesses the groundwater availability within that
 20   planning district.  And their conclusion is that
 21   the groundwater within that planning district will
 22   be fully allocated by 2030 even if there is
 23   significant conservation measures taken, put in
 24   place.  If the conservation measures are not in
 25   place or fully implemented, the allocation will be
01525
  1   fully subscribed about 15 years earlier than that,
  2   so prior to 2020.
  3               The hazard of river infiltration is
  4   recognized.  East St. Paul municipality has had an
  5   experience in the 1980s and 1990s, wherein
  6   residents with groundwater wells within the
  7   carbonate aquifer experienced contamination.  And
  8   as a result, East St. Paul went to a piped water
  9   system.  That contamination was from the Red
 10   River, but it demonstrates that the mechanism of
 11   contaminated water entering the carbonate aquifer
 12   can readily be transmitted to wells.  And I think
 13   that mechanism is now well accepted.  I have heard
 14   it discussed several times in the last two days.
 15   But it is not a hypothetical case, it has been
 16   experienced by the residents of East St. Paul.
 17               East St. Paul is currently short of
 18   water.  For the last number of years they have
 19   been constructing well fields that are attempting
 20   to harvest the springs that are a relic from, that
 21   remain from the 1968 construction, springs that
 22   have been discharging into the channel, into the
 23   floodway channel.  They have been attempting to
 24   pick up that water by a well field at what is
 25   known as the Oasis well field.  And it is high
01526
  1   quality water, but they need more water now.  They
  2   are currently short of water and will be looking
  3   to exploit more.
  4               There is a growing regional demand
  5   that will have an impact on the groundwater regime
  6   that is not accounted for in the EIS.  And the
  7   rationale, we heard that clearly expressed by the
  8   authority, that that demand would go on regardless
  9   if the floodway was expanded or not.  And so
 10   therefore that demand need not be considered in
 11   the EIS.
 12               That's an important consideration.
 13   Because if that demand does go on, and I think it
 14   is only a matter of time before gradient reversals
 15   will take place and contamination that is in the
 16   floodway channel now, as we heard about
 17   previously, will be free to migrate out of the
 18   channel towards wells.  Hence the level of concern
 19   on behalf of the municipalities that this is not a
 20   short term construction of the expansion issue, it
 21   is a long term conservation of water quality and
 22   water quantity issue.
 23               The other really significant concern
 24   is that the best quality water, we have heard this
 25   before, but the best quality water is currently
01527
  1   being allowed to flow freely down the channel,
  2   with no attempts at conservation.
  3               The aquifer was very heavily impacted
  4   by the 1968 construction, that's again well
  5   documented in the EIS.  And the proponents have
  6   done a very good job in bringing -- in attempting
  7   to assess that impact, even though presumably it
  8   is not part of the expansion area, but it was an
  9   attempt to show how the baseline has evolved.  And
 10   there has been more than six metres of drawdown in
 11   this area with a very, very large cone.  Much of
 12   the flows appears to be attributable to blowouts
 13   and uncontrolled flow into the channel.  Because
 14   of this past experience, because of this past
 15   experience with the impacts of construction, the
 16   institutions, i.e., the municipalities and the
 17   residents of this area are strongly sensitized to
 18   this issue.
 19               And I can tell you, Mr. Chair, the
 20   process that I engaged in was an evaluation, and
 21   then multiple meetings with the municipalities as
 22   I reported back my conclusions and sought more
 23   information from them.  And feelings among my
 24   client group were very strong.  It is both an
 25   economic issue and an emotional issue with many
01528
  1   people in this area.  They are highly sensitized
  2   to this issue, and I simply reinforce that with
  3   the Commission.
  4               This is the post floodway drawdown
  5   that has been simulated by the proponent's
  6   analysts, and it demonstrates the very, very
  7   considerable extent of the drawdown centered right
  8   on this area, very close to the area that we are
  9   in right now.  The RM of Springfield was certainly
 10   in the centre of the impacted area
 11               Now what is a blowout?  I want to
 12   discuss this just for a minute because there have
 13   been a lot of discussions about that, and I will
 14   try to explain it in very simple language.  The
 15   aquifer in the channel prior to 1968 was sealed by
 16   very thick layers of clay and fine grain soils
 17   that sealed the water in the bedrock, in the
 18   limestone and dolomite.  And there was high
 19   pressure, high water heads sealed in the bedrock.
 20   And as the clay and till were removed, at some
 21   points the water pressure from underneath was
 22   greater than the weight of the soil holding the
 23   water in.  When that happened, the soil was
 24   lifted, and when it lifted it cracked and
 25   fissured.  It is by no means a blowout, it is not
01529
  1   a bomb blast or anything of that nature.  It's a
  2   slow lifting of the soil, and the soil is cracked,
  3   and the water can escape through those cracks, and
  4   with time the cracks are expanded by the springs,
  5   and the water flowing away carries a bit of soil
  6   and they become, slowly become more developed with
  7   time, and water can escape with less and less
  8   resistance.  That's typical development of what is
  9   called a blowout in civil engineering terms.  The
 10   clay seal lifts and fractures, allowing springs to
 11   flow freely, and the aquifer is largely
 12   unprotected at those areas.
 13               I know of no springs, in my
 14   experience, that once they start flowing ever
 15   reseal until the water pressure drops to the level
 16   below the ground level at the spring.  As a matter
 17   of fact, they tend to become more prominent with
 18   time.
 19               So a typical blowout has been
 20   explained here as being -- it reflects around the
 21   bottom of the low flow channel, where this area in
 22   here the soil slowly lifts, opens up so cracks can
 23   form, and water from the green underlying bedrock
 24   aquifer percolates up into the channel and flows
 25   into the Red River.  That is what blowouts do.
01530
  1   Blowouts crack the soil, make it more permeable,
  2   remove the natural protection that exists.
  3               A huge amount of water has been lost
  4   from the aquifer, initially estimated at 3,000
  5   gallons per minute, the flow now is 1,000 gallons
  6   a minute at Dunning crossing, about
  7   4 million cubic metres or 4 billion litres a year,
  8   enough water into the channel for 31,000 residents
  9   within the three municipalities, about the same
 10   amount as the current population of the
 11   municipalities; so hence the nature of the
 12   concern.
 13               Virtually all of the flow appears to
 14   be from the springs in the channel, but -- and
 15   this information on the characterization of the
 16   springs was the subject of some discussion in the
 17   last two days, also was the subject of the
 18   interrogatory which I have noticed here, RM 3 IR
 19   3A, but there is no information on the springs,
 20   but the springs are key.  They are a key
 21   engineering issue because they define areas of
 22   sensitivity within the aquifer.  Hence,
 23   characterization of those springs, the lack of
 24   characterization of those springs, in my view, is
 25   a serious omission within the EIS.
01531
  1               The basic assumption, also within the
  2   engineering concept, is that these springs will be
  3   allowed to flow in perpetuity, because there are
  4   no alternatives discussed to bring them under
  5   control.  And the municipalities, as I stated
  6   before, clearly do not agree with this approach.
  7   It is not in keeping with the modern approaches to
  8   conservation and resource management, and not an
  9   acceptable approach in terms of project
 10   development.
 11               So the characterization of groundwater
 12   conditions in the channel, because of the lack of
 13   information on the springs and the flows, is
 14   incomplete and inadequate.  It is inadequate -- it
 15   is inadequate information upon which to form a
 16   decision on impacts, on the impact of this
 17   project.
 18               Now, it isn't, I must point out in
 19   fairness, it isn't deficient if the Commission
 20   accepts the proponent's definition of expansion.
 21   Because the proponent's definition of expansion is
 22   that those springs are there, they will continue
 23   to be there, that there is no plan to change them,
 24   and they would be there for the next centuries
 25   regardless if the project is expanded or not.  And
01532
  1   I agree with that.  That's correct.  But I
  2   disagree with that definition of the project, as
  3   we will talk about later.  That is really central
  4   to the cumulative effects discussion.
  5               Can you adequately, as Commissioners,
  6   render a decision on the impact, the acceptability
  7   of impacts of the expansion without considering
  8   ongoing environmental effects?  The municipalities
  9   would strongly submit you to consider the project
 10   as a whole.  I will talk about that more.  But the
 11   groundwater conditions in the channel are a
 12   fundamental input to numerical modeling, to design
 13   decisions, to impact assessment, to mitigation
 14   design, to monitoring, and to risk assessment.
 15   They are a key piece of information that is not
 16   being provided in the documents.
 17               Let's talk then further about
 18   cumulative effects.  Cumulative effects, the
 19   approach that's put forward within the EIA, is an
 20   internal authority interpretation on how to apply
 21   the impact assessment.  The combination of the
 22   impact assessment methodology and interpretation
 23   of cumulative effects, if the Commission accepts
 24   that argument, means that groundwater issues are
 25   off the table.  We do not support that, of course,
01533
  1   nor is it in keeping with normal practice of
  2   impact assessment.  But if cumulative effects
  3   assessment, and the assessment of duration and
  4   severity of effects are accepted, as put forward
  5   in the EIA, groundwater impacts will not be a
  6   consideration for this panel.  That is -- I point
  7   that out because that is the net result of the
  8   structure of the EIA.  And I'm sure Mr. Currie
  9   will have more to say on that at a later date.  I
 10   simply point out to the Commissioners that that is
 11   how the EIA is structured.
 12               That is important because the existing
 13   project is unlicensed and it is non-compliant.
 14   This was an interrogatory to the proponent in RM 3
 15   IR 4A and 4B.  It was unlicensed for good reasons,
 16   there was no one in 1968 to licence it.  The
 17   proponent rightly points out that water was
 18   property of the Crown, and the Crown in 1968 was
 19   probably free to do whatever they wished with
 20   groundwater.  But it is non-compliant, certainly
 21   with current Manitoba Government policy as
 22   expressed in sustainability policy and as
 23   expressed in current background to Bill 22, which
 24   is groundwater management policy.  And I will -- I
 25   can speak further to that, if you wish, but it
01534
  1   is -- when I say it is non-compliant, it is
  2   non-compliant certainly from a policy perspective,
  3   and it is -- I am going to ask Mr. Currie to file
  4   with the Commissioners a document regarding bill
  5   22, which is the Water Protection Act that is
  6   currently under study, and it was a presentation
  7   to Manitoba Planning Conference which laid out the
  8   direction.  And it is very much a direction that
  9   the Commissioners, that the municipalities are
 10   espousing.
 11               And the theory, the hypothesis of that
 12   bill, the background principle of it is that water
 13   can no longer -- the quantity and quality of water
 14   can no longer be taken for granted.  And there is
 15   specific issues they are asking for; source
 16   protection, transparency and inclusiveness, water
 17   shed planning, state of water shed reporting,
 18   stakeholder committees and stakeholder
 19   consultations, and the need to integrate land use
 20   planning and water use planning.
 21               You will see that the recommendations
 22   that the municipalities put forward are very
 23   consistent with the intent of that legislation.
 24   And so nothing that the municipalities are
 25   proposing is different from Manitoba policy, by
01535
  1   any means, it is supportive of Provincial policy
  2   in that area.
  3               The suggested application of
  4   cumulative effects as put forth by the proponent
  5   is not rational.  The CEC is invited to consider
  6   assessment only for widening, but as we heard on
  7   Monday -- you are also invited to consider only
  8   widening and the impacts of widening, but you are
  9   invited to recommend approval of the whole
 10   project.  That simply, Commissioners, is an
 11   attempt to use a back door approach to licence the
 12   entire facility, and it is not in keeping with
 13   generally accepted practice with respect to these
 14   facilities.  The entire project must be considered
 15   to assess the net effects of the project.
 16               So in summary, the existing project
 17   remains non-compliant, certainly, at least from a
 18   policy perspective.  Groundwater wastage continues
 19   unabated within the existing channel, the aquifer
 20   remains unprotected, health risk assessment and
 21   potential risks to the residents and to the
 22   municipalities are not considered, time effects
 23   looking forward into the future were not
 24   considered.
 25               All of those issues within the
01536
  1   documents are deferred to detailed design, and
  2   that's highly irregular where there is an issue
  3   that affects public welfare.  Public welfare
  4   issues -- one of the purposes of environmental
  5   hearings are so that public welfare issues may
  6   obtain a full airing, and the public can make a
  7   decision as to whether or not these issues are
  8   treated to their satisfaction, or can enjoin or
  9   can prevail upon the Commission to make
 10   recommendations on their behalf.  But the public
 11   here cannot make those representations because the
 12   details are not presented.  They are deferred to
 13   the detailed design stage.  And that's not in
 14   keeping, as I note, it is not in keeping in
 15   generally accepted practice for environmental
 16   impact assessment.  It is not in keeping with
 17   general accept practice for environmental impact
 18   assessment.  Issues that are of strong public
 19   concern are usually addressed in detail in the
 20   impact assessment documents.
 21               Now, the 1968 construction created a
 22   series of direct hydraulic connections between the
 23   floodway and the bedrock aquifers.  These are
 24   simulated by models, and there is quite an
 25   extensive modeling exercise within the documents,
01537
  1   and verified by direct observations on the wells.
  2               Now, the impacts will persist for
  3   centuries unless they are mitigated in some
  4   fashion or the other.  And I reproduce here the
  5   profiles of the low flow channel inward; in other
  6   words, the bottom of the low flow channel.  And it
  7   is of interest because the green line here was the
  8   channel bottom when the survey was conducted, in
  9   other words, say 2003 or 2004.  The original
 10   design is the red line.
 11               The issue over deepening and not
 12   deepening is an important one, but you can see
 13   that mother nature has taken matters into her own
 14   hands in some important areas where the deepening
 15   appears to be as much as a metre to a metre and a
 16   half in certain areas.  So there has been very
 17   significant deepening of the channel just through
 18   natural river erosion effects and river formation,
 19   river channel formation.
 20               It will be a challenge for the
 21   engineering team to design an erosion protection
 22   system that maintains the channel back at that red
 23   line, which was the original design.  That will be
 24   an important benefit if the channel can be
 25   maintained there because more water -- the channel
01538
  1   is deeper than designed.  As the channel deepens,
  2   more water is being bled off by the channel.  So
  3   backfill of the channel will be an important
  4   benefit in conservation.
  5               The impact of flood simulation
  6   mounding received ample discussion yesterday, I
  7   won't go into it further, I think it was
  8   adequately explored yesterday.  I can add nothing
  9   to that discussion.  I will discuss, though, the
 10   role of models and what is the importance of
 11   models in this discussion.
 12               Models are mathematical simulations of
 13   water flow, the combination of physics and
 14   mathematics to give an understanding of how the
 15   groundwater flows and how the system works.  They
 16   are extremely valuable as a visualization tool,
 17   but at this level they can not be relied upon for
 18   definitive design quality data.  There is a great
 19   tendency to accept the results of models as being
 20   definitive.  They are not.  Models of this scale
 21   have to be based on assumptions and they are only
 22   a guide to the designers, they are not definitive,
 23   deterministic.  In other words, they don't present
 24   the answer, they present one of a series of
 25   possible answers.  And models are only effective
01539
  1   when they are followed up with considerable what
  2   is called performance matching, continue
  3   calibrating with a very, very well designed and
  4   maintained monitoring network.
  5               The regional models are based on
  6   assumed parameters and generalized geometry, out
  7   of necessity, there is not enough information
  8   within this hundreds of square kilometres to give
  9   the generalized geology, or to have the geology in
 10   detail.  But again, a good tool because it shows
 11   the direction of groundwater flow, where the
 12   pressure points are.  They do not, though,
 13   consider the nature of springs.  So the closer to
 14   the channel that you get, the less reliable the
 15   regional model will be because, again, the nature
 16   of the springs as points where water is being bled
 17   off, they are essentially wells in the bottom of
 18   the channel, they are not fully considered.
 19   Nonetheless, the regional model is quite well done
 20   and it gives an important understanding of the
 21   factors governing the groundwater flow.
 22               The detailed models are used for the
 23   near channel environment.  They are again based on
 24   mod flow, and they are largely saturated flow
 25   models, but because of that the modeling exercise
01540
  1   is not complete.  It would have been much more
  2   appropriate to use -- let me go back a bit.
  3   Saturated flow models are models that simulate
  4   movement of water below the water table.  Above
  5   the water table is the unsaturated zone, or what
  6   is called in hydrogeology the vados zone.
  7               Simulation of impacts in the channel
  8   require a different model, one that can consider
  9   the movement of water in the unsaturated zone, in
 10   the vados zone.  And while the models are
 11   presented as being calibrated and robust, when you
 12   look at them in detail, it is my opinion that they
 13   are not sufficiently calibrated to pass a peer
 14   review.  And I will go into that in more detail.
 15   The reason for that is because they rely, by and
 16   large, calibrated to one observation well,
 17   sometimes two.  And that observation well is
 18   sometimes some distance from the channel, when
 19   really what we are looking at is analyzing impacts
 20   immediately in the vicinity of the channel.  For
 21   those reasons, the results are order of magnitude
 22   estimates only and may vary from reality, from the
 23   facts that are experienced in the field from
 24   construction by a significant amount.  I say by a
 25   factor of two to 50 or more.  That sounds like a
01541
  1   large number, but a factor of 10 in hydrogeology
  2   studies is not unusual, it is not unusual.  Two
  3   orders of magnitude is 100, so one and a half
  4   orders of magnitude -- these are not uncommon
  5   numbers, two to 50 with the level of detail would
  6   be the range that I would put on these.
  7               As a result, I do not believe that the
  8   models can be relied upon for definitive hard
  9   judgments at this level of detail.  They are a
 10   very good approximation, they give indications
 11   into the mechanisms.  That is very important, it
 12   is guidance to the designers, but it is not a
 13   definitive, this is the answer, this is what is
 14   going to happen, not at this level of detail, not
 15   with this level of input information.
 16               Contaminant transport models would
 17   normally be the follow-up to the type of modeling
 18   that's presented.  Contaminate transport model,
 19   contaminate transport is exactly that.  If a
 20   contaminant enters the aquifer, where will it go
 21   and how fast does it get there?  They normally
 22   depend, and they are built on top of a valid
 23   calibrated seepage model.
 24               Now, they result in -- in the EIS,
 25   basically the definitions are -- the modeling in
01542
  1   the EIS presents mechanisms of the flow, and
  2   that's again very valuable.  But there is no
  3   transport modeling.  Mod flow, used in the way
  4   that it is, is not an appropriate tool to model
  5   contaminant transport in the aquifer.  There is a
  6   parallel set of software that goes with mod flow
  7   that is an appropriate tool, but in my estimation,
  8   mod flow is not the tool.  And this is technical
  9   argument and I will not get into it further, but I
 10   would be prepared to answer questions on it.
 11               So as a result, the time estimates
 12   that are presented are order of magnitude
 13   estimates only.
 14               The conclusion that contamination of
 15   the aquifer is inconsequential is just not
 16   justified on the basis of the models.  And then
 17   the literature is replete with areas where the
 18   models -- ground truthing and performance differ
 19   significantly from modeling.  That's to be
 20   expected.  That is the norm rather than the
 21   exception.
 22               The physical models show surface water
 23   is not readily ejected from the aquifer.  And we
 24   heard information on that yesterday, and I agree
 25   with that.  But there is probable long term plume
01543
  1   development both up gradient and down gradient in
  2   the vicinity of the blowouts and springs.
  3               What do I mean by plume development?
  4   The plume is the residual of the surface water.
  5   That surface water will reside in the aquifer both
  6   east and west of the channel.  It is more severe
  7   to the west as reported in the EIS, because that's
  8   the direction of natural flow, but it can also
  9   move upstream and up gradient, and progressive
 10   degradation of the aquifer is probable unless it
 11   is mitigated.
 12               And I will show you a mechanism by
 13   which that is likely occurring -- to follow up on
 14   the work that was reported yesterday afternoon,
 15   for that reason, there is a potential human health
 16   risk that needs to be evaluated for completeness
 17   of the impact assessment.  I will show you just a
 18   very simple simulation that I carried out to
 19   satisfy myself as to the mechanisms that may
 20   exist.  And this is following on the geometry that
 21   is reported in the Keewatin Bridge site analysis
 22   where there is a blowout of the silt till
 23   aquitard.  The analysis it carries out applies
 24   seven weeks of flood levels and then allows,
 25   simulates the channel being dry for ten years to
01544
  1   see if the water that intrudes into the aquifer
  2   will come out of it.  The intent of this is not by
  3   any means to be definitive, but it is to
  4   illustrate the pathway and the mechanisms of the
  5   plume development that completeness in the EIS
  6   requires.
  7               So the basic model is to look at an
  8   area equivalent to the base of the low flow
  9   channel that has been disrupted by flow, so that
 10   it has the permeability of a sand or a dirty
 11   gravel or a fractured till, a fractured dense
 12   till.  And it is subjected to the flood for a
 13   period of seven weeks.  This is, I can't tell you
 14   exactly where this is taken from, but it
 15   approximates the hydrograph under flood
 16   conditions.
 17               And the results are this:  If you look
 18   at the concentration of surface water within the
 19   aquifer, near the top of the carbonate bedrock,
 20   immediately below the channel invert, now zero
 21   percent on this concentration curve would mean no
 22   surface water, 1.0 or 100 percent means that it is
 23   all surface water.  Using this simulation, it
 24   shows that surface water rapidly enters the
 25   aquifer, and after a few days the top part of the
01545
  1   aquifer is predominantly surface water.  The
  2   pathway is there to deliver surface water.
  3               And if you look at concentration below
  4   the aquifer, this again is percentage surface
  5   water -- a plug of surface water flows down
  6   through the aquifer and through this blowout and
  7   resides within the aquifer after a very few days
  8   or few weeks.  And when you look at the
  9   concentration of surface water in the bedrock
 10   after seven weeks of intrusion, about 80 percent
 11   immediately under the aquifer, but the plume
 12   spreads out so that the 10 percent line is about
 13   100 metres upstream -- sorry, 100 metres west, 50
 14   to 75 metres east.  So it can move both up
 15   gradient and down gradient by the natural mixing
 16   mechanisms which occur.
 17               So this is the shape of the plume.
 18   And I won't spend more time other than to
 19   demonstrate how the surface water can spread in
 20   the subsurface.  It is there after two years.
 21   Now, what we did in the simulation is we
 22   allowed -- this is with water flowing back, this
 23   is a dry channel and water is flowing back, but
 24   even with it flowing back for two years, there is
 25   still zones of about 20 percent surface water
01546
  1   remaining within the carbonate aquifer.  And even
  2   after six years there are zones within the
  3   carbonate aquifer that are more than 10 percent
  4   surface water.  And the analysis shows that the
  5   impact could well go to 200 metres to the west and
  6   150 metres, plus or minus, to the east.
  7               Now, if after 10 years there were a
  8   second flood, what would happen?  Well, the second
  9   flood causes the plume to spread.  And I will just
 10   go back.  This is where the plume is after two
 11   years.  If there is a second flood in 10 years,
 12   the plume is pushed out.  If there is a second
 13   flood after 20 years, the plume is pushed out
 14   farther, and by 20 years it is pushed out to more
 15   than 500 metres to the west, more than 400 metres
 16   to the east.  This is a simulation only.  And it
 17   is based on assumed information.
 18               The point of the simulation is to
 19   demonstrate that the mechanism can exist, or does
 20   exist.  The physics are there that will allow
 21   mixing of the surface water into the groundwater
 22   in the carbonate aquifer, and that the migration
 23   is more rapid to the east, but there is also
 24   reason for concern for migration to the west.
 25               It is a model to evaluate the mobility
01547
  1   of the plume.  And the plume is likely to be
  2   mobile.  A significant amount of surface water is
  3   likely to remain in the aquifer.  And contaminant
  4   mobility, mobility of contaminated surface water
  5   is a potential concern that needs further
  6   investigation.
  7               Second issue is areas of exposed
  8   bedrock -- residents have reported to me and I
  9   believe you will hear from at least one of them,
 10   that bedrock exposures exist within the channel
 11   particularly within the vicinity of Spring Hill.
 12   I haven't investigated those areas further, but if
 13   they are there, there is an area of even greater
 14   susceptibility to contamination than what I have
 15   modeled, and it is an area that deserves further
 16   evaluation.
 17               I want to speak about the issue of
 18   dealing with uncertainty.  Uncertainty is inherent
 19   in the modeling of the subsurface.  Again, we deal
 20   with the information in hand, sometimes we are
 21   attempting to model hundreds of square kilometres
 22   with very little information.  The EIS uses
 23   sensitivity analysis as a tool to evaluate what
 24   are called worst case scenarios.  That's a
 25   valuable tool, but you don't know whether those
01548
  1   worst case scenarios are, in fact, worst case
  2   scenarios, because the analysis is based largely
  3   on assumed data, but we do know that the results
  4   are not deterministic.  In analysis such as this,
  5   a method of probability is very valuable.  And
  6   that is a mechanism that I would be looking for.
  7   A probabilistic risk based approach is preferred,
  8   particularly where human health concerns may
  9   exists.
 10               What is a probabilistic approach?
 11   Well, in the evaluations that are presented, the
 12   permeability of the soil, for instance, or the
 13   porosity of the soil is represented by a number,
 14   but we know that's not the case.  In fact, there
 15   is some sort of a normal distribution, or perhaps
 16   not normal, but some sort of a distribution of
 17   values over a whole population of permeability
 18   values that might exist.  If that soil was all of
 19   one permeability and could be represented in the
 20   fashion that's here, then the numbers that are put
 21   forward would be valid.  But we know that, we know
 22   when you dig in the subsurface sometimes we will
 23   go through tens of feet of clay and it will be
 24   uniform, maybe move over 50 metres and go through
 25   clay and then silt and maybe sand pockets,
01549
  1   whatever.  It is not a uniform subsurface.  The
  2   results cannot be represented by a single number.
  3   There is not one answer, there is a range of
  4   probable answers, of possible answers.
  5               And when I look at the documents, best
  6   practices in evaluating groundwater impacts
  7   require a look at probability.  What is the
  8   probability that an event will occur and that
  9   contaminated water may reach the receptor?
 10               Time effects -- the EIS considers only
 11   construction and the longer term impacts are
 12   ignored.  And again there is a reason for that,
 13   because from the view of the proponents, those
 14   long term impacts would occur regardless, the vast
 15   majority of those impacts would occur whether or
 16   not the expansion goes forward.  So the impacts of
 17   things like uncontrolled flow are not discussed.
 18   But allowing groundwater to escape into the
 19   channel in an uncontrolled fashion is not best
 20   practice from an engineering perspective,
 21   particularly in a bedrock that is subject to
 22   piping and karsting, which is formation of
 23   channels in the subsurface.  If that happens and
 24   the springs continue to develop and the channel
 25   erodes, there is progressively greater drainage of
01550
  1   groundwater from the region.  And hence the long
  2   term impacts of that uncontrolled flow, to me,
  3   require evaluation.
  4               The issue of progressive contamination
  5   of the aquifer is mentioned in the EIS but it is
  6   discounted without analysis, by application of the
  7   Ontario guidelines.  That even if there is
  8   migration into the aquifer, we need not be
  9   concerned about it because beyond 400 metres the
 10   bacteria will become inactive.  And we heard the
 11   CRA experts talk about that yesterday.  Their
 12   response was that microbes into the carbonate
 13   aquifer can remain viable for kilometres, not a
 14   few hundred metres.
 15               So as a result, the consideration of
 16   time effects, of long term effects in the EIS, in
 17   our view, is a major deficiency.  A deficiency
 18   that can be corrected, but there is not sufficient
 19   information at the moment to make a judgment as to
 20   the magnitude of impacts, particularly with
 21   respect to health concerns in the long term.
 22               So, what are the hazards that we are
 23   talking about?  Well, the 1968 construction
 24   removed the protective clay cover, the springs are
 25   there, the bedrock may be locally exposed in the
01551
  1   channel -- and I'm advised that it is by residents
  2   knowledgeable in the area -- the flood water is
  3   known to be polluted, there is no provision within
  4   the design of this facility at the moment for
  5   protection of the aquifer, because that is an
  6   ongoing effect, part of the evolving baseline that
  7   will continue to evolve for centuries in the
  8   future, and hence not required to be addressed
  9   under the terms of reference under which the
 10   proponent has submitted this EIS.  And that will
 11   be an area of significant debate.  Long term
 12   depletion of groundwater, long term degradation of
 13   groundwater are the hazards.
 14               Potential impacts not addressed --
 15   economic impact as a result of loss of benefit
 16   from the groundwater resource, health and safety
 17   impacts, the risk of progressive degradation, or
 18   the risk of pathogenic contamination of
 19   groundwater, biophysical impacts on progressive
 20   degradation of water quality and reduction in safe
 21   yield of the aquifer.
 22               The impacts, as I said, are focused,
 23   they are framed in the local context, but it is
 24   clear that because of the importance of this
 25   aquifer within multiple jurisdictions, they are
01552
  1   regional extent with a time line well beyond the
  2   limit of construction.
  3               I want to focus a bit on potential
  4   human health effects.  I don't want to be alarmist
  5   in any way.  I simply mention this because, for
  6   the sake of completeness, given that the
  7   mechanisms exist, human health effects deserve
  8   some discussion, and they are not discussed in the
  9   EIS.
 10               The U.S. EPA risk assessment model is
 11   applicable here, and it provides a very good
 12   framework for definition of risk, a risk based
 13   approach, particularly with respect to
 14   groundwater.  We know that there is a source --
 15   the U.S. EPA model is based on a source pathway
 16   receptor framework.  We know that there is a
 17   source, there is ample supply of contaminated
 18   surface water that periodically floods the
 19   floodway.  We know that there is a pathway.  I
 20   think it is agreed that the springs that emit
 21   water into the floodway channel are tied into the
 22   bedrock, and the monitoring system shows that the
 23   bedrock aquifer is responsive to floodway, I don't
 24   think there is much debate that the pathway
 25   exists.  There are many receptors.  There are
01553
  1   30,000 people, somewhat fewer than 10,000 families
  2   using groundwater within the three municipalities.
  3   A human health risk of potential human health
  4   impacts is warranted in this condition.
  5               Who is potentially at risk and what
  6   are they at risk for?  Well, if you look at
  7   potential stakeholders, being families, the
  8   municipalities or institutions of Government here,
  9   and the public at large, who is at risk and what
 10   are the risks?  The risks are economic impact,
 11   health and safety impact, and change in the
 12   physical environment.  All of these parties are at
 13   risk to a greater or lesser degree -- let me back
 14   up.  All of these parties must be considered to be
 15   at risk to a greater or lesser degree until
 16   rigorous risk evaluation demonstrates otherwise.
 17   That's one of the purposes of the EIS.
 18               I want to discuss briefly the role of
 19   the authority as groundwater user.  One of the
 20   interrogatories to the authority that the
 21   municipalities put forward was to ask the MFA for
 22   its policies with respect to groundwater
 23   management.  And the interrogatory is there for
 24   the Commission to read.  It basically -- I read
 25   the interrogatory and I read the EIS, and although
01554
  1   the MFA is a very significant water user, there
  2   was no stated policy from within the corporation
  3   on how groundwater would be managed or how they
  4   would approach groundwater management.  It is
  5   clear that MFA needs to work -- we are looking for
  6   recommendations from the Commission in that
  7   regard, that they move in compliance with the law,
  8   and we heard yesterday on some of that, but
  9   certainly with respect to public policy in the
 10   Province of Manitoba with respect to groundwater
 11   use.  Part of that is development of a groundwater
 12   management plan that would focus on conserving and
 13   protecting groundwater, and that would provide
 14   aquifer protection for all authority lands, and
 15   would implement a community based monitoring plan.
 16               The authority -- in the EIS there is,
 17   the issue of monitoring plan is discussed from
 18   time to time, and it is passed off to other arms
 19   of government.  And hence my discussion,
 20   Mr. Chair, with respect, that the conditions of
 21   approval must apply to successors to the
 22   authority.  The conditions of approval must apply
 23   to the operator as well as to the landlord, that
 24   is very important.  And because there is no long
 25   term monitoring plan, there is no -- and I don't
01555
  1   want this to sound, it perhaps sounds more harsh
  2   than I intended.  A proponent of this nature,
  3   impacting groundwater resource to the extent that
  4   this project has impacted it, would normally be
  5   submitting a substantial monitoring plan as part
  6   of the EIS, and would be required to
  7   comprehensively monitor the state of the resource
  8   on an ongoing basis.  And the proponent has
  9   monitoring responsibility.  We are asking that it
 10   be -- that it involve the community, that it be
 11   comprehensive and that it include a comprehensive
 12   baseline, the baseline should be underway now.
 13   All of the monitors should be reviewed to assess
 14   the conditions of the wells.  If the well is more
 15   than 15 years old, it probably was developed to a
 16   standard that applied to a different time and
 17   area, different time and different standards.  All
 18   monitoring needs to be reviewed and monitoring
 19   should be in place, the baseline completed, well
 20   before the first shovel goes into the ground.  A
 21   comprehensive baseline in advance of construction
 22   is mandatory in our view.
 23               Dispute resolution and mitigation has
 24   been discussed.  We are seeking commitment to a
 25   process and an institution where decisions are
01556
  1   science based, that they be adjudicated at arm's
  2   length from the operator and the authority by a
  3   fully funded independent agency with well defined
  4   appeal mechanisms.  So that, as was noted
  5   yesterday, that claims with respect to impacts do
  6   not become embroiled in long term, expensive and
  7   technical and legal arguments, that they can be
  8   adjudicated by an arm's length group that does not
  9   have a stake in the outcome.
 10               In summary, the groundwater is a
 11   critical resource to the region that includes the
 12   three municipal municipalities.  The experience in
 13   East St. Paul has demonstrated that microbial
 14   contamination of the bedrock has been an ongoing
 15   hazard.  There have been real events.  It isn't a
 16   hypothetical event.  The EIS conclusion of
 17   maintaining status quo with respect to continued
 18   wastage of groundwater is not acceptable, nor
 19   probably legal when you consider the
 20   Sustainability Act.
 21               The EIS is severely flawed in that it
 22   does not consider ongoing impacts on quality,
 23   quantity and safety of the water that sustains
 24   30,000 residents within the municipalities.  The
 25   impacts that result both from the cumulative
01557
  1   effects -- sorry, the impacts result both from
  2   cumulative effects of the facility and ongoing
  3   operations.  And we are seeking that MFA come into
  4   compliance with Manitoba policy and statutes.
  5               The modelling results are an
  6   approximation only, and cannot be used for
  7   definitive basis for critical decisions regarding
  8   design of the facility.  The EIS does not address
  9   adequately the issues of conservation, aquifer
 10   protection and sustainability.
 11               A health risk assessment to the same
 12   level of rigor as which the flooding risk
 13   assessment is carried out is an essential
 14   component of project decision making, considering
 15   the identified potential for an ongoing long term
 16   intrusion of surface water into an aquifer that's
 17   currently used as a potable supply.
 18               Despite these concerns, and after a
 19   very significant discussion with the
 20   municipalities, with the elected representatives
 21   of the municipalities, the municipalities are
 22   recommending approval of the project, but ask the
 23   Commission to issue conditions of approval that
 24   will require solutions be brought forward on the
 25   issues that have been identified.
01558
  1               These conditions include the
  2   following:  That the authority and the floodway
  3   operators comply with all regulations governing
  4   groundwater management in Manitoba.  That ongoing
  5   exposure of the aquifer to contaminated surface
  6   water poses a potential health risk that must be
  7   assessed and remediated, if necessary.  And it is
  8   of interest to note that that mechanism of
  9   contamination -- bad choice of words.  I want to
 10   make it clear that it is the issue of potential
 11   contamination, is not as a result of this
 12   proposal.  If that mechanism is, as we've assessed
 13   it to be, it has been going on since the original
 14   floodway was constructed.  So, it has no way,
 15   anything to do with the proposal that's in front
 16   of us.  It has to do with the facility that sits
 17   there today in the geologic conditions that exist
 18   there today.  But the risk to the aquifer and the
 19   associated risk to human health must be assessed.
 20               The ALARA principle, which is as low
 21   as reasonably achievable, is a very well accepted
 22   principle in environmental management.  It means
 23   that you invest to the level where you can achieve
 24   results.  And the municipalities are asking that
 25   the ALARA principle apply to the conservation, to
01559
  1   the groundwater protection and conservation
  2   aspects of the entire floodway project.  In other
  3   words, apply ALARA to groundwater conservation and
  4   protection.  A baseline be established prior to
  5   commencement of construction.
  6               That an arm's length, independent
  7   institution be established to adjudicate claims
  8   and mitigation in accordance with the
  9   recommendations made within this submission.
 10               That there be a comprehensive
 11   characterization of the channel, including all
 12   existing springs, and that this be conducted as
 13   part of the pre-construction baseline.  That a
 14   human health risk assessment be conducted on the
 15   groundwater systems in the vicinity of the
 16   floodway, of the existing floodway, to assess the
 17   impacts and risk on existing and potential future
 18   intrusion of surface water.
 19               We are asking the Commission that you
 20   reject the proposed Authority methodology for
 21   cumulative effects, and that the project be
 22   assessed in its entirety, in other words, at the
 23   1968 phase, plus the proposed expansion be
 24   considered together, because it is not at all
 25   clear to us how you can licence an entire project
01560
  1   if you do not consider an entire project.  So that
  2   the project must be considered in its entirety.
  3   Alternatively, in our view, the only other option
  4   open to the Commission is to reject the approval.
  5   So, to be considered in its entirety so that the
  6   entire facility be appropriately subjected to
  7   impact assessment and be licenced with the
  8   appropriate conditions.
  9               And that, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and
 10   gentlemen, concludes my remarks.  I would be
 11   pleased to answer any questions.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
 13   Mr. Clifton.  Mr. Handlon, are you prepared to go
 14   now or would you rather have a few minutes?
 15               MR. HANDLON:  I would need a few
 16   minutes.  And the one point that I would like to
 17   raise, we did receive a report from Mr. Clifton, I
 18   think his characterization of it was a brief
 19   report.  It is 16 or 18 pages.  And his
 20   presentation this afternoon was much more than
 21   simply a restatement or restructuring of the
 22   information in his report.  There was some
 23   restructuring of his report, but there was
 24   considerable new information analysis, information
 25   statements that were not contained in the original
01561
  1   report.  I note your requirement that people file
  2   their submissions within a reasonable period of
  3   time, within two weeks of the hearing itself, and
  4   I note that although this presentation was very
  5   well done on the computer screen, that we do not
  6   have an actual physical copy of his presentation.
  7   That hasn't been provided.  There have been many
  8   slides that have come up, a lot of information
  9   that has come up and gone by very quickly.
 10               I think at minimum, and I will have to
 11   discuss this with my client at the break here, but
 12   at a minimum we should be provided with physical
 13   copies of the slides so we have something to work
 14   on as we move forward.
 15               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, I gave Mr.
 16   Schwartz a copy of the presentation assuming that
 17   you were a team of lawyers.  And he has had it
 18   since I walked in this afternoon.
 19               MR. HANDLON:  If you have provided it,
 20   then my apologies.  Sorry, about that.  We would
 21   require, though, some time to consider the
 22   substantially new matters that were raised, and
 23   I'm not too sure what the result of that is.  If
 24   we have a physical hard copy, thank you, thank you
 25   for that.  We would need to assess that.  So, if
01562
  1   we could take a short break and we will consider
  2   our position.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Ten minutes?  Is
  4   that sufficient time, Mr. Handlon?
  5               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.
  6   
  7         (Proceedings recessed at 2:20 p.m. and
  8         reconvened at 2:35 p.m.)
  9   
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  We're ready to
 11   get back at it.
 12               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, as we are
 13   starting, can I enter Mr. Clifton's presentation
 14   in as exhibit number 60.
 15   
 16               (EXHIBIT 60:  Presentation of Mr.
 17               Wayne Clifton)
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 19   Mr. Handlon.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  Yes, thank you.  I'm
 21   sorry we took as long as we did at the break, we
 22   had to have some discussion because, as I said
 23   before the break, there is new information
 24   contained in Mr. Clifton's report.  Although his
 25   original report indicated that he done some, I
01563
  1   believe the statement was simulations, we
  2   certainly did not receive the details of any
  3   simulations.  I'm not even sure in his original
  4   report if he stated the conclusions of the
  5   simulations, but certainly there is considerable
  6   more work that has been done, and some detail has
  7   been provided.  Although we do not have the model
  8   or the database that Mr. Clifton used in his
  9   presentation.  So in that respect, I think in the
 10   fairness of this hearing that we should be allowed
 11   an opportunity to obtain that information from
 12   Mr. Clifton.
 13               I will proceed ahead with
 14   cross-examination, but reserving the right to have
 15   Mr. Clifton, certainly with the requirement, as
 16   we'll get into the details of it during
 17   questioning as to the model that was used and the
 18   database, with the right to call him back, you
 19   know, if after reflection on this matter that we
 20   need to ask further questions of him.  It may well
 21   be that in going through the material and the
 22   further information that he provides that we may
 23   well have enough information to be able to deal
 24   with it on redirect or re-examination later in
 25   this proceeding.
01564
  1               So with that, I'll proceed, if that's
  2   satisfactory.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Satisfactory.
  4               MR. HANDLON:  Thank you.
  5               Mr. Clifton, so I now have a physical
  6   copy of the report from Mr. Schwartz.  So you just
  7   had -- when did you -- I take it your presentation
  8   today has been put together through the evolution
  9   of time even up until probably yesterday?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct.  I
 11   submitted the written report approximately the 2nd
 12   of February, and then was out of the country for
 13   two weeks, and upon my return put together the
 14   PowerPoint presentation.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  So the PowerPoint
 16   presentation, it's been ready for a few days, has
 17   it?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  Since last night.
 19               MR. HANDLON:  Since last night, okay.
 20   And late last night, was it?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, it wasn't too bad.
 22   But the majority of it was put together on
 23   Saturday night, Sunday night, and incorporated
 24   some minor changes last night from information
 25   that was communicated in the first two days of the
01565
  1   hearings that I attended this week.
  2               MR. HANDLON:  And the slides that you
  3   had on the modeling, they were done as of February
  4   2nd, were they?
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  No, they weren't.  The
  6   conclusions were done, but I made up the slides
  7   again on the weekend.
  8               MR. HANDLON:  But the modeling was
  9   done?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  The modeling was done in
 11   rudimentary form by the 2nd of February, yes.
 12               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  So you came to
 13   the conclusions before, while the modeling was
 14   still rudimentary?
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  Taking it off the
 16   computer screen.
 17               MR. HANDLON:  You could have provided
 18   that to us earlier, though, couldn't you?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  The final production of
 20   those slides was completed on Saturday morning.
 21               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  And when was the
 22   modeling actually done?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  Thursday and Friday, it
 24   was completed, the first part of it was completed
 25   prior to the 2nd of February, and it got my review
01566
  1   and finalized on Thursday and Friday.
  2               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  Your review --
  3   was the modeling done by someone else?
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  The modeling was done by
  5   somebody else, yes.
  6               MR. HANDLON:  Can you tell us who did
  7   the modeling?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Dr. Hunvu in our office
  9   in Regina.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  We'll get into some
 11   details on it.  One of the last slides that you
 12   had up on the screen this afternoon -- now I've
 13   got the physical copy, I can refer to it.  I
 14   believe it's the slide that you had, long-term
 15   monitoring, and that -- is this one of the
 16   recommendations that you're making or one of the
 17   slides of you pointing out deficiencies?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  This slide identifies
 19   the issue, that with respect to long-term plan, or
 20   long-term monitoring, there is no firm commitment
 21   within the EIS or in the response to the
 22   interrogatories that were submitted.  We're simply
 23   stating a principle on behalf of the
 24   municipalities that as a proponent, that the
 25   proponent of a project that already has caused
01567
  1   long-term impacts, that there is a responsibility
  2   to design and implement a comprehensive monitoring
  3   program.
  4               MR. HANDLON:  I'm just going to put up
  5   on the screen one of the information requests, and
  6   you were aware of that process and I think you had
  7   some involvement with it?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, I drafted some
  9   questions on behalf of the municipalities.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  And you read those
 11   information requests, the responses?
 12               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, at the
 13   break in proceedings, you need one of our
 14   technicians -- I simply am not technical.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Perhaps what we'll do
 16   is, since the technology is being worked on -- do
 17   you have copies of the information requests?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  They are in my briefcase
 19   at the back of the room.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  We can find an extra
 21   copy of that.  It's an information request, and
 22   it's RM 3 IR 4C.
 23               MR. CURRIE:  I have it.
 24               MR. HANDLON:  Do you have that,
 25   Mr. Clifton?
01568
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, I have it.
  2               MR. HANDLON:  And this is in response,
  3   this is from the municipality 4 C, and the
  4   question posed simply was the current MFEA
  5   management policies, protocols and processes which
  6   govern groundwater management and extraction;
  7   correct?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct.
  9               MR. HANDLON:  And the response from
 10   the Manitoba Floodway Authority's policy is to
 11   minimize effects to groundwater created by the
 12   project.  And the next statement is,
 13               "The overall mitigation strategy for
 14               potential groundwater impacts includes
 15               four main components."
 16   And I won't read through all the details of those
 17   components, but let me just highlight those
 18   components.  The first is prevention through
 19   physical design, correct?
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  That's right.
 21               MR. HANDLON:  And we know, just on
 22   that point alone, we know that through the course
 23   of the engineering designs and over the course
 24   that you have been involved with this project in
 25   doing a review of the technical -- of the EIS,
01569
  1   that you are aware of a physical change in the
  2   project from the planned deepening to widening of
  3   the channel?
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  5               MR. HANDLON:  And that would be part
  6   of that principle of prevention through physical
  7   design, and that would be a component of that and
  8   you wouldn't criticize that in any way, would you?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  No, that's a positive.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  Number 2, environmental
 11   protection during construction, and it talks about
 12   environmental plans during the course of
 13   construction.  You are familiar with those types
 14   of environmental protection plans?
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 16               MR. HANDLON:  And number 3, post
 17   construction monitoring and follow-up, and that's
 18   into the future, and that clearly is past the
 19   construction stage, correct?
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct.  But we
 21   also had asked for a definition of the adaptive
 22   management strategy, because I personally still do
 23   not know what that is, I could not advise my
 24   client as to what it was.
 25               MR. HANDLON:  Let's just read it here.
01570
  1   This was a question posed, and a fair enough
  2   question that was posed.
  3               "MFA has committed to an adaptive
  4               management approach to environmental
  5               issues.  A monitoring follow-up
  6               program will be prepared by MFA and
  7               its consultants to verify the
  8               environmental assessment predictions
  9               and the success of the physical works
 10               put in place to address the
 11               groundwater issues.  The post
 12               construction monitoring and follow-up
 13               plan will also be submitted to
 14               Manitoba Conservation."
 15   And I'm going to get into some more detail that's
 16   been discussed during the course of this hearing,
 17   but when you say in your slide there is a
 18   deficiency that there's no commitment to long-term
 19   monitoring, I submit that there is a commitment as
 20   stated.  And this is a restatement of various
 21   provisions in the EIS itself, but certainly this
 22   does indicate that there is a commitment to
 23   continuing monitoring, testing and follow-up;
 24   correct?
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  The operative words I
01571
  1   believe here are "post construction."  There is no
  2   commitment within the EIS that I was able to
  3   identify to establishing that comprehensive plan
  4   in advance of construction.
  5               So my question, my advice to my
  6   clients was if you cannot -- if there is not an
  7   adequate baseline to which you can track the
  8   impacts of construction, how can you make an
  9   assessment as to what the impacts are?  If you
 10   don't have the baseline, the post construction
 11   follow-up is not very meaningful.
 12               MR. HANDLON:  Well, I understood your
 13   criticism was that there was not long-term
 14   monitoring plan.  Is your criticism that there
 15   wasn't a long term monitoring plan committed to
 16   prior to construction?
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  An essential component
 18   of the long-term monitoring plan is the baseline
 19   prior to construction, and for a significant
 20   period prior to construction, so the long-term
 21   impacts can be adjudicated.  Because one of the
 22   scalers in impact assessment in mitigation is
 23   mitigation will take place if impacts are detected
 24   through a well designed comprehensive monitoring
 25   plan.  But in the absence of a baseline, how do
01572
  1   you make judgments as to impacts?
  2               MR. HANDLON:  So your point is that
  3   there needs to be an appropriate baseline
  4   established first, future monitoring plans are
  5   important, but there needs to be a baseline.  Is
  6   that what you're saying?  Is that the deficiency?
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  The point I make is that
  8   I would expect to find in the EIS the statement of
  9   principles and outline for a comprehensive
 10   monitoring program, which includes sufficient
 11   monitoring and sufficient density and regularity
 12   of monitoring to be able to track, to be able to
 13   establish the baseline beforehand and to track the
 14   impacts to construction and into the long-term, so
 15   that the proposed mitigation strategy can be
 16   implemented.  I do not see -- I don't know how you
 17   would implement the mitigation strategy with the
 18   monitoring strategy that's proposed.
 19               MR. HANDLON:  Are you saying you don't
 20   see it because you don't see details of a baseline
 21   study?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  That's one component.  I
 23   don't see the monitoring network.
 24               MR. HANDLON:  Well, you've been
 25   here --
01573
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  Several times -- I'm
  2   sorry.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  So when you say
  4   there is no long-term monitoring plan, that was a
  5   deficiency, you certainly knew from the responses
  6   to the information requests that certainly was
  7   planned by the Floodway Authority.  It's right in
  8   the statement that I read, correct?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  In several, in several
 10   places in the EIS reference is made that the
 11   long-term monitoring plan will be implemented by a
 12   third party, not by the authority, that it will be
 13   the responsibility of the province by some
 14   mechanism to conduct that monitoring.
 15               I would look for a succinct,
 16   well-defined monitoring program that lays out the
 17   principles, the plan, procedures for
 18   communication, and action, how the information is
 19   actioned.  I simply didn't see that.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  I'm just going to
 21   read to you the EIS, and its page 5-23, and it has
 22   under the section monitoring, and I'll just read
 23   it to you.
 24               "Groundwater elevation and water
 25               quality monitoring will occur during
01574
  1               construction to establish response of
  2               the bedrock at the Birds Hill aquifer
  3               and to identify any interconnections
  4               to the carbonate aquifer.  Baseline
  5               groundwater elevation and quality data
  6               has been collected.  Groundwater
  7               monitoring programs will be required
  8               along the floodway, including the
  9               bridge and aqueduct dewatering sites.
 10               A monitoring plan will be developed
 11               during detailed design prior to
 12               construction."
 13   So you would have read that, would you not?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  But now can you read to
 17   me how that integrates with the long-term
 18   monitoring for the project?
 19               MR. HANDLON:  I'll read you what the
 20   commitments are that had been made during the
 21   course of this hearing, that in addition to the
 22   monitoring stated in the EIS that I just read to
 23   you, in addition to the response to the
 24   information request that there would be post
 25   construction monitoring follow-up, we have also
01575
  1   heard evidence here that there would be regular
  2   consultations with the municipalities, for
  3   example, monthly or bimonthly meetings with the
  4   Floodway Authority to provide updates on the
  5   project and progress.  That's regular
  6   consultation leading up to and through
  7   construction, that's been stated.  Further, the
  8   Floodway Authority plans to form a community with
  9   Water Stewardship, a community liaison committee
 10   for each dewatering site, so for each dewatering
 11   site, for the bridges, for the aqueducts, to
 12   involve municipal officials and nearby residents
 13   to ensure their involvement in the development of
 14   groundwater monitoring and mitigation related to
 15   the project components.
 16               Were you aware of that from the
 17   evidence?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 19               MR. HANDLON:  If you could -- I asked
 20   you if you were aware of that, and let me finish.
 21               In addition --
 22               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Currie, I get the
 24   impression Mr. Clifton is quite able to take care
 25   of himself, and I think you are engaging in a
01576
  1   fairly decent dialogue here.  So I don't think
  2   either is cutting off either, so.
  3               MR. CURRIE:  Okay.
  4               MR. HANDLON:  And further commitment
  5   that was made during the course, if not in the EIS
  6   certainly in the course of this hearing, or in the
  7   information request responses, in addition MFA
  8   plans to form a community liaison committee for
  9   the overall groundwater monitoring and mitigation
 10   program during construction and post construction.
 11               So I have put to you a summary, I
 12   believe, of the commitments that have been made by
 13   the Floodway Authority as to monitoring.  And I
 14   suggest to you that your statement that there was
 15   no commitment to long-term monitoring is simply
 16   not correct in face of that evidence.
 17               Would you agree with me that perhaps
 18   there is an overstatement in your slide here?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Not at all, Mr. Handlon,
 20   not at all.  The --
 21               MR. HANDLON:  I thought so.
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  The first part of your
 23   statement where you read in the construction
 24   component is essentially the issue that I was
 25   addressing, and that is the piecemeal nature of
01577
  1   the monitoring proposal during construction, that
  2   it's a site-by-site, resident-by-resident basis,
  3   as opposed to a comprehensive global management of
  4   the aquifer system.
  5               The documentation in the EIS is very
  6   much directed at the engineering requirements for
  7   construction, and how you manage through those
  8   construction issues.  What I was looking for from
  9   a resource management perspective is how the
 10   resource overall, how the aquifer overall is
 11   managed.  And if additional monitoring is required
 12   on a construction site-by-site basis, so be it.  I
 13   think those recommendations with respect to
 14   individual sites are excellent.  They need to be
 15   framed within a comprehensive monitoring framework
 16   for the aquifer, including a comprehensive
 17   baseline prior to any construction taking place.
 18               MR. HANDLON:  I'm just reading, it's
 19   preliminary engineering report appendix P, and
 20   that deals with surface water intrusion modeling.
 21   And recommendation number 6, under recommendation
 22   number 6, number 1, I'll just read it to you.
 23               "Groundwater monitoring should be
 24               continued during floodway construction
 25               and for several years thereafter to
01578
  1               establish any response to the bedrock
  2               and Birds Hill aquifers and to
  3               identify any possible unforeseen
  4               interconnections to the upper
  5               carbonate aquifer.  Existing
  6               monitoring wells installed during
  7               PDEA-1 investigations can be used for
  8               this purpose."
  9   First of all, question, did you read this report?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  I did.  And let me say
 11   that I think again, that -- two things.  Number 1,
 12   I didn't see the recommendations of appendix P
 13   reflected in the main engineering report, and I
 14   did not see it reflected in the EIS.  There is a
 15   requirement, or an undertaking in the EIS to
 16   monitoring and recognizing the need for
 17   monitoring.  But the technical requirements out of
 18   the technical appendices did not penetrate
 19   through, did not flow through the engineering
 20   report into the EIS.  Hence my statement of
 21   commitment.
 22               And the second component of that is
 23   that statement is predicated on the fact, on the
 24   assumption that the current monitoring network is
 25   adequate.  As I said during my presentation, it
01579
  1   most likely, if it's more than 15 years old, it
  2   most likely is inadequate, both in quality and in
  3   quantity of monitoring.
  4               MR. HANDLON:  It's just been
  5   installed.
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  Sorry?
  7               MR. HANDLON:  It's been installed
  8   recently, it's not 15 years old.  The PDA-1 is --
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Chair, I can't react
 10   to that.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Then you don't need to.
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  But I think, in
 13   fairness, I mean, this is part of the transparency
 14   and communication issues.  It's absolutely
 15   indicative.  We are being asked to respond in very
 16   short notice to information, and we're not being
 17   given the information.  And I object to being
 18   played for a patsy.
 19               MR. HANDLON:  You're not given the
 20   information?  I understand that you did meet with
 21   Mr. Bert Smith last fall in Winnipeg?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 23               MR. HANDLON:  And that was pursuant to
 24   an invitation that had been extended to one of the
 25   municipalities by the Manitoba Floodway Authority,
01580
  1   correct?
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  I don't know that.  I
  3   was in the city for a meeting, I was asked to
  4   attend a meeting that had been prior arranged with
  5   the RM.
  6               MR. HANDLON:  So any information that
  7   you sought from the engineers or from the Floodway
  8   Authority, those requests haven't been turned
  9   down?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, I think it's
 11   worthwhile examining that a bit, Mr. Handlon,
 12   because the EIS that I was given to review by my
 13   client, by the municipalities, was two documents.
 14   With the noted appendices.  I reviewed those
 15   documents, reported back to my client that there
 16   was insufficient information upon which to base a
 17   conclusion on the adequacy of the impact
 18   assessment.
 19               We had that meeting in the morning.
 20   In the afternoon we met with Mr. Smith and
 21   Mr. McNeil, and were advised that there was an
 22   engineering report that had not been distributed,
 23   but was provided to me at that meeting.  That was
 24   the first I was aware of that engineering report
 25   and that was in to December.
01581
  1               And to assimilate that -- I may be --
  2   I can confirm the date, but anyways the subject of
  3   that meeting was the first time that I had the
  4   full technical substance of the documents, which
  5   were absolutely essential to evaluating the
  6   technical adequacy of the EIS.
  7               MR. HANDLON:  My information is that
  8   you attended at the offices of MFA or KGS on
  9   October 6th, that was your first meeting with
 10   Mr. Smith and Mr. McNeil?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  It was at that meeting,
 12   if that's a good date -- we'll confirm the date,
 13   but if that's the date, that's the date I was
 14   given the documents.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  You were given a CD of
 16   all the engineering reports and the appendices.
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 18               MR. HANDLON:  And all of those
 19   engineering reports are referred to in the body of
 20   the EIS, correct?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, I have read a lot
 22   of EISs, and I can tell you that it was not clear
 23   to me that they were documents that were available
 24   to the public.
 25               MR. HANDLON:  Well, whether -- they
01582
  1   were available to the public and they were
  2   identified in the EIS.  And once you -- I
  3   understand that you were asked whether you had
  4   read them, and you requested copies of those
  5   engineering reports and were provided them,
  6   correct?
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  They were provided to me
  8   that day.
  9               MR. HANDLON:  Yes, and that was in
 10   October.
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  Whatever the date was,
 12   the date was.  But the point was they were not
 13   distributed prior to request, I mean, highly
 14   unusual circumstance.  Anyways --
 15               MR. HANDLON:  So they are referred to
 16   in the EIS, and do you want me to identify where
 17   in the EIS they are referred to?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 19               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  I would appreciate that.
 21               MR. HANDLON:  Mr. Clifton, one of the
 22   locations that the engineering reports are
 23   referred to is at pages 410 to 411.  The
 24   introduction is at page 410, and it talked about
 25   the preliminary design of the floodway expansion.
01583
  1   It was separated into two project definition
  2   stages.  The first phase consisted of primarily
  3   site investigations and baseline data acquisition
  4   to determine the existing conditions.  This phase
  5   is known as project definition environmental
  6   assessment part 1, PDA-1.
  7               A second phase, PDA-2, consisted of
  8   predesign of the various components of the
  9   Floodway Expansion Project.  Many of these
 10   components interrelated to each other in the
 11   predesign process.  PDA-1 was separated by MFEA
 12   into two work packages, and then it goes on.  And
 13   then at table 4.2-1, they were appendices of
 14   preliminary engineering reports, and there are
 15   appendices A through S.  And also at page 2-17,
 16   under section 2.4.1, there is a reference,
 17   technical studies specific to project, and studies
 18   completed by various qualified engineering firms
 19   during the project predesign process, including
 20   detailed project description information, forms of
 21   primary technical reference documents for this
 22   EIS.
 23               "Separate reports completed and
 24               available publicly on the completed
 25               predesign work for the project are
01584
  1               referenced below and detailed in
  2               chapter 11."
  3   And then it goes through description, a more
  4   generalized description of the engineering
  5   reports.
  6               So I suggest to you if you read the
  7   EIS, it was apparent, it would have been apparent
  8   to you that there are technical engineering
  9   studies that form the primary technical reference
 10   documents for the EIS, correct?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  I would refer you to the
 12   index --
 13               MR. HANDLON:  Could you answer --
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Let him answer.
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  I'd refer you to the
 16   index, which is normally where I assess structure
 17   and the documents available.  Remember, I am
 18   looking at the EIS purely from the perspective of
 19   groundwater.  And when I look at the structure of
 20   the documents that are included in the EIS, it
 21   notes the appendices and the technical appendices
 22   and figures and so on.  Nowhere in that table of
 23   contents is the presence of the engineering
 24   reports and its technical appendices mentioned as
 25   part of the document.  It would normally be
01585
  1   referenced there.
  2               MR. HANDLON:  Well, with respect --
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  And I accept what you're
  4   reading to me.  If I read -- when I read through
  5   that, it obviously did not dawn on me that there
  6   was a separate document, outside of the
  7   submissions that were here, that were available
  8   for technical review.
  9               I accept your submission that that was
 10   provided to me in October, and I made my way
 11   through the documents as required to form my
 12   conclusion.  So we overcame that temporary
 13   deficiency.
 14               MR. HANDLON:  And when were you
 15   retained?
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  Probably a month prior
 17   to that.
 18               MR. HANDLON:  In September of 2004?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Approximately, yes.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  One of the slides you
 21   showed near the end of your presentation, and I'm
 22   having difficulty locating it right now, maybe you
 23   could help me, if you recall -- and it dealt with
 24   potential contamination of the groundwater
 25   aquifer.  And I believe you added the word
01586
  1   "potential" when you were giving your evidence,
  2   even though it wasn't reflected on the slide
  3   itself.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  I'm sorry, Mr. Handlon,
  5   there was a slide that referred to potential
  6   for --
  7               MR. HANDLON:  Well, the slide
  8   referenced contamination of groundwater aquifer,
  9   and while you were reading from it you added the
 10   word "potential."
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  On page 26 is --
 12               MR. HANDLON:  And perhaps it's the
 13   one, time effects.
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  On page 25 of the
 15   handout, yes, that's where I see the time effects
 16   line.
 17               MR. HANDLON:  Is that -- and before
 18   you put it on the screen, is that where you added
 19   the word "potential"?
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  Perhaps.  It certainly
 21   would be suitable in there.
 22               MR. HANDLON:  Pardon me?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.  I would have to
 24   check the transcript, but I would agree potential
 25   progressive contamination of the aquifer is --
01587
  1               MR. HANDLON:  Right, okay.  So when
  2   you had the slide, progressive under time effects,
  3   you had the bullet point, progressive
  4   contamination of aquifer, you qualified that in
  5   your evidence to say potential progressive
  6   contamination of aquifer?
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  8               MR. HANDLON:  And that accurately
  9   reflects what you had in your report as well?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 11               MR. HANDLON:  If we could go back to
 12   your report itself, and I have some questions
 13   arising out of the report that I had, and that's
 14   the only opportunity I had to review your
 15   evidence.  If there are any areas, as we go
 16   through your report, where you know that there has
 17   been a change in your evidence to what you
 18   presented this afternoon in your slides, or if you
 19   added something, then you will let me know.  Is
 20   that all right, Mr. Clifton?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  I will try to do so,
 22   yes.
 23               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  Now, in the
 24   report itself you outlined what you reviewed in
 25   the course of doing your assessment.  And you
01588
  1   referred to the EIS and you didn't refer
  2   specifically to the engineering reports.  Was that
  3   just an oversight, or had you, by the time you
  4   prepared your report, read over all of the
  5   engineering reports?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  I had read the
  7   engineering report pertaining to groundwater.  And
  8   the term EIS that I used there is the collective
  9   term, that is the statement itself plus the
 10   technical appendices that I had reviewed.
 11               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.  And the EIS, you
 12   know after being pointed out, it was based on the
 13   technical appendices?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Now, you indicated
 16   another individual at your firm -- and how many
 17   individuals are there in your firm, approximately?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  About 85.
 19               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  And who else did
 20   you have involved with you in doing the review, or
 21   was it yourself primarily?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  It was myself assisted
 23   by Dr. Hunvu as an analyst.
 24               MR. HANDLON:  Now, you indicated as to
 25   your background and your experience, and you
01589
  1   indicated that you have been involved in many
  2   areas of civil engineering, and latterly for
  3   approximately 30 years involved in specifically
  4   the mining industry, and have done a lot of work
  5   in the mining industry as it relates to
  6   groundwater effects?
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, among other
  8   industries, but certainly significant activity in
  9   the mining industry.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  You're a geotechnical
 11   engineer.  Is that a specific designation that was
 12   available at the time you were obtaining your
 13   certifications?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  And now certification
 16   process in Saskatchewan, does it have a specific
 17   designation for hydrogeologist?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  Geo-scientists were
 19   added a number of years ago, and many subdivisions
 20   within that.  I was eligible to change my
 21   registration.  I elected not to.  I stayed with
 22   the traditional designation granted at the time of
 23   my degree.
 24               MR. HANDLON:  Your experience with
 25   groundwater in the mining industry, and I take it
01590
  1   this would be primarily being involved in the
  2   environmental impacts of the mining industry as it
  3   relates to various environmental issues, but
  4   particularly, or in part water?
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  In part, yes.
  6               MR. HANDLON:  And so other than
  7   studying the effects in the mining industry on
  8   water, have you done other work in respect to
  9   hydrology and water effects?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  It's an ongoing part of
 11   virtually all projects I work on.  There's been --
 12   it's a common constituent or common component of
 13   project delivery.  When you said I did additional
 14   work on it, I'm not sure what you mean.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Well, the work that
 16   you've done in the area of hydrogeology has been
 17   in relation to the mining industry particularly?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  That's one of the
 19   industries.  I work in many different industries,
 20   from transportation resources -- wherever our
 21   clients wish to invest their money.  And the
 22   projects have many different configurations, but
 23   very often incorporate a component of water
 24   management, management of groundwater, protection
 25   of groundwater, or assessing environmental
01591
  1   impacts.
  2               MR. HANDLON:  In your report on page 3
  3   you talk about the impact of the 1968
  4   construction.  I think there may have been a slide
  5   this afternoon where you had a slide that related
  6   to the 1968 construction.  And one of the issues I
  7   wanted to deal with was specifically on page 3,
  8   and this is a factual issue as to location of
  9   bedrock in the floodway channel, and your
 10   suggestion that there was exposed bedrock
 11   approximately 1.5 kilometres south of Spring Hill.
 12   That is not in accordance with our information,
 13   and I just want to identify you didn't -- the
 14   source of your information is Bev Fisher who is an
 15   engineer?
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, and other local
 17   residents.
 18               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  You didn't go
 19   back to any of the engineers or designers of the
 20   original floodway or the contractors?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  No.
 22               MR. HANDLON:  You didn't look at any
 23   of the plans, or designs for the original
 24   floodway, or records relating to whether there was
 25   bedrock in that area?
01592
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  Only as presented in the
  2   EIS.  There is within the documents, and I can't
  3   give you the reference, but within the documents
  4   there is a statement that the bedrock surface
  5   varies from two metres above the grade line to
  6   below it.  And I've been -- when I look at the
  7   drawings, the location of the site, the location
  8   of the area where the bedrock may be above the
  9   grade of the low flow channel is not apparent.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  So, anyway, the source
 11   of that information is from Mr. Fisher and some
 12   other individuals, but you didn't go back to the
 13   actual contractors who were involved in the
 14   floodway?
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  It's third party, it's
 16   information given to me by persons who observed
 17   themselves.
 18               MR. HANDLON:  And one of the other
 19   points you make in the second paragraph on page 3
 20   is the location.  I think that was again in your
 21   evidence today that location of hydrostatic
 22   pressure in the aquifer, you talk about the
 23   overburden and the springs that had developed.
 24   You state that the number and location of the
 25   springs could not be determined from the EIS or
01593
  1   from the interrogatories.
  2               Were you present, I believe it was
  3   yesterday or the day before, where Mr. Smith had
  4   gone through a drawing from appendix M, which
  5   showed the locations, or general locations of
  6   areas of discharge?
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, I saw that.  I
  8   appreciated seeing it in blown-up form on the
  9   screen, because for the first time I identified
 10   blue arrows and was aware of where they were.  But
 11   the comment remains valid, that the location and
 12   description characterization of them simply is not
 13   presented.
 14               MR. HANDLON:  Sorry, is not which?
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  Is not adequately
 16   presented.
 17               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  But you know that
 18   there was -- certainly that you hadn't seen that
 19   drawing before or you hadn't appreciated the
 20   significance of it?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  I had seen the drawing
 22   but could not decipher it.  It was unreadable in
 23   the documents.
 24               MR. HANDLON:  So certainly at the
 25   present time the general location of the springs
01594
  1   is in the material?
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  And the next paragraph
  4   of your report -- just on that point, go back to
  5   it.  There was an IR request from the
  6   municipalities, and it's IR 3A, and it was
  7   specifically in relation to this particular point.
  8   And if you have it there -- do you have that?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  And the response in the
 11   second sentence,
 12               "Detailed field data on floodway base
 13               flow investigations during PDA-1
 14               project time frame is contained in
 15               appendix M, annex 5.  These include
 16               identification of observed seepage
 17               areas with floodway station and GPS
 18               location field water quantity quality
 19               measurements and observations
 20               periodically from May 2003 to
 21               March 2004."
 22   I'm curious why, if you had read this answer, why
 23   you would say in your report that the information
 24   wasn't contained?
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, certainly, the
01595
  1   information provided certainly does not constitute
  2   a characterization.  And I believe if you read
  3   appendix M, annex F, it's an account by a field
  4   technologist on the difficulties he was having in
  5   making one measurement of stream flow in the
  6   channel.  So it was far from a comprehensive
  7   evaluation of stream flow conditions and the
  8   characterization of the springs.  And I fully, I
  9   accept fully the position reported by Mr. Smith,
 10   that it's not simple to do.  It's very difficult
 11   to do, but it's also very essential.
 12               MR. HANDLON:  And in appendix M there
 13   is text dealing with this particular matter, the
 14   groundwater as a section, 8.1.2, groundwater
 15   discharge areas.  I'll show it to you.
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct, it is
 17   there.  But, again, it recognizes that these
 18   conditions exist, but interrogatory IR 3A
 19   discusses characterization, and characterization
 20   is not a listing of where they are, it is, as it
 21   said, geo reference so they can be located on a
 22   map, the stratigraphy, the area of extent and the
 23   history, the hydraulic characteristics including
 24   the water table at the source, formation,
 25   permeability and flow and the water quality.  That
01596
  1   to me would constitute a characterization.
  2               MR. HANDLON:  Just looking in IR 3A
  3   again, it does specifically identify the drawing
  4   in appendix M, showing the approximate location of
  5   areas where groundwater discharge of a hundred GPM
  6   or greater was noted during original construction
  7   as published by Render 1970.
  8               So I'm curious that this specific
  9   answer did direct you to the areas of discharge,
 10   and if you were directed to the areas of discharge
 11   to the specific drawing, why you would say in your
 12   report that the number and location of the springs
 13   cannot be determined from the EIS or the
 14   interrogatories?
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  I think, Mr. Handlon, it
 16   would be useful for you to view the appendix M,
 17   annex F, because that was the form of the document
 18   that I had, the PDF document, which was in black
 19   and white, where the font size in its reduced form
 20   is so small that you can't even recognize the
 21   letter of the alphabet, leave alone read the word.
 22               MR. HANDLON:  Did you ask Mr. Smith,
 23   phone him up and ask him to blow it up or to
 24   provide you with a better copy or a more detailed
 25   copy?
01597
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  No, I did not.  I was --
  2               MR. HANDLON:  Thank you.
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  I was very proud of
  4   myself that I got through all the existing
  5   documents in time.
  6               MR. HANDLON:  So you took the time to
  7   say in your report then, instead of asking him for
  8   clarification on that, you rather took your time
  9   to state, and I quote,
 10               "The number and location of the
 11               springs could not be determined from
 12               the EIS or the interrogatories."
 13   But that's incorrect now, you acknowledge that?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  Not at all.  I could not
 15   determine them, until I saw them blown up,
 16   magnified 10 or 15 times on the screen, I simply
 17   could not identify them.  And that is simply again
 18   one element of the characterization information we
 19   are looking for.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  And you acknowledge this
 21   afternoon, that after seeing it on the screen and
 22   having it blown up and in colour, that this
 23   statement was incorrect, that it was contained in
 24   the material?
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  That the location is
01598
  1   identified, location greater than a hundred
  2   gallons per minute.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  Right.  And when I
  4   pointed that out to you, you said that that
  5   statement that you made in your report was not
  6   correct?
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  The statement I made in
  8   my report?
  9               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  With respect to?
 11               MR. HANDLON:  The number and location
 12   of the springs could not be determined from the
 13   EIS or the interrogatories.
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  And I would amend that.
 15   Number and location of the springs greater than a
 16   hundred gallons per minute is known to the
 17   proponent, yes.
 18               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.  And in the
 19   interrogatory process, you were directed to a
 20   drawing that identified the number and location of
 21   the springs, correct?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 23               MR. HANDLON:  Thank you.
 24               Now, you say in the next paragraph on
 25   page 3, under impact of 1968 construction, about
01599
  1   the discharge of water into the floodway, and you
  2   have pointed out that East St. Paul and
  3   potentially other locations where the floodway did
  4   cut through the sand and gravel aquifer could be,
  5   water can be obtained through wells on east side
  6   of that aquifer, correct, as done by East St.
  7   Paul?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  East St. Paul advised me
  9   that they have made requests repeatedly for
 10   groundwater exploration, that they have not been
 11   able to get the permission to do.  I believe that
 12   recently that has been reversed, that they have
 13   been given a permit to look at the bedrock, but
 14   it's a question best asked East St. Paul.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  But certainly from a
 16   physical ability, if water is being lost into the
 17   floodway, other than the issue of getting
 18   approvals, that certainly there is the ability to
 19   capture that water before it does go into the
 20   floodway channel?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  On the east side of East
 22   St. Paul, or east side of the channel?
 23               MR. HANDLON:  Of the channel, yes.
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, given the authority
 25   to construct wells in that area, yes.
01600
  1               MR. HANDLON:  And we know from the
  2   evidence that's been already given that the flow
  3   of water in the carbonate aquifer does extend east
  4   and there are discharge areas in the Red River
  5   itself?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  That there are?
  7               MR. HANDLON:  Discharge areas in the
  8   Red River, of that aquifer?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.  In your report,
 11   section 5, expansion alternatives, and you talk
 12   about expansion alternatives.  And certainly we
 13   know now, and you weren't aware at the time, that
 14   in order to gain capacity that the floodway is
 15   being widened instead of deepened, so that would
 16   be appropriate for the Floodway Authority to have
 17   considered that alternative and to move in the
 18   direction that they have?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  Thank you.  In your
 21   report at page number 5, it deals with cumulative
 22   effects assessment.  And you've gone through some
 23   of that.  I don't intend to engage in a debate
 24   with you on that subject, you have set out your
 25   argument.  If I could, though, other than the
01601
  1   argument portion in this section, deal with a
  2   comment that's in the second paragraph.  You
  3   state, and it's about in the middle of the
  4   paragraph,
  5               "The Commission will be asked to find
  6               that this interpretation is not
  7               reasonable.  The proponent has in
  8               essence a non-compliant facility."
  9   And then you go on with argument -- seeking
 10   approval to expand the facility without mitigating
 11   undesirable impacts.
 12               Now, you have stated in your evidence
 13   today and have on slides non-compliant facility.
 14   But in your report itself you say "has in essence"
 15   and you've added the words "in essence."  I take
 16   it that was intentional, those were qualifying
 17   words that you had added?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, it is a
 19   non-compliant facility.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  But you added the words
 21   "in essence," and what I'm suggesting to you is
 22   you added the words "in essence" because you
 23   acknowledge that there has not been any actual
 24   decision or determination made by any body or any
 25   person in authority who has jurisdiction that the
01602
  1   facility or the operation is in non-compliance
  2   with any laws or regulations?
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  That is my opinion based
  4   on my knowledge of the policies and regulations of
  5   Manitoba.
  6               MR. HANDLON:  But I'm suggesting to
  7   you that you added the words "in essence" because
  8   you acknowledge there has not been any decision or
  9   determination as to non-compliance by any body or
 10   person in authority.  You acknowledge that?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  Not that I'm aware of.
 12               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.  You have given
 13   your opinion.
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  And in the report itself
 16   you say "non-compliant facility," yet I don't see
 17   you identifying whether it's non-compliant with a
 18   policy or a law or a regulation.  You don't
 19   provide any specifics in your report, do you?
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  I believe Mr. Currie
 21   will speak to that in some detail.
 22               MR. HANDLON:  Well, I'm not -- you can
 23   speak to what's in your report and what's not in
 24   your report, and that's what I'm asking you now.
 25   I'm not asking for a legal interpretation or a
01603
  1   legal opinion.
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, let me give you
  3   the basis of my statement.
  4               MR. HANDLON:  Well, no.  What I'm
  5   saying -- I don't mean to talk over you -- is that
  6   in your report you talk about a non-compliant
  7   facility.  But what I'm asking you, you don't
  8   specify in what way it's non-compliant, whether
  9   it's non-compliant with a policy or a law or a
 10   regulation, you don't identify it?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  That's true.  I'd be
 12   glad to elaborate on that, if you wish.
 13               MR. HANDLON:  No, I just asked you
 14   that you don't identify it?
 15               MR. CLIFTON:  No, I don't.
 16               MR. HANDLON:  No.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  Would you care to
 18   elaborate on that?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Certainly, Mr. Chair.
 20   In my view, the existing facility is not compliant
 21   with the water management policy in the Province
 22   of Manitoba, it's not compliant with the
 23   Sustainability Act, and that is the basis.
 24               I also was personally under the
 25   opinion that it was not compliant with water
01604
  1   resource licensing, but I accept the information
  2   brought here Monday that the opinion of the
  3   province is that the facility does not need a
  4   licence.  That's a legal question, not one for me
  5   to answer.  But in my view the facility, as it
  6   exists today, does not comply with conservation
  7   water management policy and sustainability policy
  8   of the Province of Manitoba.
  9               MR. HANDLON:  And I appreciate that's
 10   the evidence that you gave earlier on today, but
 11   before you gave that evidence today you hadn't
 12   specified what it was that you were saying it was
 13   non-compliant with, correct?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  That's true.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  And I believe you
 16   indicated in your evidence today, it may be on the
 17   slide, you again also referred to non-compliance.
 18   You're referring to non-compliance with what you
 19   assessed were certain policies, and I believe that
 20   you referenced specifically the Water Protection
 21   Act?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  I read specifically the
 23   proposed provisions of the Water Protection Act,
 24   but certainly in putting that statement about
 25   non-compliance was focusing primarily on the
01605
  1   issues regarding water conservation and water
  2   management and sustainability.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  And in order to respond
  4   to that, you haven't provided any details of that,
  5   correct?  How can we respond to that if you don't
  6   provide details?
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, those regulations
  8   and statutes are published.  The Sustainability
  9   Act, I mean, I was reading the same statutes that
 10   are available to you.
 11               MR. HANDLON:  We can read them and
 12   make our own observations as well.
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  Absolutely.
 14               MR. HANDLON:  In your report at
 15   section 7, you deal with groundwater management
 16   expertise.  Again, you refer to your source,
 17   Mr. Fisher, personal communication, and you have
 18   stated that there was, I believe your evidence
 19   today was there was some indication that there was
 20   groundwater contamination from the Red River at
 21   some point in time, and you have identified
 22   Mr. Fisher as being the source?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.  Mr. Fisher was the
 24   consultant to the municipality of East St. Paul
 25   for a considerable period of time, several decades
01606
  1   I understand.  And he was the consultant during
  2   the period when contamination, as he reported to
  3   me in a personal interview, he was the consultant
  4   for East St. Paul at a time when contamination of
  5   bedrock wells was experienced and that was the
  6   impetus for the community to move to a piped water
  7   system.
  8               MR. HANDLON:  In the course of the,
  9   prior to this hearing there was -- you were aware
 10   of meetings that the municipality representatives
 11   had met with the Minister of Water Stewardship,
 12   and there was a letter from the Minister of Water
 13   Stewardship of February 11, 2005?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  I am not aware of that.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  You are not aware of
 16   that?
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  No.
 18               MR. HANDLON:  And this isn't related
 19   to the Red River contamination, but in that letter
 20   of February 11, 2005, the Minister of Water
 21   Stewardship states, on the second page in the
 22   third paragraph, and I'll read it to you.  If you
 23   want to see it, that's fine -- sorry on page 1 in
 24   the third paragraph, and it's dealing with the
 25   issue of aquifer contamination from floodway
01607
  1   waters, and he states,
  2               "It should be noted that in the years
  3               since the existing floodway was
  4               constructed, there has not been a
  5               single incident of resulting well
  6               contamination."
  7   Were you aware of that fact?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  I was not aware of that,
  9   but I would be -- I would wonder at the evidence
 10   on which that statement was based.
 11               MR. HANDLON:  This was the Minister of
 12   Water Stewardship.
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  I can't comment on that.
 14               MR. HANDLON:  No.  And in his letter
 15   he goes on, and I'll just ask you if you were
 16   aware of this,
 17               "Manitoba Water Stewardship intends to
 18               initiate a comprehensive study of the
 19               two related aquifers in the region.
 20               This work will include development of
 21               a groundwater three dimensional model
 22               that will determine potential effects
 23               of additional water withdrawals
 24               arising from new developments on
 25               existing users and the sustainability
01608
  1               of the aquifer system.  The model will
  2               also be capable of incorporating
  3               regional scale water quality issues."
  4   Were you aware of that commitment from the
  5   Minister?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  What is the date of
  7   that?
  8               MR. HANDLON:  February 11.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  No, I am not aware of
 10   it.  It wasn't an input into my deliberations over
 11   this.
 12               MR. HANDLON:  I take it, given your
 13   evidence, that you would welcome such a regional
 14   study that is described as to the groundwater in
 15   these two aquifers?
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  Clearly -- I mean, that
 17   is certainly a technical piece of work that is
 18   needed.  It doesn't modify the discussion and the
 19   conclusions I have reached, but it would provide a
 20   framework, I presume, into which the floodway
 21   project would fit.
 22               MR. HANDLON:  Yes, and it would
 23   identify other sources of contamination, of water
 24   quality considerations other than potentially the
 25   floodway itself?
01609
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  If it is carried far
  2   enough, yes.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  A three dimensional
  4   model as described, one would anticipate that that
  5   would, correct?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  You have much greater in
  7   three dimensional models than I.
  8               MR. HANDLON:  Yes, perhaps I do and
  9   perhaps the Ministry of Environment in Ontario
 10   does too.
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  I say that, I don't wish
 12   to be facetious, Mr. Handlon, I say that simply
 13   because they are one more tool in the tool kit, an
 14   important tool, but they are not the solution.
 15   They are an important tool in working towards a
 16   solution.
 17               MR. HANDLON:  I appreciate that.
 18               And on the same page of your report
 19   near the end of the first paragraph of section 70
 20   you talk about the Municipality of East St. Paul
 21   developing wells into the bedrock aquifer.  And
 22   you say that although the water is somewhat lower
 23   quality, and what you're referring to there is the
 24   quality level of the water from the sand and
 25   gravel as opposed to the carbonate aquifer,
01610
  1   correct?
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  And you state,
  4               "...and perhaps more susceptible to
  5               contamination from the floodway."
  6   And that's your point, that is an issue of
  7   potentially more susceptible to contamination, as
  8   you clarified today?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct, although
 10   I think based on the evidence I've heard the last
 11   day or two, the system there may be strongly
 12   interconnected.  So sensitivity may be -- there
 13   may be sensitivity on both aquifers.
 14               MR. HANDLON:  Well, we're dealing with
 15   your review of, I appreciate, the EIS, and you
 16   have also heard some further evidence in the
 17   course of this hearing itself.  You're referring
 18   to Mr. Hayes yesterday?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  Now you deal with, in
 21   the course of your presentation today and in your
 22   report, your discussion of modeling, the numerical
 23   mathematical type of modeling.  And you indicate
 24   that models are,
 25               "A numerical model is a mathematical
01611
  1               simulation of the geosphere and the
  2               behaviour of the groundwater within
  3               it.  Models are commonly used to
  4               understand how a natural groundwater
  5               system works, that is to say
  6               understand the mechanics of flow and
  7               predict the areas of influence."
  8   Correct -- that's when you're talking about the
  9   models we're talking about here?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 11               MR. HANDLON:  And top of page 8 you
 12   referred to -- I will get back into that area but
 13   if I can skip into section 9.2, regional model,
 14   and you're talking about the regional model as
 15   contained in the EIS, and you have a criticism,
 16   although you say the model is well-defined in the
 17   EIS, it has some limitations.  And the first
 18   limitation you state is that the model models the
 19   seepage discharge as occurring uniformly along the
 20   channel as opposed to being concentrate in known
 21   areas of blowouts and bedrock exposures in the
 22   channel.
 23               My advice is that there certainly was
 24   identification, as we've discussed on the one
 25   drawing to appendix M, as to the general location
01612
  1   of the groundwater discharge areas.  That that was
  2   taken, that the model, the regional model did take
  3   that into account and did not assume that the
  4   seepage occurred uniformly along the channel.
  5               So I'm not asking you to agree or
  6   disagree with that, but if that is the case, if
  7   the model did not assume discharge evenly,
  8   uniformly along the channel, but did take into
  9   account the specific areas where discharge was
 10   identified, that you wouldn't -- then that
 11   wouldn't be the same limitation that you thought
 12   it had?
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct.  If that
 14   in fact was a discharge condition that was assumed
 15   in the model, then that statement would be
 16   negated.
 17               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.  And at the top of
 18   page 8 you talk about the results of the models,
 19   and you make the statement that they must be
 20   viewed as qualitative mechanistic rather than
 21   quantitative.  And I take it that your criticisms
 22   of modeling in general, this is the criticism of
 23   modeling in general?
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct.  It is a
 25   statement to make the Commission aware of the
01613
  1   limitations of modeling.  The models have inherent
  2   in them, all the models of this type have inherent
  3   in them those basic limitations.  There is a set
  4   of assumptions that go into constructing the
  5   models that control the quality of the outputs
  6   from the models.
  7               MR. HANDLON:  And certainly how good a
  8   model is a predictor of what will occur is
  9   dependent on how the model has developed, the
 10   amount of data that's put into the model itself,
 11   the calibration of the input data, correct?
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 13               MR. HANDLON:  And did you study the
 14   engineering reports that were put together through
 15   the lead of KGS as to the details of all of the
 16   data that were included in the modeling and the
 17   actual calibration of the model that they
 18   developed?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  I did.  If I can comment
 20   on that, the reason for my statement is that the
 21   models were calibrated to one set of conditions,
 22   what we call a steady state model calibrated to a
 23   set of conditions for which monitoring data
 24   existed.  And they are calibrated to that
 25   condition and with the assumptions that go into it
01614
  1   and it has limitations.  It's not a model that can
  2   be used to simulate the hydrograph for the
  3   groundwater table in the aquifer for instance.
  4   It's a steady state model, it's not a dynamic or a
  5   transient model.
  6               MR. HANDLON:  My advice is that a
  7   transient was done on the 1997 flood.  Were you
  8   aware of that?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  But it was based on a
 10   calibrated steady state model.
 11               MR. HANDLON:  Were you aware of the
 12   specific data input into the model?  Can you tell
 13   me what your understanding of that was?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  When you say specific
 15   data input, there was myriad --
 16               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.  Do you know if
 17   there were any recent test holes that were
 18   drilled?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  The inputs to the model
 20   are tabulated and listed in the appendices.
 21               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  Did you assume
 22   that there were not recent test holes that were
 23   drilled?
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  There is a list of test
 25   holes reported in appendix Q, I believe, or P, one
01615
  1   of the technical particular appendices that list
  2   the test holes that were drilled, yes.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  So you were aware that
  4   test holes were drilled specifically for this
  5   modeling?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  It wasn't clear that it
  7   was specific for the modeling.
  8               MR. HANDLON:  Certainly -- I'll just
  9   give you a list of inputs and you tell me if
 10   that's appropriate to put the information.  My
 11   understanding is that the use of information from
 12   approximately 800 wells was included -- 8,000, use
 13   of holes up to 338 recent test holes and wells
 14   with site specific information, including
 15   hydraulic conductivity, attendant screen size,
 16   detailed existing channel geometry, historical
 17   information from Water Stewardship on floodway
 18   construction, monitoring and testing, long-term
 19   continuous provincial records on groundwater
 20   level, monitoring at provincial wells along the
 21   floodway, in-house work along the floodway and
 22   various groundwater projects.  Would you agree
 23   with me that's significant data input?
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  It is the typical data
 25   input that one would expect for a regional model.
01616
  1               MR. HANDLON:  And there is also
  2   pre-construction model calibration, it is
  3   calibrated with calculated heads meeting
  4   acceptable confidence level to the observed
  5   regional early 1960s piezometric surface, and that
  6   was contained in appendix N; were you aware of
  7   that?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  9               MR. HANDLON:  Pre-construction.
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.  I mean, that's
 11   reported.  My criticism remains that the
 12   assumptions, regardless of the data that is
 13   utilized, regional models by their very nature
 14   model many hundreds of square kilometres of
 15   terrain, and the information must be normalized.
 16   And if you looked at how the analysts have
 17   adjusted properties of soil, hydraulic properties
 18   of bedrock and so on, many of the adjustments are
 19   made to achieve a result, but aren't necessarily
 20   based on the hard data that is brought forward.
 21               The input data that you read is very
 22   important, it's a very important fundamental
 23   input.  But then the results very much are
 24   dependent on the skill of the analyst and the
 25   assumptions they make.
01617
  1               MR. HANDLON:  I'm going to ask you a
  2   simple question and you can agree with me or not
  3   agree, and we can call evidence if you don't
  4   agree.  I'm going to suggest to you that the
  5   modeling that was done here was not typical.  It
  6   wasn't typical because there was much more data
  7   that was included in the model than is usually
  8   done.  Would you agree with or disagree with that?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Do I agree or disagree?
 10   The number of wells -- I would agree with that, I
 11   would agree with that, because the amount of data
 12   available to this model was very considerable
 13   because of the number of wells that are available
 14   in the region.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Are you familiar with
 16   the GUDI protocol which I believe was implemented
 17   in Ontario?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  No, I'm not.
 19               MR. HANDLON:  In the report provided
 20   by Conestoga-Rovers, did you have a chance to
 21   review that report?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  No, I haven't.
 23               MR. HANDLON:  In that report they have
 24   discussed the GUDI protocol and they have
 25   appended, or put into their report, and it's
01618
  1   appendix -- I'll have to get the appendix number,
  2   I don't have it right here, but it's a protocol
  3   for the -- sorry, it's Appendix C2.  And it's
  4   protocol for a delineation of well head protection
  5   areas for municipal groundwater supply wells under
  6   direct influence of surface water.
  7               Have you heard that phrase GUDI
  8   before?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  The phrase what, sir?
 10               MR. HANDLON:  The phrase GUDI?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 12               MR. HANDLON:  But you weren't familiar
 13   with the protocol itself?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  No.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  And do you have a copy
 16   of it in front of you?
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Of the protocol?
 18               MR. HANDLON:  Yes?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  Okay.  And I'll just
 21   read the purpose, and I'm not going to read the
 22   whole protocol.
 23               "The purpose of this protocol is to
 24               identify the Ontario Ministry of
 25               Environment requirements regarding
01619
  1               delineation of well head protection
  2               areas around municipal groundwater
  3               supply wells where there may be a need
  4               for a restriction on certain types of
  5               land use and/or introduction of other
  6               measures to prevent and manage risk
  7               from human activities relating to the
  8               use, manufacture, production, storage
  9               and release of biological and chemical
 10               contaminants."
 11   And in applicability, there's a note that says,
 12               "Certificates of approval issued by
 13               the Ministry on the basis of the
 14               review may include a requirement to
 15               undertake a hydrological study in
 16               accordance with the Ministry
 17               documents, the terms of reference for
 18               the hydrological study to examine
 19               groundwater sources potentially under
 20               the influence of surface water."
 21   And then under the requirement sections, if you
 22   turn to the next page there is a heading "Capture
 23   Zone Delineation Methodology," and they have,
 24               "Preferred method:  In the majority of
 25               cases three dimensional steady state
01620
  1               computer models should be used to
  2               delineate capture zones.  When
  3               properly set up and calibrated, these
  4               models produce the most realistic time
  5               of travel boundaries.  It is
  6               anticipated that the numerical code
  7               that will most frequently be used is
  8               mod flow."
  9   And then it goes on,
 10               "It is necessary to have data
 11               regarding well production rate and
 12               considerable...",
 13   and it goes on to various details.
 14               So are you now aware of the fact that
 15   the mod flow model is recommended under the GUDI
 16   protocol?
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, mod flow is
 18   generally accepted tool originating out of the
 19   U.S., and specified in submittals in the U.S., but
 20   it's a generally accepted tool for modeling
 21   saturated flow in aquifers.  I agree with what you
 22   read.  I mean, I have no objection to that at all.
 23               MR. HANDLON:  So if I read in your
 24   report that you had some criticism of the mod flow
 25   model itself, I misread that?
01621
  1               MR. CLIFTON:  On the regional model, I
  2   have no criticisms at all.  I have no criticism of
  3   the regional model.  I am critical, of course, of
  4   the detailed models.
  5               MR. HANDLON:  But certainly other
  6   jurisdictions have recommended this model in order
  7   to determine the capture zones for specific
  8   municipal wells?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, but that's quite a
 10   different application than is being used for
 11   details modeling around the channel.
 12               MR. HANDLON:  Well, I suggest that
 13   this model is used to determine the capture, the
 14   discharge zone of the floodway.  And so certainly
 15   as to the model itself, you don't disagree with
 16   this protocol when it says that mod flow is a
 17   preferred model to be used?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  Let me be very clear,
 19   Mr. Handlon.  I have no objection to utilizing mod
 20   flow as the appropriate model in the regional
 21   modeling study done.  That is the appropriate
 22   model.  It is not the appropriate model, in my
 23   mind, to use for detailed analysis of flow from
 24   the floodway channel, largely because that flow
 25   occurs in an unsaturated condition, and mod flow
01622
  1   has some known shortcomings in dealing with that
  2   circumstance.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  Now, in your report you
  4   refer to, page 9, aquifer contamination, and you
  5   talked about independent simulation of aquifer
  6   response to flood levels.  And is this the
  7   independent simulation that you have presented
  8   here today?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  And what model was used?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  We used two models, the
 12   principal two dimensional one was the CTRAN model,
 13   which is manufactured by -- not manufactured, but
 14   maintained and developed by Geoslope.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Is that included in your
 16   slides?
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  No, it's a commonly --
 18               MR. HANDLON:  But it wasn't referenced
 19   in your slides.
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  No.
 21               MR. HANDLON:  But you have now given
 22   them to us.  And can you provide us with a
 23   document?
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  It's an industry
 25   standard model.
01623
  1               MR. HANDLON:  I was going to move on
  2   from that, Mr. Smith has indicated that he is
  3   familiar with it.  The actual database that was
  4   utilized in developing this simulation --
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  The data that we used in
  6   developing the simulation, and we will provide
  7   that, but it essentially was the cross-section
  8   taken from the technical appendix for the Keewatin
  9   bridge site.  It was the data from appendix C
 10   related to stratigraphy and groundwater conditions
 11   for the calibrated case at the Keewatin site.
 12               MR. HANDLON:  Well, perhaps --
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  But we can provide the
 14   working papers on that.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Yes, if you would
 16   provide all of the working papers.  How quickly
 17   can you get those to us?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  It would take me a day.
 19   They are not resident on my own machine.
 20               MR. HANDLON:  If I can just state on
 21   the record then the type of information we need,
 22   as given to me by Mr. Smith, is base geology -- I
 23   believe you've given it -- hydraulic conductivity,
 24   the boundary conditions, calibration points,
 25   calibration, sensitivity, and floodway staging.
01624
  1   Would you be able to provide us with that
  2   information?
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, the floodway
  4   station is as I have stated.
  5               MR. HANDLON:  Staging?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  Staging -- it's as
  7   presented in the documents there.  The hydrograph
  8   for the floodway is presented in the information I
  9   presented today.
 10               MR. HANDLON:  The source of that
 11   information?
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Is again taken from the
 13   EIS.
 14               MR. HANDLON:  So you would be able to
 15   give that to us later tomorrow?  And I take it if
 16   there is further information that's requested, if
 17   provided through KGS directly or through our
 18   office or through your counsel, that you will
 19   provide us with all details if it is not contained
 20   in the information that you provide?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  The information will be
 22   forwarded to Mr. Currie.
 23               MR. HANDLON:  Thank you.
 24   
 25   
01625
  1   (UNDERTAKING # 2:  Provided by wayne Clifton -
  2   Provide working papers re hydraulic conductivity,
  3   boundary conditions, calibration points,
  4   calibration, sensitivity, and floodway staging)
  5   
  6               MR. HANDLON:  I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
  7   if we can take a short break?
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  How long did you have
  9   in mind, Mr. Handlon?
 10               MR. HANDLON:  Ten minutes.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I have no
 12   problem with that.  I would suggest that perhaps
 13   we might go until 5:30 p.m. because it seems that
 14   we may not get through all of this, and I know
 15   that at least one of my colleagues has a question
 16   or two or three.
 17               MR. HANDLON:  Thank you.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  We'll come back at just
 19   after quarter after, please.
 20   
 21               (BRIEF RECESS)
 22   
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we come back to
 24   order, please.  Order, please.  We are ready to
 25   proceed.  Mr. Handlon.
01626
  1               MR. HANDLON:  Thank you.
  2               Mr. Clifton, in your report itself,
  3   and I believe this is in one of your slides, and
  4   this is at page 9 of your report, section 9.5.
  5   And you say, and this is again one of your points
  6   that you have made about looking at the long-term
  7   consideration of impacts.  In that sentence you
  8   say,
  9               "Some considerations of time were
 10               discussed earlier in this document
 11               when it was pointed out that the EIS
 12               considered the time to the end of
 13               construction, with no longer term
 14               consideration of impacts."
 15   And I'm advised that certainly in respect to the
 16   modeling of the detailed models of surface water
 17   intrusion, the detailed models, that certainly the
 18   modeling was done in situations looking at a flood
 19   event.  You are aware of that?
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  Looking at, I'm sorry?
 21               MR. HANDLON:  Looking at a flood
 22   event?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 24               MR. HANDLON:  And so I suggest that
 25   when you say that the only considered time to the
01627
  1   end of construction -- in fact, the models
  2   themselves were based on different scenarios, a
  3   scenario when the floodway was inactive and when
  4   the floodway was active.  So that would be a
  5   future event.  When that would occur in the
  6   future, we don't know.  So you'd agree with me
  7   that the models themselves certainly modelled,
  8   considered future events?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, as I understand the
 10   models, interpret the models, they looked at a
 11   future flood event and the period one year beyond
 12   that -- in other words, to reach the conclusion
 13   that the majority of the intruded water would be
 14   recovered within a year.
 15               MR. HANDLON:  Yes.  My advice, and
 16   we've seen it from the -- that the models talked
 17   about future flood events and then continuing
 18   monitoring thereafter.  So your criticism is that
 19   the EIS doesn't look at time effects into the
 20   future.  And I suggest to you simply that's
 21   incorrect.  The modeling itself is dealing with
 22   future events, not a situation that's static at
 23   the end of construction.  Would you grant me that,
 24   allow me that?
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, certainly the
01628
  1   flood event will take place sometime after
  2   construction.  But what I would be looking for as
  3   an analytical sequence here is frankly to take the
  4   hydrograph of the past 35 years and model its
  5   impact on the groundwater system.  That would be a
  6   typical approach.  And as a surrogate for future
  7   impacts -- use the past 35 years hydrograph as a
  8   surrogate for going forward.  I didn't see that.
  9   I did see the analysis of a future flood event at
 10   an undetermined time, and the impacts, the
 11   intrusion of water for a short period of time
 12   after that flood event.  That's what I saw.
 13               And so I think the statement is
 14   correct.  There is not a coherent consideration of
 15   long-term impacts of the floodway.  They were one
 16   of events.
 17               MR. HANDLON:  I'm just reading
 18   appendix P, surface water intrusion, the modeling
 19   again.
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  Appendix papa?
 21               MR. HANDLON:  Appendix P, page 3-2.
 22               "This particle tracking was used to
 23               determine the extent of infiltration
 24               out of the floodway during floodway
 25               filling and the resulting path of the
01629
  1               groundwater as the floodway drained.
  2               The particle tracking shows the path
  3               of the infiltrating water into the
  4               overlying unconsolidated deposits
  5               (sand and gravel or till) and whether
  6               or not the water reaches the bedrock.
  7               In all cases following the 1997 flood
  8               event, the transient simulations were
  9               run until the floodway conditions
 10               returned and were held under dry
 11               floodway, these conditions to trace
 12               the long-term path flow path."
 13   So certainly there were consideration in this
 14   modeling and in the investigations as to future
 15   events, as to the long-term effects?
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  I disagree with that,
 17   because particle tracking is a very crude tool.
 18   It does not look at the mixing of the water within
 19   the floodway.  What it identifies is that if that
 20   particular molecule, if you will, of water went
 21   into the floodway, is it likely -- or sorry, went
 22   into the aquifer, is it likely to be expelled when
 23   the floodway drys up or returns to low flow?
 24               That's all that tells you.  It does
 25   not -- it is not an adequate analysis of the
01630
  1   migration of flood water into the aquifer.
  2               MR. SMITH:  Mr. Clifton, if I may ask
  3   you, with the particle tracking, the portion that
  4   does not go back into the floodway continues to
  5   flow outward in this example to the west with
  6   time, and would not that particle tracking track
  7   the front of the surface water as it continues to
  8   move west?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Not necessarily.  It
 10   depends on the density of the particles that you
 11   use in the tracking.
 12               MR. SMITH:  Well, we're tracking water
 13   and we are assuming that it is moving at the speed
 14   of the groundwater that's moving with it.  So
 15   we're not diluting in this case as you would with
 16   a contaminant transport.
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  And that of course is my
 18   criticism of the technique.  The technique that is
 19   required is a transport examination which looks at
 20   the dispersion and mixing within the aquifer, and
 21   how the aquifer moves in response to the -- sorry,
 22   the surface water moves in response to the
 23   gradients that are acting on the aquifer.
 24               MR. SMITH:  Would you not agree that
 25   the movement of that front would be more
01631
  1   conservative than the dispersion and the dilution
  2   of the contaminant transport?  In other words, the
  3   contaminant is not going to move faster than the
  4   front?
  5               MR. CLIFTON:  In fact the
  6   contaminant -- in fact it's the other way around.
  7   The contaminant front, because of dispersion and
  8   mixing, there is a dilute front that moves ahead
  9   of the bulk of the surface water coming in.
 10   That's a well-known phenomenon in contaminant
 11   transport and exactly the phenomenon that I was
 12   trying to illustrate in the cross-sections that I
 13   put forward.
 14               MR. SMITH:  Well, we look forward to
 15   receiving the information in that, but I do note
 16   in our sensitivity analysis, our front moved ahead
 17   to the boundary of the channel within half a year.
 18   And in your example, you took 20 years to move 500
 19   metres and at that point it was diluted down to 10
 20   per cent.  So certainly for our purposes,
 21   identifying within half a year that there could be
 22   an issue at the boundary and flagging a need for
 23   monitoring in that area, it would be conservative.
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  Depends on the -- the
 25   word conservative is one that I've steered clear
01632
  1   of in these analyses, because what I was
  2   evaluating is what are the mechanisms that are
  3   active within the aquifer.  And the only way -- I
  4   have used mod flow, I used mod flow regularly as a
  5   tool exactly in the style that is used here.
  6               But to evaluate the position of the
  7   contaminant plume within the aquifer, the mod flow
  8   evaluation is not adequate.  It is not adequate.
  9   It does not look at the distribution of the
 10   surface water within the aquifer, which is the key
 11   component which Dr. Hayes, or Mr. Hayes was
 12   referring to yesterday.  Is there surface water
 13   resident within the aquifer after a period of
 14   time?  If that surface water is resident within
 15   the aquifer and continues to migrate within the
 16   aquifer, there is a potential human health risk.
 17               And contaminant transport modeling is
 18   a mechanism that is needed to evaluate that.
 19   That, of course, was key to the criticism that I
 20   put forward.  I did not see that type of modeling.
 21   Mod flow gives an indication, it does not give
 22   nearly the precision of answers of a tool such at
 23   MT3D, which is a companion software to mod flow.
 24               MR. HANDLON:  Perhaps we can leave the
 25   discussion on modeling until we receive the
01633
  1   background information of Mr. Clifton in this
  2   area, because this is an important part of the
  3   consideration here of his evidence.  And of
  4   course, we will be dealing in re-examination with
  5   some of these issues that have come up during the
  6   course of presentations that certainly were not
  7   contained in reports, and reports received very
  8   late.
  9               I'm near the end of my questioning,
 10   but certainly as I indicated earlier on, we would
 11   want Mr. Clifton to come back.  I think it's only
 12   fair to allow us the opportunity to look at the
 13   modeling that he has done, to look at all the
 14   information, to be able to analyze the new
 15   assessments and conclusions -- maybe not new
 16   conclusions, but elaboration on conclusions that
 17   he's provided in these slides, particularly on
 18   these technical areas.
 19               So I would close on that.  There are a
 20   few questions on one of the slides that were
 21   presented this afternoon dealing with the issue of
 22   the assessment, environmental assessment.  And to
 23   facilitate this, I would ask Mr. Osler, he had a
 24   few questions of Mr. Clifton, and if that would be
 25   appropriate, he could put those questions and then
01634
  1   we could sort of conclude our examination for
  2   today.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, that's very
  4   reasonable.  Mr. Handlon, how long will you, or
  5   obviously the engineering consultants need to
  6   examine Mr. Clifton's modeling data.
  7               MR. HANDLON:  As to length of time,
  8   once it's received to be able to assess it in
  9   order to properly -- if I could just confer with
 10   Mr. Smith on that.
 11               Mr. Chairman, if it's received by
 12   Friday, or on Friday, they should be able to get
 13   that done for Tuesday, so we're looking at mid
 14   next week.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Clifton, are you
 16   available to return to Winnipeg mid next week?
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Mr. Chair, my next week
 18   is very difficult.  I am scheduled at another
 19   hearing at the middle of the week, at the same
 20   time, so it would be --
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Beginning of the
 22   following week, Monday, March 5th?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  Perhaps, I would have to
 24   check.  I don't have my itinerary with me, but I
 25   would have to check that.
01635
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Pardon me, that's the
  2   7th of March I'm told.
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  I will advise Mr. Currie
  4   as soon as I have my schedule.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  6               MR. HANDLON:  Just Mr. Osler has some
  7   questions.  And if Mr. Clifton has the EIS in
  8   front of him, I think it might help.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Osler.
 10               MR. J. OSLER:  It is one of those very
 11   rare opportunities where I actually get to ask
 12   questions, so I'll be very delicate and hopefully
 13   very brief.
 14               Mr. Clifton, when we started the
 15   presentation this afternoon, you mentioned that
 16   you had had an opportunity to reread through
 17   chapter 2 in some detail, based on what you were
 18   hearing throughout the hearing.  And in fact, you
 19   actually included a particular figure out of
 20   chapter 2 in your description of, I guess you
 21   refer to it in section 6 of your evidence as an
 22   impact ranking system.  And I believe the actual
 23   figure reference in the EIS is figure 2.3-1,
 24   that's found on page 2-14 of the EIS.
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Just to be clear,
01636
  1   Mr. Osler, I think my evidence was that I had an
  2   opportunity to reread section 2 prior to
  3   submitting the report, not following information
  4   at the hearings.  I haven't had an opportunity to
  5   reread it since I've been at the hearings.
  6               MR. J. OSLER:  Fair enough.  It does
  7   refer to, the impact ranking system uses a
  8   combination of severity, duration and aerial
  9   extent to adjudicate whether mitigation is
 10   required.
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 12               MR. J. OSLER:  And you describe them
 13   as duration being short-term or long-term, and you
 14   describe magnitude and geographic extent.  And you
 15   said this defines the mitigation requirements and
 16   that was in fact inadequate for the purpose of the
 17   EA.  I don't mean to paraphrase you, if it's not
 18   exactly the quotation, fair enough.
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  I think my comment was
 20   that the ranking system is very clear, and the
 21   assessment and mitigation presented in the EIA is
 22   consistent with the ranking system that was
 23   proposed.
 24               MR. J. OSLER:  On page 2-2 of the EIS,
 25   under the description of overview of approach, the
01637
  1   EIS lays out, and actually Mr. Rempel described in
  2   his presentation last week the EIS assessment
  3   process, and it was described as including five
  4   key steps, the first step of that being scoping.
  5   The step includes identification of issues of
  6   concern related to the project, selecting
  7   environmental components to be examined in the
  8   EIA, and identifying potential sources and
  9   pathways of those effects from the project to each
 10   environmental component.
 11               It goes on to describe that for the
 12   floodway expansion EIS, the EIS guidelines provide
 13   considerable initial guidance as to scoping,
 14   including an initial basic environmental
 15   components list to be examined.
 16               Do you see that, sir?
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 18               MR. J. OSLER:  The second step of that
 19   environmental assessment process is the analysis
 20   of the effects of those various environmental
 21   components.  It involves collection of baseline
 22   data, and there's been considerable discussion on
 23   that today, for each one of these environmental
 24   components, and assessing the effects of the
 25   project as well as all selected other actions such
01638
  1   as cumulative effects on the selected
  2   environmental components.
  3               Do you see that, sir?
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  5               MR. J. OSLER:  The third step being
  6   the identification of mitigation.  This step sets
  7   out recommended mitigation measures.
  8               The fourth step, sir, is the
  9   evaluation of significance, describing residual
 10   effects.  This step evaluates the significance of
 11   residual effects, that is adverse effects after
 12   consideration of full recommended mitigation
 13   likely to result from the project.  This
 14   evaluation of the significance must be carried out
 15   in accordance with the Canadian Environmental
 16   Assessment Act and may involve comparing such
 17   residual effects against thresholds for an
 18   environmental component.
 19               Do you see that, sir?  It is on the
 20   top of page 2-3?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 22               MR. J. OSLER:  The final step in the
 23   process being that of follow-up and monitoring.
 24   That step sets out recommended monitoring and
 25   effect management measures.
01639
  1               If you proceed down that page over to
  2   the following page -- that you'll see if you
  3   continue through to figure 2.3-1 which falls
  4   under, it's on page 2-14 but it is embedded in the
  5   section referred to in 2-2.3, determining
  6   significance of residual environmental effects.
  7               Do you see that, sir?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  9               MR. J. OSLER:  And in fact, if you
 10   looked at page 2-13, right in the middle, it says,
 11               "As set out in the EIS guidelines
 12               (section 7) the following criteria are
 13               used in the EIS to evaluate the
 14               significance of adverse residual
 15               environmental effects."
 16   And then it goes on to proceed to provide a bunch
 17   of bullets such as the nature of the effect, the
 18   magnitude, the duration of the effect, the
 19   frequency, the reversibility of the effect,
 20   temporal boundaries such as when the effect would
 21   occur, spatial boundaries, ecological context, and
 22   non-compliance with legislation, regulations and
 23   policies.
 24               Do you see that, sir?
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  Um-hum.
01640
  1               MR. J. OSLER:  The next sentence
  2   starts,
  3               "With respect to the assessment of the
  4               significance for biophysical
  5               effects...",
  6   those are contained within chapters 5, 6 and 7 of
  7   the EIS,
  8               "...three key initial assessment
  9               components are used as follows."
 10   And then proceeds to describe three components,
 11   duration, magnitude and geographical extent.
 12               Do you see that, sir?
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 14               MR. J. OSLER:  And in fact when you
 15   look at figure 2.3-1, it is a representation of
 16   magnitude, duration and geographical extent, such
 17   that you described in section 3 of your report.
 18               If you look on page 2-14, the middle
 19   paragraph starts,
 20               "A matrix that generally illustrates
 21               the differences between insignificant
 22               and potentially significant effects on
 23               biophysical environments was based on
 24               duration, magnitude and geographical
 25               extent...",
01641
  1   as you have described.  While this matrix guides
  2   the assessment of significance, the assessment
  3   also considers other components such as frequency,
  4   does not occur more than once, confidence, how
  5   confident are we that the degree of the impact,
  6   and environmental component specific
  7   characteristics such as resilience and ecological
  8   context.  And in fact, if you looked at the figure
  9   2.3-1, you'll see in the note, note 1 reads,
 10               "In addition to the above, effects are
 11               assessed in terms of frequency of
 12               occurrence, confidence in the
 13               assessment, resilience and ecological
 14               content."
 15               The third paragraph on page 2-14 --
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Osler, you are
 17   reading a lot of information into record, and it
 18   sounds more like a debate or argument than
 19   cross-examination.
 20               MR. J. OSLER:  Thank you, sir, for
 21   bringing me back to an actual question.
 22               The information is there, sir.  In
 23   section 6 of your report, you refer to an impact
 24   ranking system.  Would that be potentially phrased
 25   more appropriately as potentially significant
01642
  1   biophysical effects on the environment, such as
  2   the determination of its significance and not as
  3   an impact ranking system?
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Perhaps.  I was, as I
  5   read that, the paragraph immediately above was
  6   what struck me.  It said, while this matrix guides
  7   the assessment of significance, and that's fairly
  8   clear, it was fairly clear to me, it guides the
  9   impact.  In fairness, it says there is other
 10   factors, but it's a guide to the significance.
 11   And it particularly addressed issues of magnitude
 12   and duration.  That's the objective of the matrix,
 13   I take it, was to show how magnitude and duration
 14   were interconnected or interrelated in the
 15   assessment process.
 16               MR. J. OSLER:  It doesn't, therefore,
 17   exist as a means of determining whether or not an
 18   impact requires mitigation?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, it certainly says
 20   it's a guide.
 21               MR. J. OSLER:  Sir, but the discussion
 22   in terms of this figure being used as a
 23   determinant, to aid in the determination of
 24   significance and a significant effect, being one
 25   is -- the determination is rendered as I described
01643
  1   in the process of the environmental assessment, as
  2   the determination of significance occurs after the
  3   application of all recommended mitigation.
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.  I mean, all of the
  5   other things, the things that you read into the
  6   record were the preamble to, I took it as sort of
  7   an instruction or a guidance to user, a guidance
  8   to the reader in how impacts were assessed.  And
  9   it's clear, impacts were to be assessed after all
 10   mitigation was applied, that they were to consider
 11   other things like frequency and so on.  But the
 12   guide, I mean, it's there in black and white, and
 13   in a fairly definitive matrix, that this was the
 14   guide to impact assessment.  Considering all those
 15   other things, of course, but this is a guide under
 16   which impacts would be assessed and mitigated.
 17               MR. J. OSLER:  I guess we had some
 18   debate earlier on last week about the difficulty
 19   in the use of words.  And I guess the issue that I
 20   ask of you is do those characteristics, as you
 21   have seen them and as you have assessed them in
 22   terms of an impact ranking system, are they to be
 23   applied against the determination of significance
 24   of the effect, or are they to be used in the
 25   identification of the requirement for mitigation
01644
  1   of an environmental effect?
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, to me they are one
  3   in the same.  If they are significant, they
  4   require mitigation.  If they are not significant,
  5   they don't require mitigation.  So I as I read
  6   that, in my own mind, I couldn't differentiate
  7   between the two components.
  8               MR. J. OSLER:  Sir, if we move to an
  9   interrogatory response RM3 IR2.  Do you have it,
 10   sir?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 12               MR. J. OSLER:  On line 28 of page 1,
 13   it describes in response to a question on
 14   cumulative effects assessment that the scope of
 15   CEAA, that's the Canadian Environmental
 16   assessment -- sorry, cumulative effects
 17   assessment, as described on page 2-8 of the EIS
 18   notes that cumulative environmental effects must
 19   qualify as environmental effects of the project as
 20   defined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment
 21   Act.  Would you agree with that statement, sir?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 23               MR. J. OSLER:  It further goes on to
 24   say,
 25               "Further, cumulative environmental
01645
  1               effects must be likely to result from
  2               the project when they are anticipated
  3               to occur in combination with other
  4               projects or activities that have or
  5               will be carried out."
  6   Is that a statement that you would professionally
  7   agree with as well?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  9               MR. J. OSLER:  If we were to turn that
 10   page over, on line 1 it says, with respect to past
 11   activities the CEAA practitioner's guide notes,
 12               "In practice past actions often become
 13               part of the existing baseline
 14               conditions.  It is important, however,
 15               to ensure that the effects of these
 16               actions are recognized."
 17   And does that form the basis of how you described
 18   your positions today, sir?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.  I think the key
 20   there is -- let me elaborate on this concept of
 21   evolving baseline.  It's certainly apparent that
 22   the biophysical baseline has changed from 1968 and
 23   evolves and perhaps continues to evolve.  My
 24   interpretation of the EIS was that the baseline
 25   had evolved to the start of the expansion.
01646
  1               I realize, listening to the
  2   discussions presented, that it's the intent of the
  3   proponent that that baseline will continue to
  4   evolve for centuries into the future because of
  5   the presence of the floodway.  And I must say that
  6   is a very, very unique interpretation of
  7   cumulative effects.
  8               MR. J. OSLER:  I have one last
  9   question and then I will be done.  Thank you.
 10               You noted near the end of your
 11   presentation this afternoon that it is normal
 12   practice of impact assessment to consider and
 13   address past impacts and that the net effects of
 14   the project must be considered in this assessment.
 15               When you made that statement, the
 16   question I have for you, does that -- was your
 17   determination that impact assessment has to
 18   consider and address past impacts, would that
 19   extend to all the various environmental components
 20   that we have described within this EIS?
 21               MR. CLIFTON:  I think the statement
 22   was that they must consider the net effects of the
 23   project in its entirety, the net effect.  And the
 24   short answer to your -- I am specifically dealing
 25   with groundwater, so I must make it clear that I
01647
  1   haven't dealt with other environmental components.
  2   But it is difficult to anticipate -- go back one
  3   step.  In view of the potential pathway into the
  4   aquifer and the potential results, just to
  5   adequately consider the impact on human health and
  6   impact on environmental quality, particularly
  7   quality of groundwater, I do not see how that is
  8   possible to do without considering the history of
  9   the project, and without considering and
 10   projecting that history into the future.  As you
 11   know, that's common practice now in most -- well,
 12   certainly in many, many, many impact assessments
 13   because of issues like climate change, if you're
 14   dealing in the radio industries, the uranium
 15   industry and others, you must project well into
 16   the future.
 17               I frankly expected to see the same
 18   kind of projection of future impacts in the
 19   groundwater section, and I didn't see it.  It's a
 20   common analytical and assessment technique,
 21   generally accepted practice.  And I simply didn't
 22   see it.
 23               MR. J. OSLER:  So that in terms of
 24   addressing past impacts of the existing floodway,
 25   that the Floodway Expansion Environmental Impact
01648
  1   Statement should address, in your view, other
  2   environmental components that had been identified
  3   within the EIS?
  4               MR. CLIFTON:  Remember, I'm dealing
  5   again only with groundwater.  In my view, the
  6   impact assessment must demonstrate how the
  7   groundwater system works and how it will work into
  8   the future.  And it's -- well, both model the
  9   impacts that have occurred, and I think you've
 10   made good progress on that, but then projecting
 11   that into the future, looking at growth, looking
 12   at issues of potential migration, that is the
 13   basis of the comments, the basis of my comment.
 14   I'm not sure I answered your question, I
 15   apologize.  I got rambling a bit.
 16               MR. J. OSLER:  I guess another way of
 17   looking at it is if we were to do it, if this was
 18   to address past impacts of groundwater alone,
 19   should it not in fact be addressing all past
 20   impacts on all environmental components contained
 21   within the EIS.  That was the nature of the
 22   question.
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  I can't give you advice
 24   on that because I simply haven't looked at that.
 25               MR. J. OSLER:  Good.  Thank you very
01649
  1   much.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  3               MR. HANDLON:  Those would be our
  4   questions for today.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  6   Mr. Webster.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes, thank you,
  8   Mr. Chairman.
  9               I have some questions of a slightly
 10   different nature but the same topic.  We
 11   addressed, first of all this afternoon, the issue
 12   of the unconfined aquifer, that's the Birds Hill
 13   sand and gravel aquifer.  And one of the things
 14   I'd like to establish is, to the best of your
 15   knowledge, and you may or may have this knowledge,
 16   but to the best of your knowledge was that
 17   excellent quality water being lost before the
 18   original floodway was constructed?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, that water would
 20   flow -- flowed through to the Red River.  Because
 21   the travel distance is longer and gradients would
 22   be smaller, I presume there was less being lost.
 23   And the water balance -- have to look at the water
 24   balance.  But, yes, that water ended up in the Red
 25   River.  It obviously gave some opportunity during
01650
  1   that longer flow path to be exploited and captured
  2   and used and so on -- they are available now.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  I don't want to belabour
  4   this particular part of my questioning, but the
  5   point is that the floodway construction caused a
  6   release of some of that water, which is now a
  7   subject of controversy because in fact it's being
  8   lost into the floodway at a rate that it wasn't
  9   being lost before.
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  That's a water quantity
 12   question.
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  Now, is there any risk
 15   from the floodway construction or the floodway
 16   expansion to the quality of that water in that
 17   aquifer?
 18               MR. CLIFTON:  At present, no.  But
 19   with time and with growth, one would expect the
 20   same kinds of reversals of gradients from the
 21   channel as has occurred around the Red River, that
 22   if the pumping takes place, lowers the water table
 23   in the aquifer, the same pathway for intrusion
 24   would exist as exists around the Red River.
 25               MR. WEBSTER:  And that is because of
01651
  1   entrance through, where the sand and gravel
  2   aquifer is intercepted by the floodway, that the
  3   water level would have to be drawn down to such an
  4   extent that it would be below the floodway at that
  5   point?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes, at flood stage.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  But in terms of the
  8   current status and recharge, is the floodway or
  9   the expansion likely to affect the quality of the
 10   water in that aquifer?
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  During flood, but not
 12   during, not when the floodway is dry.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  Given that the head is
 14   above the floodway, considerably, is it likely to
 15   affect that particular aquifer during a flood?
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  Above the base of the
 17   floodway, the head is above the base of the
 18   floodway but it is below flood stage.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  But that's the key
 20   question in your mind as to whether it will be
 21   contaminated or not at the floodway?
 22               MR. CLIFTON:  Right.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  I think we can probably
 24   leave that there and decide whether the levels are
 25   above or below as we look at it in detail.
01652
  1               I really would like to go along to the
  2   carbonate aquifer and ask you, since that's been
  3   the basis of much of the questioning this
  4   afternoon -- first of all, because we are talking
  5   about loss of water through springs and the effect
  6   of the drawdown of that aquifer, which is much
  7   more extensive --
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  I'm sorry, Dr. Webster,
  9   I may have misunderstood your previous question.
 10   You were talking specifically about the unconfined
 11   aquifer?
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  I was.
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  Now I would say, yes,
 14   that's a site specific, that depends on conditions
 15   on any locale and effectiveness of the cutoffs and
 16   so on.  I agree that if the water levels in the
 17   aquifer are above flood stage, the risk is very
 18   minimal to non-existent.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.  But much of
 20   what you said this afternoon had to do with what
 21   would happen if water use in the aquifer, in the
 22   carbonate aquifer were to be drawn down through
 23   extra use.  So, in fact, during a flood, it would
 24   be easier for flood water to enter, and perhaps
 25   even without a flood it would be possible for
01653
  1   water to enter through those springs.  Is that
  2   where you were going with that?
  3               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.  And a gradient
  5   reversal is purely and simply caused by the
  6   pressure of the aquifer, the confined aquifer, as
  7   opposed to the pressure from the water sitting in
  8   the floodway or the lower channel?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  It's a relationship
 10   between the two.  If the head in the aquifer is
 11   lower than the head in the floodway, than the
 12   water level in the floodway, the water will
 13   migrate into the aquifer until the pressure
 14   equalizes.  And then when the floodway drains out,
 15   the flow will reverse.
 16               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  So we come to the
 17   question of those springs, and those, essentially
 18   those connections between the carbonate aquifer
 19   and the floodway.  And there are two kinds that
 20   you have described.  One of them is directly from
 21   the bedrock into the channel where bedrock is
 22   exposed?
 23               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  And the other one is
 25   from the bedrock through the till where it has
01654
  1   been the blowout of the sort you're talking about?
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  Now, can you describe in
  4   each of those two cases whether in fact the
  5   aquifer can be resealed, and if so, how?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  With great difficulty.
  7   Personally, that was what the rationale behind my
  8   recommendation to ALARA, to strive to achieve the
  9   protection, as much protection as reasonably
 10   achievable and do it in a fashion that is
 11   affordable.
 12               Can it be resealed?  I personally
 13   doubt it, but there are other mechanisms that can
 14   be used to provide protection, management
 15   techniques, hydro-dynamic protection where you use
 16   pumping systems and management of groundwater
 17   levels to manage the gradients.  That really is a
 18   question for the project team, evaluate the
 19   options apply ALARA, hence our recommendation that
 20   that become a condition of approval.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  I see.  Now, going
 22   further down my questions here.  Would a compacted
 23   clay liner or a geotextile liner in the floodway
 24   enable some kind of separation that would work
 25   between the channel and the groundwater we have
01655
  1   just been talking about, from a carbonate aquifer?
  2               MR. CLIFTON:  Only if it were combined
  3   with some mechanism of controlling the water
  4   pressure under the floodway.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  Because it itself would
  6   be subject to blowout.
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  So it takes some special
  9   technology to do that?
 10               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  And does that exist?
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  At a very substantial
 13   cost.  It's frankly probably not affordable.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  So I guess what
 15   you recommend is that we try not to go there in
 16   the first place?
 17               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, again, it comes
 18   back to ALARA.  If you put all -- I mean, the
 19   technique for doing this is to put the laundry
 20   list of possible techniques, including a liner,
 21   and then carrying out a value engineering and
 22   better feasibility, engineering feasibility
 23   exercise and knocking those off the list that
 24   clearly are not contenders and evaluating those
 25   that could be contenders.  It's a well-established
01656
  1   engineering process to handle those issues.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  So given that the
  3   current floodway already has some of these
  4   connections between the carbonate aquifer and the
  5   floodway, and if the expansion can be done without
  6   making that any worse, what do you recommend we
  7   do?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, the issue of
  9   conservation and protection is fundamental.  And
 10   it's not one universal solution.  There are quite
 11   a number of springs.  There may be a solution that
 12   applies at several, another solution at several
 13   others.  There may be some that simply cannot be
 14   remediated and have to be monitored over the long
 15   term.  It's not going to be a one size fits all
 16   solution by any means.
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  So it's a site specific
 18   sort of a thing?
 19               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  I'd love to discuss with
 21   you a little bit about how that would take place,
 22   but clearly that's more than we have time for this
 23   afternoon.  Maybe we can do that another time.
 24               We have talked about the fact that
 25   water is being lost, and I believe in this case we
01657
  1   go back to the sand and gravel aquifer, although
  2   the supplies to the carbonate aquifer too, so I'd
  3   like you to deal with them separately.  How could
  4   that lost water be recaptured?  We've talked about
  5   whether it should be licensed or not earlier in
  6   the hearing and today.  How could that lost water
  7   flow be recaptured and made use of, rather than
  8   just letting it run away?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, in my view it
 10   isn't going to happen tomorrow morning.  It's
 11   going to take a longer term management plan to
 12   identify what techniques are there.  And it may be
 13   that the most logical solution is to leave it flow
 14   at some periods of time, and other periods of time
 15   that it be pumped as a resource, that it be used
 16   by the municipalities, be used by industry.  It
 17   may be that in the long term, some portions of the
 18   aquifer may be designated an industrial supply.
 19   That's happened in other aquifer management
 20   projects that we've been involved with, where the
 21   quality seemed to deteriorate to a point where it
 22   is not acceptable without treatment.
 23               So it would involve recovering as much
 24   water as quickly as possible and putting it to an
 25   economic use, progressively over a period of
01658
  1   years.  I believe that's probably a major
  2   component of the work.  While at the same time
  3   introducing the aquifer protection measures that
  4   are required to keep contamination from migrating
  5   in there.
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  Now I'd like to
  7   go to the area of groundwater contamination,
  8   because I think we've found a difference between
  9   what you've said and what the Floodway Authority
 10   has been telling us is a question of how much, how
 11   fast, how long, how far sort of thing.  First of
 12   all, the plumes that you have described to us in
 13   your diagrams had a very large vertical component.
 14   Was that something that was real or was that for
 15   the purpose of the diagram?
 16               MR. CLIFTON:  It's a numerical
 17   simulation of reality, that it very much depends
 18   on the algorithm that was being used.  That was my
 19   point.  These are tools to understand how
 20   processes may be happening in nature, but it's
 21   extremely important that there be a ground
 22   truthing system that actually identifies what's
 23   happening in nature, through monitoring, and
 24   upgrading and updating the models progressively
 25   through the years.
01659
  1               This isn't a circumstance that will be
  2   remediated in one or two years.  It's taken 40 or
  3   50 years to get here.  It will be remediated
  4   progressively with time, but the important thing
  5   is to set in place a program to start that
  6   remediation.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  Specifically what I'm
  8   interested in is, if you look at your overheads,
  9   pages 20, 21, 22, 23, all have cross-sections of
 10   the floodway showing a contaminant plume going
 11   down below the floodway channel.  And what I'm
 12   asking about is the fact -- the issue in my mind
 13   is that we have a shape to that movement of water
 14   into the ground, and then we have vertical bars
 15   going down.  And they seem to be vertical bars
 16   except in the middle it seems to be more of a cone
 17   or a V.
 18               Now, is there some significance to the
 19   fact they go down off the chart?
 20               MR. CLIFTON:  No.  This was the base
 21   of the modeling, assumed to be the base of the
 22   permeable zone in the aquifer.  And this --
 23   modelers often refer to this exercise as geo
 24   fantasy, because it depicts -- this assumes a
 25   blowout or a high permeability zone in the base of
01660
  1   the channel, and the water, the surface water is
  2   being forced down by the head in the channel
  3   during flood stage.  And then because of the
  4   properties that are assigned, it simply moves
  5   laterally within the aquifer in response to
  6   gradients.
  7               It is cartoon, a depiction of what
  8   happens in nature.  Now it's cartoon that's based
  9   on physics and mathematics, so it's somewhat of a
 10   rational cartoon.  But the point I was making
 11   earlier, we should not take this as being the hard
 12   truth.  It is an understanding that this mechanism
 13   exists, that water could potentially move down
 14   through the floodway, move laterally into the
 15   aquifer and reach a receptor, reach a well that's
 16   being used.
 17               Identifying that the mechanism exists
 18   then requires more detail, more investigation,
 19   harder, more rigorous evaluation.  This evaluation
 20   was produced in probably four or five days of
 21   work.  It will require orders of magnitude more
 22   than that.  It will require years of work to
 23   really identify how this aquifer is working.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  My questions have
 25   to do with the way it's represented on the diagram
01661
  1   here.  And the models that were shown to us by the
  2   Floodway Authority showed permeation of the water
  3   into the ground but had a boundary as to where
  4   that water had stopped moving.  The implication
  5   from your diagram is that that water will
  6   penetrate all the way through that carbonate
  7   aquifer to the bottom of the aquifer.
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.  And that was the
  9   basis of the discussion between Mr. Smith and
 10   myself, is that in the analysis they had
 11   presented, the water, they track a particle of
 12   water in the surface, it moves in the ground, and
 13   the shape of where those particles are forms I'll
 14   say a blob of water in here, for want of a
 15   different term.  And it is simply a different
 16   formulation of the models.  KGS used one
 17   formulation of a model, I used a different one.
 18   We're going to argue over how many angles are on
 19   the head of that pin, but we both believe the
 20   models are valid.
 21               And what they are both demonstrating
 22   is potential mechanisms.  Neither of us can verify
 23   that that is in fact what is happening in nature,
 24   but they are making reasonable assumptions.  What
 25   I have identified is there is potential for this
01662
  1   kind of an effect to happen, using the same kinds,
  2   using the same assumptions but different methods
  3   of analysis than the proponent used.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  And what we're going to
  5   establish when we talk about this again is how
  6   these correspond or don't correspond in terms of
  7   looking at the models in terms of each other's
  8   criteria?
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  Yes.
 10               MR. MOTHERAL:  Just while we're on
 11   that subject too, and we do have a challenge, the
 12   Commission does have a challenge here deciphering
 13   information.  And Barrie is very interested in the
 14   technical models.  I'm more of a realist -- I'm
 15   sorry, that's a comment.
 16               I don't know if this is the right
 17   opportunity, but maybe I can ask it of the
 18   municipalities at some time.  But what the past
 19   record has been on pollution -- and we know our
 20   models are always on potential.  I would like to
 21   know if there is some model that can tell you
 22   exactly how much potential?  Is this a 99 percent,
 23   or this is a 1.3 or is this a .005?
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  I think that comes
 25   back -- I think the answer to your questions lies
01663
  1   in the recommendation that we provided earlier on.
  2   It comes back again to evaluation of cumulative
  3   effects.  The position of the municipalities is
  4   that the floodway expansion cannot be considered
  5   in isolation.  That in order to evaluate the
  6   potential migration of -- the potential health
  7   effects of the migration of water into the
  8   aquifer, that you must model the history of the
  9   floodway, and look at the pathway and how many
 10   potential wells, how many receptors may receive
 11   water.  If the answer is zero, that's great, it
 12   goes away.  If it is 1 per cent risk, 10 per cent
 13   risk, it will be a risk assessment process that's
 14   commonly used in environmental management systems.
 15   The position of the municipalities is that that
 16   evaluation should be carried out, a full health
 17   risk assessment which looks at the history to date
 18   and projects that history into the future.  And if
 19   there is a 50 year free ride, that's the answer,
 20   that you wouldn't expect any contamination to
 21   reach any receptors for 50 years.
 22               Then the question is if it is likely
 23   there in smaller doses now -- that's the purpose
 24   of the risk assessment.  What might happen, what
 25   is the probability of it happening and what are
01664
  1   the consequences.  That really is the purpose of
  2   risk assessment.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  Carrying on from the
  4   question we just had, there are wells out there
  5   that have been used to monitor water quality to
  6   the west of the floodway, which is where your --
  7   which is I presume the direction that the water is
  8   likely to move in if the water does get into the
  9   carbonate aquifer.  Is there data that shows, to
 10   your knowledge, that there has been contamination
 11   of that aquifer by previous floods?
 12               MR. CLIFTON:  Not that I'm aware of.
 13   The only information that I'm aware of of well
 14   contamination is the information that Peter Hayes
 15   presented yesterday where fecal matter had been
 16   identified in some wells, I'm not sure how far
 17   from the floodway, that's the only one that I'm
 18   aware of.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  That's where I'm going
 20   with this.  I want you to describe to us what an
 21   adequate monitoring system would be for the
 22   baseline and followup would be, and I am thinking
 23   about where the wells ought to go and how often
 24   they ought to be sampled?
 25               MR. CLIFTON:  This relates back to my
01665
  1   discussion of characterization of springs in the
  2   floodway.  While we have had the discussion
  3   regarding characterization of the springs and the
  4   appropriateness of the models, the models are very
  5   important tools to identify what the flow patterns
  6   for water might be from the floodway.  Fundamental
  7   input is where are the springs, they are the weak
  8   points that allow water to flow into the aquifer,
  9   or may allow water to flow into the aquifer, I
 10   don't want to leave the idea that it is happening.
 11   I think I am reminded again the word potential is
 12   the correct word.  But the blowouts in the springs
 13   are areas where surface water may get into the
 14   aquifer.  The models will demonstrate -- given
 15   proper characterization, the models will
 16   demonstrate where those plumes may migrate to.
 17   Those pathways are the ones that need to be
 18   monitored in the long term with a comprehensive
 19   monitoring program that's in place prior to the
 20   start of construction.  And that's an essential
 21   component.  It should go now, because if there is
 22   any contamination detected, it should be known
 23   prior to the start of construction of the
 24   expansion.
 25               MR. WEBSTER:  I would like to know
01666
  1   then how many wells and where ought they to go in
  2   terms of being next to the channel, or within some
  3   distance from the channel, or where would you
  4   recommend that those wells be put, in terms of
  5   high priority and medium priority?
  6               MR. CLIFTON:  Again, that will come
  7   from the modeling, but it will be many more than
  8   there are now.  There will be indicated -- at
  9   minimum there will be one at a major spring area,
 10   and typically they are aligned in first and second
 11   lines of defence.  There would be a line of
 12   monitors at the top of the floodway, perhaps at
 13   the property lines, safe from flood damage.
 14   Another line of monitors some distance back.  But
 15   that will come from the technical studies,
 16   technical groundwater studies that incorporate the
 17   details of those springs.  The analysts, the
 18   hydrogeologists can answer that question and can
 19   design a rational monitoring system that's based
 20   on actual aquifer properties and where the
 21   receptors are.  You must monitor ahead of the
 22   receptors, because the water that's coming out of
 23   the floodway must be monitored well in advance of
 24   it reaching any potential groundwater users.  So
 25   many factors:  Where are the springs, where can
01667
  1   you safely install, where are the groundwater
  2   users, and more than one array of monitoring.
  3   This is a very, very major project with a
  4   significant interface with the groundwater system.
  5   If it were an industrial project of the same
  6   magnitude it would have a very onerous groundwater
  7   monitoring program.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  Would it be your
  9   recommendation that there be wells other than
 10   vertical wells?  Should there be wells that go
 11   down from the side of the floodway but on an angle
 12   under the channel?
 13               MR. CLIFTON:  That's very difficult.
 14   I would probably more strongly favour a
 15   comprehensive monitoring program focused on the
 16   springs, so you can see what quality of water is
 17   coming out of those springs on an ongoing basis.
 18   And Mr. Smith has pointed out how difficult it is
 19   to handle that.  But they are the key, they are
 20   the canaries, they are the mind canaries that give
 21   the first indicator.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  One final question, and
 23   that has to do with the question of cumulative
 24   effects that we talked about several days over the
 25   course of the hearing.  And you said that the
01668
  1   cumulative effects assessment is incorrectly
  2   interpreted and applied.  I wondered if you could
  3   point to something in writing in terms of the
  4   Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide
  5   which would substantiate the claim that you have
  6   made?  We have talked about this over the last
  7   number of days.  We don't have an actual quote
  8   from the guide.
  9               MR. CLIFTON:  I would have to consider
 10   that a bit.  Off the top of my head, I can't, but
 11   I can cite a number of examples.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  Would you find those for
 13   us, please?
 14               MR. CLIFTON:  I will.  Where
 15   facilities are seeking expansion, and the
 16   assessments submitted for the expansion and
 17   rejected on the basis that an existing unlicensed
 18   facility cannot be expanded, and this is both
 19   Federal and Provincial regulators, not Manitoba
 20   regulators, but other jurisdictions, that have
 21   insisted on the entire facility being subjected to
 22   the same level of scrutiny as the expansion.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  Because I think that
 24   kind of question relates to the assessment.
 25   Before Mr. Osler's degrees of significance can be
01669
  1   determined, it is a question of whether the work
  2   has covered a sufficient area in sufficient depth
  3   before you apply the significance criteria, if I
  4   understand what is going on here correctly.  So,
  5   that's why I'm asking that question.  I think it
  6   is a very important one for us to have.
  7               MR. CLIFTON:  I will give you one
  8   example that is currently in the public domain,
  9   and it relates to Sask Power station at Estevan,
 10   the boundary power station, which has been working
 11   with a waste management system from the 1950s and
 12   they recently applied for expansion of the system.
 13   They were bounced back in the regulatory system on
 14   the basis that the system could not be expanded
 15   because from a regulatory perspective it did not
 16   exist.  So it needed to be validated and subjected
 17   to expansion, and they are in fact in the process
 18   of filing the ES on the whole system.  I read that
 19   with some interest because it indicated a bit of a
 20   new direction.  In the industrial facilities,
 21   there has been more -- in my experience, there has
 22   been more willingness of the regulators to
 23   consider grandfathering facilities in place, but
 24   over the last three or four years that willingness
 25   appears to have dissipated.
01670
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Just by way
  2   of a little bit of background to Dr. Webster's
  3   last question about cumulative effects assessment,
  4   it is an argument of particular concern to this
  5   panel because last week we heard a presentation
  6   and a lot of discussion from the Floodway
  7   Authority demonstrating how in their mind they
  8   have met the criteria of CEAA.  So we would be
  9   particularly interested in your view of how they
 10   may not have met the criteria of CEAA.
 11               MR. CLIFTON:  Well, the word that I
 12   have some difficulty in understanding how it is
 13   incorporated in the proposed methodology for CEAA
 14   is past.  And the evolving baseline concept that I
 15   now understand it, that is novel.  Baseline as a
 16   word, as a meaning, it is a base from which you
 17   start.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps when you are
 19   able to come back we can discuss this a little
 20   further.  I would also like to ask you before we
 21   conclude, I think you answered earlier that you
 22   haven't had a chance to review any of the
 23   transcripts from last week?
 24               MR. CLIFTON:  That's correct.  I have
 25   them, but I haven't --
01671
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Last Thursday  in
  2   particular there was a fair bit of discussion on
  3   groundwater issues.  I am wondering if prior to
  4   returning you might have a look at that and just
  5   advise us whether any of -- whether you find any
  6   comfort in any of the information that came out in
  7   that discussion?
  8               MR. CLIFTON:  I will do so.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
 10   and thank you for your participation here this
 11   afternoon.  We will break shortly.  This evening
 12   we have seven presenters, members of the general
 13   public, who will be making presentations, so that
 14   will certainly fill our two hours.  I would ask
 15   everybody to be back here for a 7:00 o'clock
 16   start.  Right now our schedule for tomorrow, we
 17   have, I believe, four groups that we are hoping to
 18   get some or all of them on; that's Cooks Creek
 19   Conservation District to conclude the
 20   cross-examination of them; Jack Jonasson with his
 21   presentation on behalf of the Coalition for Flood
 22   Protection North; the three municipalities and
 23   their presentation; and the Peguis First Nations.
 24   Hopefully we will get most of them on tomorrow, if
 25   not all of them.  We will break now for about an
01672
  1   hour and a half and be back here just before
  2   seven.
  3           (Proceedings recessed at 5:30 p.m. and
  4           reconvened at 7:00 p.m.)
  5   
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Good evening.  Can we
  7   come to order, please.  I see a few new faces in
  8   the audience so I will repeat my favourite
  9   admonition.  I don't want to hear any cell phones
 10   and I don't want to hear any side conversations.
 11   If you need to take a cell phone call or engage in
 12   any conversations, please step out into the hall.
 13               Tonight's proceedings will be just
 14   presentations from members of the public who have
 15   indicated to us that they wish to make a
 16   presentation.  There are seven people.  We have
 17   two hours.  I will hold each of the presenters
 18   strictly to 15 minutes.  So when the 15 minutes is
 19   up, I'm going to stop you otherwise we won't be
 20   out of here by nine o'clock.  And many of us have
 21   to be back here tomorrow morning at nine o'clock
 22   so we don't want to stay any later tonight than we
 23   need to.
 24               The order that I'm going to call the
 25   people up tonight is as people requested.  First
01673
  1   will be Mr. Bob Galloway, then Karl Pohl, Myron
  2   Gavaga, David Grant, Hugh Arklie, Bob Bodnaruk and
  3   Randy Znamirowski.
  4               So Mr. Galloway, would you please come
  5   up.  Just before you start, Mr. Galloway, I would
  6   note that all of the presenters will be sworn in.
  7   There will be no cross-examination of the
  8   presenters by any of the parties.  The panelists
  9   may have a question or two of clarification.
 10               Mr. Galloway, I'll have the Commission
 11   Secretary swear you in before you make your
 12   presentation, please.
 13   
 14               (ROBERT GALLOWAY: SWORN)
 15   
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  You may proceed,
 17   Mr. Galloway.
 18               MR. GALLOWAY:  Mr. Sergeant and
 19   members of your panel, my name is Bob Galloway and
 20   I represent Anola community enhancement as well as
 21   the many users of highway number 15.
 22               In March of 2004, a petition of 1,480
 23   signatures consisting of citizens using highway 15
 24   was presented to the Floodway Authority, Manitoba
 25   Highways Department, Dillon Consulting, RM of
01674
  1   Springfield, Infrastructure Canada, Springfield
  2   MLA and MP regarding the construction of a four
  3   lane bridge over the highway on highway 15.  The
  4   amount of signatures were collected in less than
  5   two weeks and we feel that only a small number of
  6   people who utilize the highway were informed about
  7   the petition.
  8               At one point, the volume of cars
  9   crossing the floodway bridge exceeded 10,000 cars
 10   per day and goes up in the summer months.  Traffic
 11   volumes and safety alone definitely confirms the
 12   need for the bridge.  In January 2005, via the
 13   media quoting Ernie Gilroy, CEO of the Floodway
 14   Authority, we were assured that the construction
 15   of a four lane bridge over the floodway would go
 16   ahead.  And today, we are here to get confirmation
 17   from you, the Clean Environment Commission.  Thank
 18   you.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, we can't give you
 20   that confirmation but it's my understanding that
 21   that is indeed the case.
 22               MR. THOMSON:  It's in the plan.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Thomson is the
 24   person at the Floodway Authority in charge of the
 25   bridge construction and he just says that it is in
01675
  1   the plan.
  2               MR. GALLOWAY:  I appreciate that and I
  3   thank you.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you,
  5   Mr. Galloway.  Mr. Pohl.  While we're doing that,
  6   Mr. Pohl, we'll have the Commission Secretary
  7   swear you in.
  8   
  9               (KARL POHL:  SWORN)
 10   
 11               MR. POHL:  Even at the best of times,
 12   my pronunciation is not really clear.  I speak to
 13   you with one tooth so it is a bit difficult.
 14               I got this picture April 10, 2004.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  You'll have to speak
 16   into the microphone, Mr. Pohl.
 17               MR. POHL:  Yeah.  That's the roll-out
 18   structure of the Red River Floodway that empties
 19   into the Red River.  As you can see, the flood
 20   water is rather lumpy.  I won't elaborate on what
 21   it is and what I suspect it is.  I'll let
 22   everybody figure that out themselves.  It deeply
 23   concerned me because it runs over exposed aquifer.
 24   And that is our life line, that's our water.  So I
 25   put a short caption there.
01676
  1               And here we see the water just after
  2   it broke past the bridge in Selkirk and you
  3   appreciate the elevated level of the Red River at
  4   that point.  I just caught it in time.  It was
  5   already starting to recede.  It was 1996.  And
  6   incidentally, the walls of the fort are 10 feet
  7   high.  So there isn't that much water, that much
  8   open space there to get a large flood through
  9   there.  When the Red River will not open up, there
 10   is a real serious problem that I see.
 11               After all, past this point, we still
 12   have one more city that needs protecting and
 13   that's just the way it looks.  And if you look at
 14   the size of the river bed and the steepness of the
 15   banks there, when the old timers moved out there
 16   to that fort, when they had to abandon the City of
 17   Winnipeg which was just a hamlet in 1826, one can
 18   appreciate why they moved to this location.  It's
 19   my personal belief that this probably hasn't
 20   flooded since the last Ice Age.
 21               It towers over the countryside this
 22   whole area.  I believe it's between 762 and
 23   764 feet above sea level.  So if you compare that
 24   to downtown Winnipeg, it should be lower but it is
 25   way higher.  It would have made a good capital
01677
  1   site or legislature site.  I guess the old
  2   governor knew about that.
  3               This was quite a challenge taking
  4   these pictures by the way because you don't want
  5   to slide into a flooded river.  You only do that
  6   once.  So please take a note of that, this is the
  7   year 2004, minor event.  This is not a great flood
  8   but it shows the Commission, to everybody in this
  9   room here that ice in the river that doesn't want
 10   to let go is not only a serious concern, it also
 11   poses a serious danger if there is a major event
 12   that's peaking rather fast due to a fast run-off.
 13   There's no two floods that are alike but it's a
 14   real possibility that, by my estimation, between
 15   12 to 14 hours that this water will be in downtown
 16   Winnipeg through the back door.
 17               There is a lot of information in these
 18   pictures because I used high resolution so
 19   everybody can see this to the best possible
 20   advantage and detail.  And if you see, take a look
 21   through the -- we'll, see if we can get this thing
 22   going here.  Here we go.  You see here, these are
 23   not lumps.  Do you see the size of these things?
 24   That is definitely ice, not like this other stuff
 25   because that was a street several miles long, the
01678
  1   first picture I showed.  Suffice it to say that it
  2   didn't smell very good when I went down there at
  3   the roll-up structure.
  4               There is quite a bit erosion and
  5   evidence as it is and it was discussed by the end
  6   that they would rip up -- oh, here we go.  That's
  7   my award winning picture that was shown on the
  8   West Coast.  You'll see how little margin we have
  9   left here.  You already went past it.  Already
 10   above the super structure of the bridge.  And if
 11   you get it hung up, at that point, and it
 12   coincides with there's an additional raising of
 13   the floodgates in Winnipeg and pushing more water
 14   through the floodway, you could easily have a
 15   situation where the Selkirk draw bridge would make
 16   a fine decoration at the old folks home.  I'm
 17   quite sure there will be a few heart attacks.
 18               We all know what that is.  That's the
 19   St. Peter's Dynevor bridge.  That was the first
 20   Native and Metis settlement on the Red River, the
 21   first attempt at agriculture.  One of the greatest
 22   Native friends of the white man, Chief Peguis, is
 23   buried there.  And we have a picture that shows
 24   the ice within six feet of some of those graves.
 25   So we have another problem there.
01679
  1               But the unpredictability of ice jams.
  2   I have spoken to scientists at the Red River
  3   conference about this and -- there they are.  I
  4   was told that there is no reliable way to model
  5   ice jams.  You cannot model these because you are
  6   always wrong.
  7               That's me here.  And I wear a long
  8   parka so you've got a pretty good scale here.  And
  9   these deposits.  And it coincides with a forecast
 10   of water resources that the possibility of ice
 11   jams is very low and that the ice is weak.  It was
 12   blue ice and it didn't look weak to me.
 13               Here we got -- that is Breezy Point.
 14   At this point when that water starts heading west,
 15   we are at 721 feet above sea level.  And you see,
 16   there is no ice jams in evidence anywhere near
 17   that portion of the lower Red because there is a
 18   very low bank here.  Here you can see it really
 19   well.  You see, what happens is when the water
 20   starts pushing from the south, it lifts the entire
 21   ice pack.  It doesn't go forward, it just lifts
 22   it.  And the water takes the least -- the path of
 23   least assistance and goes AWOL right towards
 24   Clandeboye.
 25               And I've got a caption here that
01680
  1   anybody can read.  So I'd better shut up and let
  2   you all read it.  I'll just point it out.  It was
  3   a minor flood event at about 65,000 cfs.  If you
  4   compare this to one of the great floods, it
  5   doesn't even qualify as small potatoes.  And this
  6   is one of what I personally consider the most
  7   serious threats in the entire system, in the
  8   entire terrain is that Selkirk draw bridge.
  9               Here I'm saying it on the screen.  And
 10   if you compare this to the flood of record which
 11   was by no means the greatest that came through
 12   here in the last 300 years, it was at 226,000 cfs.
 13   And I guess some of the engineers reduced it
 14   temporarily to 225,000.  They were trying to tell
 15   me that Sir Sanford Flemming was wrong.  If he
 16   wasn't accurate, the railroad that he built into
 17   Western Canada would have never worked.  He was a
 18   very smart man.
 19               And here we got another parameters
 20   that we haven't properly addressed.  Strong
 21   northerly winds severely impact the flow capacity
 22   of the lower Red River.  A 35-mile per hour
 23   northerly wind will cause a rise of the river
 24   level by more than 3 feet within hours and
 25   decrease the outflow capacity because of the wind
01681
  1   set and the back water effect that's in there.
  2   And it can be readily observed as far as the
  3   northern outskirts of Selkirk and I believe the
  4   owner of Selkirk Air is here.  He knows what I'm
  5   talking about because his dock there bobs up and
  6   down.
  7               And here is another one.  There's more
  8   water in the floodway, dislodged ice jams north of
  9   Selkirk.  I had a series of animated discussions
 10   with the chief engineer of the MFA who is of the
 11   opinion that ice -- that more water will drag that
 12   ice into the lake.  It won't because once the
 13   forward momentum is lost and the river has
 14   stalled, one can compare it to a stalled freight
 15   train.  You need an awful lot of power to get it
 16   going again, and that's the basic problem.  Once
 17   you have overbank flooding and you have a severe
 18   ice jam, you know, the only thing that helps is
 19   friendly fire to get it going, when it gets bad
 20   enough.
 21               And now with the flood control
 22   structure on the other end of it.  You know, I
 23   took the time to look at both ends.  It looks
 24   pretty good and solid here, doesn't it?  There is
 25   additional riprap has been placed here, something
01682
  1   that was not there in 1997.  And I pray to God
  2   that this riprap is not expected to hold up a
  3   crumbling structure.  And we shall see that on the
  4   next picture.
  5               By the way, there are some grouting
  6   has been done here because there was a jamming
  7   problem with the gates, with one of the gates,
  8   this one here, during the 1997 flood.  And
  9   officially, it was called routine maintenance and
 10   it's pretty well not in evidence anymore at this
 11   point.
 12               To my understanding, it was designed
 13   by a Dutch fellow and nobody can beat the Dutch
 14   people for protecting themselves from flooding.
 15   You take this from somebody that was born in
 16   Germany.  You know, the Dutch may not be big but
 17   they have been surviving for centuries below the
 18   level of the north sea which is quite an
 19   accomplishment.
 20               It is quite an ingenious design that I
 21   had to familiarize myself with it because in
 22   Germany, they use vertical sliding gates.  And
 23   I've also seen pictures where they were pounding
 24   against them with a wreckage ball because the ice
 25   had totally jammed these things when they tried to
01683
  1   activate them.  That's one of the drawbacks.
  2               There are several gate systems and I'm
  3   not a licensed engineer but I'm quite familiar
  4   with the subject on hand here.  It's not up to me
  5   to speculate whether that was the right type of
  6   gating to be used but you've got to give it
  7   credit.  It has protected Manitoba's capital city,
  8   you know, several times.  It has proved its worth.
  9   I personally would have loved to see it go east of
 10   of the Birds Hill Park instead of traversing the
 11   flood plain and the Transcona plume.  When you see
 12   that thing on the near full load condition, just
 13   by an eyeball estimate, the water is at least
 14   15 feet above Transcona.  God forbid ever
 15   something happens there.  You know, these things
 16   people would in fact experience the force of a
 17   Tsunami.
 18               Water is stored energy when you start
 19   jacking it up.  The higher you jack it up, the
 20   more energy you have, so the more careful you have
 21   to be.
 22               I'm not trying here to run down
 23   anybody's project but I'm here to express a few
 24   concerns as a citizen and a resident of the area.
 25   And I trust that the Commission takes a good look
01684
  1   at what I'm showing here tonight.
  2               Please bear with us.  We do like
  3   everybody else does.  When something doesn't work
  4   fast enough or right enough, to blame the
  5   computer.
  6               I have no budget.  I produced this
  7   slide show on my own without anybody's help.
  8   That's the first time that somebody ever helped me
  9   because this is more than one man alone can
 10   handle.  And I did read the instructions how to
 11   put a Power Point presentation together.  It took
 12   me about four weeks to get the most important --
 13   oh, here we go.
 14               This is something I would like to
 15   point out.  In my time as a young fella, as a
 16   young man in the land of my origin in Germany, I
 17   have seen remnants of power dams that the Royal
 18   Air Force so aptly bombed.  And I can assure you
 19   as being a recipient of some of those loads, they
 20   were deadly accurate.  And the U.S. Air Force was
 21   not quite as good because they didn't have to be
 22   as accurate.  They had more ordinance.
 23               But this looks very similar to me.
 24   This is more than just surface caulking for the
 25   simple reason it is not confined to the joints.
01685
  1   Some of the ones that I have seen, they are going
  2   down as far as -- if I could put a recommendation
  3   to what you people, I would like to see this thing
  4   a copper dam and checked right down because so
  5   much depends on it.  You can expand the floodway
  6   all you want -- you could have also chosen the
  7   design that I had, it wouldn't make no difference
  8   because neither one of these two would operate
  9   until Winnipeg is totally flooded.  Here is the
 10   (inaudible) and here you see the ridge.  That's
 11   Lower Fort Garry.  That was the barrier that we
 12   have to deal with.  Nothing goes over it.  And
 13   here we got about 440 feet.  If we can get 226,000
 14   cfs through this thing, then I'm very surprised.
 15   So I guess we're coming to near the end of the
 16   presentation.
 17               It's difficult to do all this in 15
 18   minutes.  I hate rushed jobs but there are other
 19   people standing in line here.  But basically
 20   that's what we have.  And this is the last slide
 21   now.  We made it by some miracle.  All the other
 22   ones is my written presentation which the
 23   Commission has and it should be available to the
 24   public if they ask the Commission.
 25               So I conclude my presentation.  I
01686
  1   thank you for your time and I hope, as a private
  2   citizen, I have made a difference and raised a few
  3   concerns that may get people thinking.  I
  4   personally do not believe that we can get a
  5   repetition of the 1826 flood to that point.  It
  6   didn't happen then, it's not going to happen
  7   today.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
  9   Mr. Pohl, and I congratulate you on your
 10   presentation.  It was very good.  And I allowed a
 11   few minutes extra because of the initial problems
 12   with your computer.
 13               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, if we can
 14   enter Mr. Pohl's presentation as Exhibit 61.
 15   
 16   
 17               (EXHIBIT 61: Presentation  by Karl
 18               Pohl to CEC)
 19   
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Next,
 21   Mr. Myron Gavaga.  Mr. Gavaga, I will ask the
 22   Commission secretary to swear you in.
 23   
 24               (MYRON GAVAGA:  SWORN)
 25   
01687
  1               MR. GAVAGA:  I am Myron Gavaga from
  2   north Springfield.  I've been a lifelong resident
  3   there.  The credentials are I was a 1971 diploma,
  4   agricultural graduate.  I actually worked on the
  5   floodway in 1966.  I had worked for Prudent (ph)
  6   Drilling in 1970 and 1971 in drilling wells in
  7   north Springfield, East Kildonan and quite a large
  8   irrigation pump test out in southern Manitoba in
  9   Pipestone.  It was for agricultural drainage.
 10               I bought our family farm in 1972.
 11   Currently, we have a -- it's a dairy farm and a
 12   hay farm.  And we are located on Lauren Hill Road
 13   and approximately half a mile from the north
 14   Springfield school, about half a mile east of the
 15   Red River Floodway.  My wife Judy and son Jordan
 16   and daughter-in-law Kelly are all members of the
 17   farm.
 18               I was on the Cooks Creek Conservation
 19   District when it started until the completion of
 20   the Cooks Creek Diversion.  We had land
 21   expropriated for the floodway.  It was quite
 22   controversial at the time.  I was always of the
 23   opinion that it was an excellent thing for
 24   Winnipeg.  It was just so very poorly to the
 25   people that had to give land up.  So the more we
01688
  1   can have to make people feel good about giving up
  2   things, it's better.
  3               Since right from 1968, we have leased
  4   back 500 acres from the floodway.  And that's
  5   south of Springhill to the CP main line.  And
  6   actually, I was the first one to rework that
  7   section of the floodway and we reworked it three
  8   times, the hay field.  It's 37 years old and about
  9   every 10 years you need to redo it.  I have also
 10   irrigated four times that section from the low
 11   flow channel in the floodway through a permit from
 12   the Province of Manitoba.  So I have a reasonably
 13   good knowledge of irrigation and wells and water
 14   uses and the observation from my lifetime so far.
 15               Originally, I was really really upset
 16   with, you know, the expansion of the floodway and
 17   I am going to apologize to this gentleman over
 18   here for -- you know, it's been an extremely hard
 19   job for you to do because you were left such a
 20   poor -- you know, so many breaks in the bottom of
 21   the floodway.  And before we can expand it, that
 22   has to be fixed, all the breaks in the aquifer.
 23               And when it was originally done, the
 24   low flow channel I think was 10 feet wide and it
 25   had a 6 to 1 slope and it was about 4 feet deep.
01689
  1   There is places now that it's almost 70 feet wide
  2   and five feet deep.  It's a full width.  That's
  3   not with spring run-off, heavy rain run-off or
  4   water coming down from the floodway and the walls
  5   are straight.  You know, every year it changes and
  6   we are up there haying it so we get to have a
  7   pretty good look.
  8               I would take an exception to when they
  9   say that there are springs in the bottom.  Those
 10   are not springs.  Springs come out the side of
 11   hills.  These are small blow-outs in the aquifer
 12   and there is 13 of them in our 2 miles that we
 13   work.
 14               When the floodway was first built, the
 15   water never went as far as Deacon's Corner down
 16   the low flow channel.  And since then, it goes way
 17   around to 59.  Like that's when it's very dry and
 18   there's no water coming into it.  So obviously
 19   there must be water coming from somewhere.  And
 20   that's way south of the Transcona sewers inlet.
 21               So you know, like it's very important
 22   before any more work is done on the floodway that
 23   it is completely sealed.
 24               We actually, through working the hay
 25   fields, we have uncovered a tremendous amount of
01690
  1   that broken limestone bedrock and in excess of,
  2   you know, 500 to 1,000 tonnes of it.  And we have
  3   it.  And you have some -- seen some samples of it.
  4   So somewhere -- you know, and I was looking at the
  5   pictures yesterday and today of where the low flow
  6   channel and then there's the up to six feet of
  7   clay.  And then the bedrock, I would hazard to
  8   guess that some of the low flow channel is at the
  9   bedrock already.  Because where did all this
 10   bedrock come from?  And the continual erosion --
 11   and a lot of the erosion, you know, a lot of it
 12   comes from the big flush of water every
 13   seven/eight years from the floodway.
 14               And another thing that could very
 15   easily be happening, if bedrock is exposed when it
 16   gets to 45 below and 50 below and that stuff is
 17   freezing and thawing and freezing and thawing,
 18   that also could help crack it and loosen it.  And
 19   then when water comes through during floods, then
 20   it excavates it.
 21               The biggest rock that we ever saw in
 22   the bottom of the floodway was about 12 feet high
 23   and about 14 feet wide and that was the second
 24   last flood when the water receded from the
 25   floodway.  And the last flood, that rock was gone.
01691
  1   So wherever it went, it's now not there.  But it's
  2   tremendous force and tremendous pressure that take
  3   these things.
  4               So my first concern is the low flow
  5   channel in itself not only to the width but to
  6   the -- not to the depth but to the width that it
  7   is increasing to.  For a little while there I
  8   thought why don't you just leave it for another 75
  9   years and it will be the full width at the bottom
 10   of the floodway you can save 660 million bucks,
 11   hey, but that was just sort of an observation,
 12   you know, from not a technical person.  But it is
 13   expanding at an extremely quick rate.  It's been
 14   45 years but I'd like to see what it looked like
 15   in another 200, you know.
 16               The second point that wasn't really
 17   brought up here but in the last two or three days.
 18   On low recharge years, last year -- or okay, 2003
 19   was a drought year and it was a low recharge
 20   aquifer year.  Sort of from the beginning before
 21   the floodway in 1960, the static water level was
 22   about 2 feet.  When the floodway went through, it
 23   dropped to 12 feet.  So about approximately 1965,
 24   it dropped to 12 feet and everybody got scared and
 25   we got a new well drilled.  Our well never went
01692
  1   dry, it just dropped 12 feet.  And the shallow
  2   wells along Hazelridge Road, all the sand point
  3   wells dried up because they are all hand dug
  4   wells, hey.  Actually interestingly, last summer a
  5   50-foot well went dry north of Garven and that
  6   would be like a marginal well.
  7               Going back to 2003, in July of 2003
  8   the static water level was 41 feet.  It dropped to
  9   41 feet.  And that's from the graphs from a well
 10   that was on just by Hugh Munro's there on 207 and
 11   Cedar Lake Road.  I was talking to one of the
 12   fellows there when he was reading the graph.
 13               And the same summer, we have two wells
 14   at the farm.  Both the wells, the pumps burned out
 15   and one of the wells was only two years old.  We
 16   had only had them down 40 feet.  They were
 17   submersible pumps and they were only down 40 feet.
 18   So obviously the water had dropped below 40 feet.
 19   And that's the first time that that had ever
 20   happened.  And it's sort of the coming of concern
 21   of low recharge, more water leaking out of the
 22   aquifer, more water being pumped to a lot more
 23   residences in the area.  Birds Hill, I think they
 24   have, I don't know, seven or nine wells now that
 25   they are taking water out.  Oakbank, I think it
01693
  1   comes on line this year.  But Dugald is getting
  2   water from (inaudible) pit and that's basically
  3   all the same aquifer.  So you know, and at the
  4   same time, we have, you know, such, you know,
  5   pristine water is leaking out and we're wasting
  6   it.
  7               We were in Africa last spring and if
  8   you want to see how water is looked at in
  9   countries that don't have it, and we have it and
 10   we're wasting it.  That's the biggest sin of all
 11   really, like to destroy like what a lot of people
 12   in the world don't have.
 13               Basically before anything is done with
 14   the floodway, that sure has to be sealed properly.
 15   And you know, that might necessitate making it an
 16   awful lot wider.  And I'd sure like to commend
 17   Jack Jonasson and the reeves from the various
 18   municipalities because they have brought it out to
 19   the committee most of the serious concerns.  And
 20   they've done an excellent job with the people and
 21   the resources that they've had and the time
 22   they've had to put it together because I think
 23   that we've probably just about handled all of the
 24   concerns.  Is there any questions or anything that
 25   anybody might have?
01694
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Not at this time.
  2   Thank you very much.
  3               MR. GAVAGA:  Thank you very much.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  David Grant.  I'll have
  5   the Commission secretary swear you in while we're
  6   waiting for that to pull up.
  7   
  8               (DAVID GRANT:  SWORN)
  9   
 10               MR. GRANT:  As an introduction, I'm
 11   just here as a citizen, not with that company or
 12   the other company.  And I'm not really an expert
 13   in any of these topics but there are a couple of
 14   issues that I did want to bring up.  The slides
 15   will explain them but I can start with them.  One
 16   is the idea we have such a thing as a 100 year or
 17   700 year flood.  If nothing was changing in the
 18   world, that might be a useful term, a way for
 19   people to relate to how bad a flood it is.
 20               But since Europeans got here, they
 21   have been changing the hydrology of the
 22   neighbourhood.  And they dig ditches as a habit
 23   and they drain swamps.  And one of the corollaries
 24   of doing that is you make water get to the river a
 25   whole lot faster than would otherwise be the case.
01695
  1               So that's one of my points, is that
  2   this idea of a 700 year flood.  If the world kept
  3   draining swamps and kept building deeper and
  4   deeper ditches, we would get every snow melt event
  5   to Winnipeg a whole lot faster.  If we can turn
  6   the Red River basin into the way it was 300 years
  7   ago, we probably would be fine the way we were
  8   because there were zigzaggy little creeks all over
  9   the place draining and no ditches.
 10               So I termed this a belated exploration
 11   of alternatives because in my opinion, this would
 12   have been a pretty nice thing to have discussed
 13   years ago.
 14               Anyway, so that's just the date and
 15   the place and my name.  And we get into our
 16   second -- so introduction.  My comment about the
 17   700 year flood and what it really means.  That's
 18   to talk about if we are going to be able to handle
 19   a flood that was typical of what happened in
 20   Manitoba between 1800 and 1100, that's a typical
 21   natural flood that happens about every 700 years
 22   you could say.  But the way they have changed the
 23   Red River basin is very significant.
 24               So right now, a snow melt that comes
 25   right to our limits today would not have been as
01696
  1   bad 200 years ago because the water would still be
  2   in the fields, it would be in all -- the Rat River
  3   and all the rest of them would have been full of
  4   water but not getting it to the Red River into
  5   Winnipeg very quickly.
  6               So because the basin no longer drains
  7   in a natural way, we get the water here a lot
  8   faster.  So when you do all that draining and
  9   tiling of fields and that's been going on a lot in
 10   the last 50 years.  So the floodway was a good
 11   idea in its time.
 12               Since it was built, a whole lot of the
 13   Red River basin has put tile in their fields.  If
 14   you drive down a dirt road anywhere in North
 15   Dakota or Manitoba right after a thunder storm,
 16   you can see one guy's field has been tiled because
 17   the one right next to it is still full of water
 18   and that one isn't.  So you can tell
 19   approximately -- because there's no other way in
 20   Manitoba or North Dakota you can get a field to
 21   drain in just a few minutes.
 22               So anyway, that's my comment is we
 23   should be using thousands of cfs or per cent of
 24   1997 but not a hundreds of years idea.
 25               So, also my idea with this, you know,
01697
  1   this event is sort of let's make sure we don't
  2   forget any little details with regard to aquifers
  3   and stuff like that, assuming we're going to go
  4   ahead and build this thing.
  5               My understanding, when I worked for a
  6   company that was trying to build a plant and there
  7   was public concern, is that we had to go through
  8   making sure the siting and everything else was
  9   acceptable to everybody before we did a design.
 10   And my understanding from attending some time last
 11   week with the Commission is that a whole lot of
 12   design effort has been done.  And I did bring all
 13   these alternative ideas to the floodway people
 14   when they had their meetings a year ago.
 15               But anyway, so this CEC thing, I don't
 16   know why it is we're talking about these things
 17   now and why there weren't public meetings two
 18   years ago.  But anyway, our local media covered
 19   the idea of holding the water before it got to
 20   Winnipeg.  And needless to say, the people whose
 21   houses would have been in the middle of that big
 22   artificial lake didn't like that idea.  And I've
 23   been suggesting this reversing the draining
 24   improvements temporarily and I had been talking
 25   for a few years now of calling it the 10,000
01698
  1   wetlands and weirs idea.
  2               So the alternatives -- we seem to be
  3   on our way to only one solution for the problem of
  4   preventing flooding in Winnipeg and that is to
  5   make a bigger floodway.
  6               The alternatives, and I would say
  7   there are at least a couple of alternatives, have
  8   not been fully explored and I would like to see
  9   that.  And it is obvious that if we did enough
 10   construction work in the tributary area, we can
 11   hold up enough water in these tributaries to not
 12   have to do anything with our floodway.  How many
 13   wetlands we would have to create, I don't know.
 14   We know that it would reverse the process.  But
 15   since I didn't get any funding, so I don't know
 16   how many wetlands we would have had to build.
 17               Anyway, benefits of wetlands.  This
 18   stuff is from the United States Environmental
 19   Protection Agency.  They have a website that
 20   explains wetlands.  And they are funding and
 21   encouraging people within their jurisdiction to
 22   build wetlands to reverse the drain.
 23               UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's kind of
 24   small.  Can you read this?
 25               MR. GRANT:  I'm just going to go to
01699
  1   the bottom line of it.  Okay.  The water that
  2   flows in the Red will be cleaner.  The advantages
  3   of putting in more wetlands that if you retain
  4   more water in the basin where it melts where it
  5   lands, the groundwater will be replenished.  Wells
  6   will be more drought resistant.  Farm life will
  7   improve.  Hunting and fishing opportunities,
  8   obviously if you have thousands of new wetlands,
  9   will be great.  If you do the wetlands thing
 10   instead of the floodway, the water that gets to
 11   the Red River will be cleaner because on average,
 12   it will have been through an acre or so of reeds
 13   and swamp and that really purifies the water.  It
 14   takes the nutrients out and the solids.  And so
 15   you'll have a cleaner Red River and a much cleaner
 16   Lake Winnipeg.
 17               So Manitoba government has been
 18   talking lately about how much they want to improve
 19   the quality of Lake Winnipeg water.  This is
 20   probably the best way of doing it.  If you had
 21   most of the water arriving here, arriving in
 22   Winnipeg having gone through a wetland somewhere,
 23   it would be much cleaner water.
 24               North Dakota is actively working on
 25   another idea.  They call it waffling.  And because
01700
  1   in a thoroughly -- a very flat farmland area, they
  2   may or may not be able to build much in the way of
  3   wetland but they can certainly hold the water
  4   back.  So if they put a temporary weir on a ditch
  5   or on a small river, they can hold water there and
  6   their intention is just to flood a few sections of
  7   land, the lowest land, and hold it there until the
  8   flood crest is gone.  So instead of having a
  9   really bad situation in Grand Forks for a week,
 10   they would have a tolerable level for a month or a
 11   month and a half.
 12               So there are several advantages to
 13   those people.  But with a simple study, we can
 14   determine how much wetland we'd have to build to
 15   protect our cities.  No one has done that yet as
 16   far as I have been able to determine.
 17               So the waffle concept, this is the
 18   University of North Dakota's idea and it's being
 19   tested in Minnesota and North Dakota.  And I've
 20   got a picture from the University of North Dakota
 21   website.  They are quite proud of this research.
 22   This is one of the researcher's pictures from the
 23   Grand Forks Herald, the whole thing from their UND
 24   Research Center.  And this is just one of their
 25   holding areas.  So basically they have determined
01701
  1   that this land would be appropriate for holding
  2   water.  They dam it up and that's just an outlet
  3   for it.
  4               Wet lands.  The U.S. EPA supports
  5   wetland creation, restoration and there is some
  6   significant benefits.  I've already described most
  7   of them.  But this is text from the U.S.
  8   environmental protection people.  And it just
  9   describes how much they've done and how much
 10   people use the rivers and wetlands that are
 11   created, the rivers that are fixed and the
 12   wetlands that are created.
 13               Wetlands provide food, et cetera.  You
 14   know, again, this is approximately the benefits
 15   that I described in my text.  And so --
 16               UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  You're going
 17   too fast.  We're trying to read that.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm sorry, he's on a
 19   fairly limited time.  He's only got a couple of
 20   minutes left.
 21               MR. GRANT:  So anyway, that's a
 22   description of that.  This text has been e-mailed
 23   to the secretary and would be available for
 24   anybody.  And as I said, this text is usepa.gov I
 25   think.
01702
  1               And so we'll move along.  And so this
  2   is the most important part of this one.  The
  3   wetlands interstep storm run-off.  So if you have
  4   a storm or snow melt in the spring, and the creek
  5   goes into a five acre wetland, that wetland will
  6   hold the water.  And it will leak out gradually
  7   over many weeks.  So it is a good thing for flood
  8   prevention.  It's been recognized around the
  9   world, certainly across North America.  And the
 10   middle fine print is that when you take a wetland,
 11   you put a ditch through the middle of it, it
 12   drains quickly and you get to farm some of that
 13   land you have just taken.  But now whenever
 14   flooding happens, it just zooms right on through
 15   and nails the city downstream.
 16               So in my opinion, just as a lay
 17   citizen, we need to reverse the history we have in
 18   North America of draining that swamp.  We had that
 19   history.  You know the old saying of how do you
 20   deal with the alligators?  You drain the swamp and
 21   they all die off.  And it certainly worked in
 22   Florida but now they recognize it's not the best
 23   thing.
 24               So the progress that has been made is
 25   that North Dakota is still in the research stage.
01703
  1   They are trying it out.  They want to be able to
  2   prove to the world that when you do this stuff, it
  3   makes the wells work better.  This is stuff that's
  4   intuitive, fairly obvious.  They want to be able
  5   to prove it.
  6               U.S. EPA is still encouraging anybody
  7   in the U.S. really but anybody in North Dakota or
  8   Minnesota that wants to take their little stream
  9   and turn it into wetland, the U.S. EPA will buy
 10   the land.  And a lot of people in North Dakota are
 11   looking at that as a good idea too because some of
 12   the land that gets flooded regularly isn't that
 13   productive.  You know, if every couple of years
 14   you're going to lose a crop because it didn't dry
 15   out for a while, you might as well just sell it to
 16   the government for a good price and it can become
 17   a permanent wetland.
 18               And all these efforts, the stuff done
 19   in North Dakota and the U.S. EPA stuff is reducing
 20   the size of our next flood.
 21               So the bottom line, if enough water
 22   retention schemes and wetland restoration is done,
 23   the current floodway is big enough.  Basically
 24   it's a matter of how many of those do we have to
 25   build and if I'd had -- if somebody had taken me
01704
  1   seriously at the Floodway Commission a year ago,
  2   then they might have done the calculation on we
  3   need to create 800 acres of wetland to solve our
  4   problem.  But nobody ever did that.  And it wasn't
  5   really fair because my understanding is the
  6   floodway group is only commissioned to build the
  7   floodway.  They were not commissioned to solve the
  8   flooding problem.  And if somebody who had that
  9   responsibility five years ago had taken this
 10   seriously, then a coordinated effort could have
 11   been made between the American authorities and
 12   Manitoba that we could have dealt with this
 13   properly because if enough stuff gets built in the
 14   States, Grand Forks is safe, and there's no other
 15   way of making it safe, and we would be safe
 16   because of our existing floodway.  So that's the
 17   presentation.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Grant.
 19               Mr. Arklie, I will have the Commission
 20   secretary swear you in.
 21   
 22               (HUGH ARKLIE:  SWORN)
 23   
 24               MR. ARKLIE:  Before I begin my
 25   presentation, I would like the Commission and
01705
  1   other folks to know that what Mr. Grant just
  2   described is actually working on a small scale in
  3   the municipalities surrounding the Village of
  4   Miami.  It is known as the Deerwood Soil and Water
  5   Management Corporation, and it runs something
  6   called the Tobacco Creek Watershed, and its goal
  7   is to hold back water and prevent flooding.  And
  8   it is a perfect example of what Mr. Grant has just
  9   described and it is very successful.
 10               My presentation will follow-up on four
 11   questions that I posed on February 21, and will
 12   introduce one new point.  The elaboration on those
 13   four questions is as follows.
 14               Number 1, there is no geographical,
 15   geological, archeological or historical evidence
 16   of a 700 year flood in the Red River Valley.
 17   There is evidence of a 300 year flood.
 18   Winnipeggers and Manitobans have been the subject
 19   of a misleading marketing campaign that raises the
 20   specter of a 700 year flood.  At the very least,
 21   it should be made clear to citizens and taxpayers
 22   that the floodway is being expanded to allow for
 23   the first known 700 year flood.  And I appreciate
 24   what Mr. Grant just said, it is all really quite
 25   irrelevant in terms of numbers like that.
01706
  1               Number 2, there is far too much
  2   uncertainty around the elusive $11 million
  3   mitigation fund.  Nobody knows if the amount is
  4   accurate or adequate, nobody knows how it will be
  5   accessed, invested, reported, replenished,
  6   published or audited.  For now the public seems to
  7   be relying on nothing more than the good
  8   intentions of the Manitoba Floodway Authority.  We
  9   do so at our peril.
 10               Number 3, the Manitoba Floodway
 11   Authority is a Crown corporation.  Members have
 12   been and will continue to be appointed to the
 13   body.  The history of such appointments in
 14   Manitoba is that they go to friends of the
 15   government of the day.  That dubious practice
 16   should not preclude the automatic reservation of
 17   seats on the Manitoba Floodway Authority for
 18   citizen representatives of all affected
 19   municipalities.  This will help to curtail the
 20   acrimony and paternalism that is already apparent.
 21               Number 4, Manitoba Water Stewardship
 22   is in fact a new government department.  The
 23   Province of Manitoba website describes it as
 24   Canada's,
 25               "First stand alone department with
01707
  1               sole responsibility for protecting and
  2               managing water."
  3   The website goes on to state,
  4               "The new portfolio was created to
  5               bring together all of the key parts of
  6               government related to water, from
  7               healthy drinking water and ecosystem
  8               systems to economic impacts of
  9               irrigation and flood control.  The
 10               primary legislation governing the
 11               activities of Manitoba Water
 12               Stewardship is the soon to be passed
 13               Water Protection Act."
 14   This is how Steve Ashton, the minister of the
 15   department, described the significance of the Act
 16   in his personal message on the province's website.
 17               "The Water Protection Act deals with
 18               water protection at the source, to
 19               recognize the importance of preserving
 20               the ecological integrity of our rivers
 21               and lakes.  The Water Protection Act
 22               acknowledges the social and economic
 23               need to ensure a sufficient supply of
 24               high quality water in the future.
 25               This legislation officially recognizes
01708
  1               the critical role that water plays in
  2               the environmental, economic and social
  3               well-being of Manitobans now and in
  4               the future.
  5               A particularly important part of this
  6               Legislation...",
  7   still quoting the minister,
  8               "...calls for the establishment of
  9               water quality management zones.  It
 10               also creates watershed planning
 11               authorities to develop management
 12               plans by watershed.  This will help
 13               municipal councils in any planning and
 14               development decisions by having clear
 15               guidelines and current science on how
 16               watersheds are functioning and
 17               affected in their jurisdictions."
 18   And that speaks to what Mr. Grant just described.
 19               "The Water Protection Act, as crucial
 20               as it is to our province's water
 21               resources, will receive third reading
 22               in the legislature later this spring.
 23               The Clean Environment Commission, if
 24               it is prudent, will take this imminent
 25               legislation, including its spirit,
01709
  1               into consideration before issuing a
  2               licence to the Manitoba Floodway
  3               Authority."
  4               And my one and only new point, is
  5   this:  Most scientists now agree that our climate
  6   is changing.  While some disagree on the causes,
  7   many have concluded that the climate, particularly
  8   closer to the polar zones, is warming.  Based on
  9   the prospects of a warming climate, Mr. Alf
 10   Warkentin presented his prediction of the effect
 11   of such change on precipitation and floods in the
 12   Red River Valley in a research paper dated
 13   June 2002.
 14               Mr. Warkentin is a senior hydrologic
 15   forecaster with the Province of Manitoba.  His
 16   conclusions were that warmer winters will reduce
 17   the volume of spring runoff, thus reducing the
 18   impact of spring floods from historical norms.
 19   The snow accumulation period will be reduced, and
 20   the sublimation losses of snow will be increased,
 21   thus contributing to less spring runoff.  Even
 22   though Mr. Warkentin modeled spring rain to
 23   increase by 15 to 25 percent, the warming of
 24   northern climates could reduce average spring
 25   runoff and stream flow by 20 to 40 percent.
01710
  1               The CEC should require the Manitoba
  2   Floodway Authority to undertake significant
  3   research into the effects of global warming and
  4   how that would affect the operation of the
  5   floodway.
  6               Alf Warkentin's research would be a
  7   good starting point, because it does describe a
  8   scenario under which spring runoff would be
  9   extreme.  This I will leave for the CEC to
 10   discover on its own.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Arklie.
 12   Mr. Bodnaruk.
 13   
 14                (MR. BODNARUK:  SWORN)
 15   
 16               MR. BODNARUK:  Mr. Chairman, I have a
 17   fairly lengthy presentation, I am hoping I can get
 18   through in 15 minutes.  I will probably paraphrase
 19   a few places to get it done in time.
 20               I am going to start off by just saying
 21   that I sat through yesterday's hearings.  I have
 22   been to most of the hearings to date, and by the
 23   end of the day I was disturbed and to a large
 24   degree disgusted with the events.
 25               It was and is my impression that these
01711
  1   hearings were in fact an opportunity for public
  2   consultation.  It was an opportunity for
  3   proponents and concerned residents or municipal
  4   representatives to exchange ideas and learn from
  5   it, learn what the concerns of the public were,
  6   listen to the ideas presented, adapt to the
  7   information, and be able to ensure everyone,
  8   including the CEC, that a better project would
  9   arise.  Instead what it turned out to be was an
 10   attempt to discredit individuals' opinions and
 11   reports, quibble about percentages of
 12   contributions to contamination instead of worrying
 13   about the contamination itself, and worry about
 14   pictorial representations of the full floodway
 15   that was to the top of the dyke instead of to the
 16   top of the berms.
 17               Instead of being defensive about
 18   reports, we need to sit back and listen to what is
 19   being said instead of attacking what is being
 20   said, and make the project a better one.
 21               You can understand how frustrating it
 22   is for us as well.  How can we or any of the
 23   experts evaluate a project when the filing by the
 24   EIS by a certain date has no meaning, since
 25   engineering and the baseline keeps changing
01712
  1   day-by-day.
  2               The Rural Municipality of Springfield
  3   recognizes the right and responsibility of the
  4   Provincial Government to protect the residents of
  5   the City of Winnipeg from the possibilities of
  6   flood damage.  We also recognize that the building
  7   of the original floodway has impacted the lives of
  8   the residents of the RM of Springfield and the
  9   expansion of the floodway will perpetuate and
 10   accentuate the impacts.
 11               A major part of the floodway resides
 12   within the boundaries of the Springfield.  We
 13   therefore hope and request that the Floodway
 14   Authority and the CEC pay attention to our
 15   concerns.
 16               While we are working towards consensus
 17   on the issues of drainage and transportation
 18   relative to the protect, these are probably the
 19   only issues that I can provide some assurance to
 20   the residents that an expansion may result in a
 21   positive position for them.
 22               On the issues of groundwater, I would
 23   caution the residents to be concerned.  You cannot
 24   realistically mitigate the loss of such a valuable
 25   resource.  I don't think there is anyone in
01713
  1   authority that can adequately assure us that there
  2   will be no negative effects on our groundwater.
  3   If the numbers provided by Mr. Hayes were correct
  4   yesterday, and we are not -- at this point he
  5   mentioned about the deepening and we agreed there
  6   will be no deepening, but just the fact of
  7   deepening by 5.5 metres would result in increased
  8   loss of over 1 million litres per day.  But even
  9   if we disregard that and take into consideration
 10   the 3,000 gallons per minute after construction,
 11   it may put everything in perspective, that equates
 12   to 19,612,800 litres per day are flowing down the
 13   floodway.
 14               As a resident who currently resides
 15   closer than anyone along the full length of the
 16   floodway, I most definitely have serious
 17   reservations to the detrimental effect that the
 18   floodway and the expansion may have on the
 19   residents in close proximity to the project.
 20   While we look at the issues of water quality and
 21   quantity, we find that they are similar to
 22   drainage concerns.  The issues are regional, not
 23   just related to the RM of Springfield but affect
 24   neighboring municipalities as well.
 25               The original floodway never had to
01714
  1   engage in an environmental assessment and many of
  2   the concerns of the residents were never
  3   considered.  For those reasons, I believe that you
  4   have to look not only at the expansion of the
  5   floodway, but also the original floodway project.
  6               Some of our other concerns are as
  7   follows:  Reduction in the aquifer of the best
  8   quality water; potential contamination of our
  9   groundwater during high flows in the floodway;
 10   drainage issues that are not being addressed;
 11   expanded recreation on the floodway right-of-way;
 12   loss of agricultural land; obviously continued
 13   loss of tax revenue, which affects my taxes;
 14   management of security on the floodway and
 15   maintenance of the floodway, as well as
 16   transportation related issues.
 17               When the floodway was originally built
 18   the residents of the area were certainly not all
 19   treated equally or fairly.  When the land was
 20   expropriated, not everyone was given the same
 21   value of land.  One of our relatives, as a matter
 22   of fact, did not want to sell their property, the
 23   land was expropriated at about half the rate of
 24   the other residents in the area, all but five
 25   acres of the land was taken.  When they complained
01715
  1   about the price, the Provincial Government said it
  2   was too bad and if they complained too much that
  3   their house would be expropriated as well.  So not
  4   being treated fairly goes back a long way, and the
  5   residents of the area have had to put up with a
  6   lot over the 40 odd years that the floodway has
  7   been in existence.  Some of these concerns that I
  8   mentioned need to be expanded on.
  9               Ground water depletion and
 10   contamination, both of the groundwater issues have
 11   been represented extensively by our consultants.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could you just slow
 13   down a bit, she can't keep up.
 14               MR. BODNARUK:  One of our residents
 15   asked some very pertinent questions and some of
 16   her questions did elicit responses from the MFA
 17   that should raise some concerns.
 18               MR. ABRA:  You are still going too
 19   fast.
 20               MR. BODNARUK:  Just to change from
 21   water flowing into the floodway shortly after the
 22   construction from 3,000 gallons per minute to 17
 23   or 1800 gallons a minute currently provides a
 24   strong correlation that the floodway has impacted
 25   the water levels in the area.  The loss of the
01716
  1   aquifer and the contamination of the aquifer
  2   cannot be overstated.  For anyone living close to
  3   the floodway, it is our prime concern.
  4               Our wells in the area were affected by
  5   the construction of the original floodway, and in
  6   all likelihood, will be affected by the expansion.
  7   These are very real possibilities, and instead of
  8   the MFA getting defensive about their analysis,
  9   let's get down to work and solve the problems.  If
 10   we are going to do a job, let's do it right.
 11   While cost may be a factor, I am sure that the
 12   federal and provincial governments would want to
 13   err on the side of caution when the health of the
 14   residents may be at risk.
 15               Similarly the CEC, the MFA and rural
 16   municipalities should do the same.
 17               Drainage concerns, the Cooks Creek
 18   Conservation District dealt with the majority of
 19   the concerns for our agriculture producers.  One
 20   of the areas that needs to be expanded on is the
 21   area near Prairie Grove and some of the drainage
 22   on the inside of the floodway.  The residents of
 23   the Prairie Grove are concerned with the Seine
 24   River diversion structure.  The structure was
 25   built after the 1997 flood, I believe it was in
01717
  1   2001 and 2002.  What they are more concerned about
  2   is not after the floodway is expanded, that's less
  3   of a concern than what will happen before the
  4   expansion takes place.
  5               With the new construction, they feel
  6   that if we approach levels reaching the '97 flood
  7   level, flood waters will flow back over the lip of
  8   the structure and proceed into the Prairie Grove
  9   area.  If their observation of the elevations are
 10   correct, then there should have been and still be
 11   modifications to design to mitigate this potential
 12   problem.
 13               The other concern that we have on the
 14   inside of the floodway is the lack of drainage
 15   structures at all.  Most of our drains flow away
 16   from the floodway, but there are some where a
 17   portion of our water does flow to the outside toe
 18   drain.  Unfortunately the outside drains are not
 19   maintained on a regular basis and are in a
 20   deplorable state.  This is compounded by the fact
 21   that four by four owners feel that is good place
 22   to try to get stuck.  We have water standing on
 23   our property for a minimum of two to three weeks
 24   every spring, and in wet summers usually a lot
 25   longer.  Last year our front lawn was under water
01718
  1   for approximately a month and a half.
  2               Expanded recreation on the floodway,
  3   every resident living close to the floodway that
  4   our municipality have contacted have expressed
  5   concern with the idea of expanded recreation on
  6   the floodway.  Mr. McNeil stated this was an
  7   attempt to formalize unauthorized use of the
  8   floodway.  And this brings us to the crux of the
  9   matter.  Conservation and now the MFA have allowed
 10   the unauthorized use to continue for the past 40
 11   years without any concern for the nearby
 12   residents.  Our concerns rest on a number of
 13   issues, primarily the lack of maintenance and the
 14   lack of management.
 15               Lack of maintenance, the major part of
 16   the floodway has hay leases on it.  There should
 17   be no trespassing on that property, yet if you go
 18   up on the floodway you will find that the top of
 19   the dyke and all of the berms are rutted out.  And
 20   this is caused, again, by the four by fours trying
 21   to see how much mud they can go through.  This
 22   creates a danger for those operating the haybines
 23   and the tractors.
 24               There is an area on the floodway
 25   right-of-way which was used extensively as a
01719
  1   paintball war zone.  And this was brought to Mr.
  2   McNeil's attention earlier this past summer and I
  3   wonder if he has even gone to see.  There are
  4   sheets of plywood and metal strewn throughout that
  5   area.
  6               Lack of management, almost every year
  7   we have fires started on the floodway by those
  8   that are using the floodway for recreation.  It is
  9   our fire department that has to respond.  Half the
 10   floodway resides in our municipality, and why
 11   should we have to bear the costs and risks
 12   associated with these fires?  There is no barrier
 13   between our properties and the floodway, there is
 14   nothing to stop that fire.  Two years ago there
 15   was a fire started on the floodway that skipped
 16   the outside drain of the floodway in the vicinity
 17   of Duff Roblin Park, ended up coming on to my
 18   property and destroyed a number of my trees.
 19               I watched another fire get started by
 20   someone trying to drive over the top of a hay
 21   bale, one of the round ones, four feet high, with
 22   a small four by four that got stuck on top of the
 23   bale.  We had another fire that skipped the
 24   floodway and ended up going through our
 25   neighbour's yard, and only the quick response in
01720
  1   plowing up a strip of land saved a building full
  2   of propane tanks.
  3               The land was agricultural before the
  4   floodway was built, and those of us that live
  5   there live there because of the peace and quiet.
  6   Prior to the floodway being built, the residents
  7   didn't have to worry about the peace and quiet
  8   being violated.  It was all private land.  There
  9   were no fences required.  And when the floodway
 10   came around it allowed unfettered access to our
 11   backyards.  The peace and quiet was gone.  We
 12   don't want the increase in the number of people on
 13   the floodway to further destroy that peaceful
 14   existence.  In spite of how many responsible users
 15   that may go on the floodway, and the intended
 16   uses, there will always be people who are
 17   irresponsible in how they use the floodway, and
 18   will either not stay on the trails or use the
 19   trails the way they were intended.  We have
 20   constant trespassing upon our property from those
 21   currently using the floodway for recreation.
 22               I will list some of the things that we
 23   have experienced throughout the years, and we
 24   believe we will experience more because of the
 25   unfettered access to the floodway and expanded
01721
  1   recreation across the full length.  We have had
  2   loss of privacy, we have had fires, loss of
  3   agricultural land, noise from cross-country bikes,
  4   dirt bikes, snowmobiles to quad runners, damage to
  5   our property, we have had quad runners run right
  6   over our trees in our front yard.  Access to our
  7   backyards leading to break-ins and vandalism.  We
  8   have had stolen vehicles abandoned on the
  9   floodway, we have had stolen vehicles and
 10   snowmobiles that are burnt.  There is regular
 11   depositing of garbage, household garbage,
 12   construction materials, beds, fridges, beer
 13   bottles and cans.  We have got the paintball war
 14   zone, we have got target practicing with guns.
 15   Just last week we had somebody come off the trails
 16   on snowmobiles chasing deer in our land.  We have
 17   four by four's trespassing on our property from
 18   the floodway digging ruts.  We have got broken
 19   beer bottles and cans and hay bales.  We have had,
 20   to my knowledge, I think there have been five
 21   murders or bodies left on the floodway over the
 22   years, and there has been at least two accidental
 23   deaths relating to snowmobiles crashing into the
 24   bridge on the floodway.
 25               We were told by the MFA right from the
01722
  1   being that the expansion project, that recreation
  2   was not part of their mandate.  Now we find out in
  3   the hearings that the MFA has allowed for the
  4   movement of dirt in the budget.  How much money
  5   has been set aside?  Will they fence in a trail,
  6   and in fact all of their property?
  7               I was going to -- just a quick
  8   aside -- I was going to bring in some props for
  9   the hearing that CEC members could take back as
 10   souvenirs.  But I went up in the floodway, and no
 11   more than five minutes up there I found a used
 12   prophylactic and it is just typical of what is
 13   being done up there, and I ask any of you, would
 14   you want your children or grandchildren to go up
 15   in the floodway and see that?  It is a regular
 16   occurrence up there.
 17               Another issue is transportation
 18   losses.  The floodway has divided our municipality
 19   in half.  This has increased extra expense and
 20   inconvenience to our residents.  The twinning of
 21   PTH 15 will help but will not alleviate all the
 22   issues.  Currently if there are emergencies on
 23   this side of the floodway, the emergency vehicles
 24   have only limited access, resulting in the
 25   doubling or tripling of time to get there.  My own
01723
  1   residence is seven miles from Oakbank, but because
  2   of limited access to our area it takes almost a
  3   half hour to get there.  This has increased our
  4   potential for losses in the event of emergencies.
  5   The fact that we are more than eight miles from
  6   the fire hall has resulted in increased insurance
  7   rates for those inside the floodway.  This is an
  8   extra cost that the residents have to bear.  The
  9   industrial area owners are even worse, they have
 10   to pay exorbitant fire insurance costs.
 11               Our children, our four and five year
 12   olds now have to travel excessive periods of time
 13   on the school bus to get to schools in either
 14   Dugald or Oakbank.  The length of time is having
 15   to going around the floodway.  I don't think our
 16   children should have to pay the price for
 17   protecting the citizens of Winnipeg for flood
 18   control.  The Education Minister at one of our
 19   functions stated that he didn't want to see
 20   children traveling more than half an hour on
 21   school buses.  In our area, because of the
 22   floodway, it certainly takes a lot longer than
 23   that.
 24               The rest of the presentation that I
 25   have, and I will leave a copy with the Commission,
01724
  1   just has a number of questions which I would have
  2   liked to have asked, but I'm hoping that the CEC
  3   will try and find answers to a number of the
  4   questions.  I'm going to go through a few of them,
  5   it will take me probably about two minutes.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  What you have left
  7   though.
  8               MR. BODNARUK:  Some of it deals with
  9   the Prairie Grove area again, and it deals with
 10   Bob Millman's presentation to the Commission.  It
 11   states that under conditions of low diversion
 12   flows and high floodway flows, the current
 13   structure, there would be flooding -- and with the
 14   current structure there would be flooding of the
 15   area east of Grande Pointe.  I would like to find
 16   out from the Floodway Authority, how far east and
 17   south the flooding will occur.
 18               I asked Doug McNeil previously about
 19   possibly gating the culverts coming through
 20   Prairie Grove Road, and he had stated because of
 21   possible coincident peaks that gates would prevent
 22   water from leaving the upstream of the culverts.
 23   But later in the hearing he stated that the water
 24   from the area leaves before the peaks arrive.
 25   Does that mean that gating is a possibly?
01725
  1               How will the MFA protect the area to
  2   the south and the east from getting flooded?  We
  3   have wells in the area west of the floodway, it is
  4   in a prime zone for contamination.  There has been
  5   no monitoring.  We have been assured that there
  6   will be, but to me that would be a primary area
  7   where the monitoring well should be set up in the
  8   first place.  I'm directly across from the Oasis.
  9   When we built our house there was pockets of silt
 10   that extended seven to ten feet down, so if there
 11   is pockets of the silt where my house is, the
 12   outside drain of the floodway is no more than
 13   100 feet away from my house.  So we are very close
 14   proximity, the soil conditions are not homogenous,
 15   there is a wide variation.  And I believe that the
 16   contamination can get into it because of those
 17   pockets of silt.
 18               A couple of questions -- did you know
 19   that when the existing floodway was built, when
 20   equipment broke down, construction companies just
 21   buried parts within the floodway right-of-way?
 22   And I wonder whether the MFA has a record of where
 23   these pits are, and will that affect our water
 24   quality?  The preferred method of getting rid of
 25   garbage by Conservation in the past has been, and
01726
  1   that includes everything, shingles, fridges, you
  2   name it, was to dig holes and bury it right in the
  3   banks.  For somebody who is supposed to be with
  4   the Conservation Department, it seems like it is
  5   not the proper practice to be doing.
  6                The outside drains are poorly
  7   maintained, and is there any consideration for
  8   drop structures on the inside of the floodway?
  9               One last thing, I wonder whether or
 10   not we can do a 3D representation of the wells
 11   drilled catalogue, in accordance to the year
 12   drilled, showing depths and flow to see if there
 13   is any change from prior to the floodway being
 14   built to the current date.  There should be no
 15   difference or very little difference in the well
 16   depths and flows over the  years if the floodway
 17   hasn't impacted the aquifers.  You should be able
 18   to arrive at a positive correlation if there has
 19   been any impact from the floodway.  I have seen it
 20   done in athe presentation in Fargo, and it
 21   certainly is impressive.  And you can correlate
 22   according to dates, and it would give some
 23   valuable information.
 24               Lastly, or two more things.  One is
 25   that should not any mitigation concerns be
01727
  1   referred to an independent tribunal, not a
  2   Provincial Government agency or the MFA?
  3               And I noticed in one of the KGS
  4   reports that the east bank of the floodway north
  5   of Birds Hill is going to be used as a spoil berm.
  6   Does that mean that all of the trees from Park and
  7   Kirkness Road are going to be removed, and should
  8   that not be a concern?
  9               There is a lot more questions, but I
 10   will leave it with you, and hopefully if you get a
 11   chance to read them, and I hope that they are
 12   important enough that you will some answers to
 13   them.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you,
 15   Mr. Bodnaruk, we will certainly read them.  Mr.
 16   Znamirowski.
 17               MR. ZNAMIROWSKI:  I did have something
 18   that I gave to Ms. Johnson on diskette, if that
 19   could be put up.
 20               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, while we
 21   are waiting I can read exhibits into the record.
 22   Number 62, a letter from Mr. Galoway.  Number 63
 23   will be Mr. Grant's presentation, and number 64 is
 24   Mr. Bodnaruk's presentation.
 25   
01728
  1               (EXHIBIT 62:  Letter from Mr. Galoway)
  2   
  3               (EXHIBIT 63:  Mr. Grant's presentation
  4               to CEC)
  5   
  6               (EXHIBIT 64:  Mr. Bodnaruk's
  7               presentation to CEC)
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Cathy, could you swear
  9   him.
 10   
 11               (RANDY ZNAMIROWSKI:  SWORN)
 12   
 13               MR. ZNAMIROWSKI:  First of all, I
 14   would like to thank the Floodway Expansion
 15   Authority and the Clean Environment Commission for
 16   allowing me to speak on this.  And the very first
 17   thing and the most important thing that I would
 18   like to talk about is not what I have a
 19   presentation on here, it is regarding something
 20   that -- I believe a very good gentleman has spoken
 21   about this before, by the name of Mr. Bob
 22   Galoway -- and that's I would like to the thank
 23   the Floodway Expansion Authority with going
 24   through with the very bold and very smart road of
 25   twinning the highway 15 bridge, and we certainly
01729
  1   hope that they will go through with that, and that
  2   the bridge will go much farther than, the highway
  3   will go farther than 207.
  4               What has happened during the past
  5   couple of winters, I guess, is that basically the
  6   Highways Department has come up with an idea to
  7   twin Garven Road which was really -- or actually
  8   to widen Garven Road, which was really not met
  9   with much fanfare by anybody around.  And in fact,
 10   getting to know a number of people in here, like I
 11   said, Mr. Galoway, and obviously our fine reeve
 12   and council, and the Garven Road committee, which
 13   was all started by Mr. Frank Vinci got things
 14   going.  And basically we had over 1500 people sign
 15   a petition in about 10 days.  And just a handful
 16   of locations, Oakbank, Dugald and Anola, basically
 17   opposing the work to be done on Garven, and
 18   wanting the work to be done that has been wanting
 19   to be done for 25 plus years on twinning highway
 20   15 and the bridge.
 21               I mean, I think that's a very
 22   significant amount of people, considering the
 23   population of the RM of Springfield is only about
 24   12,000.  And obviously a number of other people
 25   that we have notices and have talked to us in the
01730
  1   months gone by in Steinbach, Ste. Anne,
  2   Beausejour, et cetera, all thought that is the
  3   logical highway to be twinned, and we wish all
  4   money to be diverted towards that because we have
  5   scarce tax dollars, and that is the number one
  6   thing that I wanted to talk about.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Unfortunately we have
  8   no control over the Highway Department.
  9               MR. ZNAMIROWSKI:  I know, but I just
 10   wanted to thank, like I said, Mr. Gilroy, Mr.
 11   Thomson and Mr. McNeil for their wonderful
 12   foresight of twinning the bridge.
 13               What I would like to talk about here
 14   is regarding the recreational opportunities that
 15   have been asked by the floodway, and of course it
 16   is an extremely minor concern compared to what
 17   everything else had done.  I would like to
 18   basically predicate this on Mr. Bodnaruk's
 19   presentation.  I think he has some extremely
 20   serious concerns, and I think all of those have to
 21   be addressed and obviously resolved to his
 22   satisfaction.  And I would highly recommend that
 23   Mr. Bodnaruk and his fellow residents near the
 24   floodway be invited to participate in all of the
 25   recreational opportunity meetings that come forth
01731
  1   and address all of his concerns.
  2               I believe that I have what I think is
  3   an all encompassing view here, a vision of the
  4   floodway which would allow motorized and
  5   non-motorized users to peacefully co-exist, and it
  6   has certain extensive economic spin-offs and is
  7   self-sustaining.  It should address all six of the
  8   floodway working principles, being compatibility
  9   with the primary purpose of the floodway, minimal
 10   ongoing maintenance and cost to taxpayers,
 11   stakeholder participation and community support,
 12   maximizing the benefit to rural and Aboriginal
 13   communities, the complete the existing Red River
 14   facilities and initiatives, complement them, and
 15   obviously environmental stewardship.
 16               Basically, what I am proposing is
 17   splitting the floodway basically in its natural
 18   state right now, being the east bank and the west
 19   bank.  The east bank I think would be a golden
 20   opportunity.  It is actually utilized now for
 21   snowmobile trails in the winter, and ATV or dirt
 22   biking or mountain biking, et cetera, in the
 23   summer.  It is by far the less populated.  There
 24   is fewer residents, homeowners, and on the surface
 25   it is more rural farmland.
01732
  1               I think we could respect the  west
  2   bank homeowners' privacy, the security from
  3   vandalism and increased traffic concerns that
  4   people have, and you would want to keep the
  5   motorized off of that bank.
  6               On the west bank, where all of the
  7   population is closer to Winnipeg I think would be
  8   more environmentally friendly things in there,
  9   being bicycle trails, horse, walking trails,
 10   hiking trails, cross country ski, et cetera.  It
 11   is obviously the more populated area, closer to
 12   Winnipeg, more homes, et cetera.
 13               I apologize, I didn't have time to put
 14   this into PowerPoint or anything, I just did this
 15   during lunch today.
 16               I think the trails, they actually
 17   could be running the entire length of the
 18   floodway, a number of people are using that
 19   already.  They would be on top of the banks but
 20   venture into the channel for elevation changes and
 21   variety.  They could be hilly with slight
 22   elevation changes from like three to 30 feet to
 23   enhance the experience and gently veer from side
 24   to side for people.  The above design I think
 25   would enhance the experience, increase the usage,
01733
  1   increase tourism, reduce speeds and obviously
  2   increase safety.
  3               Three rows of trees I thought would be
  4   an excellent way to run, to actually plant on the
  5   east side and all of the sides.  On the far east
  6   side there could be fast growing trees such as
  7   willows, in the middle we could have something
  8   like the pine trees, and on the western side some
  9   spruce trees.  I think that way we would get a lot
 10   of protection.  The trees I believe would make a
 11   natural barrier between the one way trails.  They
 12   will enhance bank stability and reduce erosion.
 13   They could provide better air quality for the
 14   citizens of Winnipeg.  They could enhance and
 15   restore the natural beauty in the area.  They
 16   could trap snow for better trails, make it a safer
 17   trail, a longer season, less damage to the
 18   equipment on the trail, and obviously provide a
 19   noise and sight barrier for users and residents,
 20   which is obviously important.  They can also be
 21   used for ecological, scientific research, et
 22   cetera.
 23               I think that the two one way trails on
 24   the east bank should be separated by trees.  We
 25   need to do that to increase safety, save lives.  I
01734
  1   mean, the floodway has been used already by
  2   snowmobilers and there has been a couple of people
  3   who lost their lives because there was no safe
  4   one-way trail on there.  People are riding on
  5   there anyway and it is a natural link.  And there
  6   is a number of local clubs, five of them, that
  7   could actually be utilized to pool their
  8   resources, being the Springfield Pathfinders here
  9   in our community, Spring Hill Trail Blazers, in
 10   neighbouring communities, the Voyageur Trail
 11   Groomers Association, Ste. Anne Snow Raiders and
 12   of course the Cross-country Snow Drifters.
 13               Snomobiling is a billion dollar
 14   industry in Manitoba with many spinoffs.  I mean,
 15   there is dealers, garages, restaurants, hotels, et
 16   cetera.  It is the fastest growing winter sport
 17   and recreation activity.  It is a sport that
 18   appeals to all groups and increases with people's
 19   age, from extreme sports, obviously, to casual
 20   family to nature lovers.  It appeals to all income
 21   levels, but the average sledder now is usually
 22   more affluent and family oriented.  And
 23   snowmobilers are extreme nature lovers and respect
 24   the environment.  It is the fastest growing winter
 25   tourism activity.  Many sledders travel over
01735
  1   300 miles a day.  It is part of our Canadian
  2   culture, our Manitoba culture.  We invented it, we
  3   are better known for the Canadian Power Toboggan
  4   World Championship, the oldest snowmobile race in
  5   the world, 43 years old.  There is also a
  6   snowmobile heritage museum here, one of the first
  7   snowmobiles ever built, in Beausejour.  And all of
  8   these facts could be posted on large signs in the
  9   floodway and trails, et cetera.
 10               Ithe think if we make some staging
 11   areas, it would be parking lots for vehicles and
 12   trailers off major highways, for instance, the
 13   highways 15, 59 north, and highway 1, this will
 14   promote tourism for all Manitoba to all the
 15   10,000 miles of trails that we already have and
 16   they are all interconnected.
 17               The main day ride, people go from the
 18   floodway and they go to Falcon Lake, Sandilands,
 19   Whiteshell, Grand Beach, or they go to the
 20   Interlake, being Gimli and Heckla Island, and also
 21   the Pembina Valley.  The missing link, obviously,
 22   for this is really the floodway.  And Snow Man or
 23   the snowmobiles of Manitoba trail map is the
 24   floodway.  It is desperately needed to connect to
 25   several other trails.  As Snow Man trails are all
01736
  1   self-funded by the sale of snow passes, this
  2   proposal would be self-sufficient after the
  3   initial start-up, as it would be taken over by
  4   existing clubs or new trail grooming associations.
  5               The only capital requirement would be
  6   the start-up to plant the trees, do the
  7   landscaping, the hills, et cetera, the trees, and
  8   we know we are moving the dirt already.  A warm-up
  9   shelter would be nice, and obviously the trail and
 10   staging and signing, and perhaps a nice snowmobile
 11   map to promote this.
 12               All these costs will be extremely
 13   insignificant but they will produce hundreds of
 14   times their value in spinoff benefits for tourism
 15   and recreation opportunities.  I think this would
 16   provide a positive promotion for the floodway for
 17   the province, something to stand for more than
 18   flood protection, obviously the main idea of the
 19   floodway.  And that concludes my presentation.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much.
 21               We have one more person who we had
 22   confirmed last week would be on tonight, but
 23   wasn't shown on our list.  That's Mr. Norman
 24   Traverse.  Mr. Traverse, is he still here?
 25   Mr. Traverse, I will have the commission secretary
01737
  1   swear you in.
  2   
  3               (NORMAN TRAVERSE:  SWORN)
  4   
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  You may proceed.
  6               MR. TRAVERSE:  As I was saying, first
  7   of all I want to thank the Commission for giving
  8   me this opportunity.  And I traveled many miles
  9   tonight, and I'm just thankful to be here this
 10   evening.
 11               As I was saying, my name is Norman
 12   Traverse of Lake St. Martin First Nations.  I was
 13   Chief of Lake St. Martin First Nation a few years
 14   back, and I'm very familiar with the effects of
 15   flooding on my community.
 16               You may ask, what does flooding so far
 17   away have to do with the concerns of this group?
 18   Well, the answer is, a great deal.  Let me
 19   explain.  In the early 1970s, the Province of
 20   Manitoba began operation of the water control
 21   structure which regulates the water flow between
 22   Lake Manitoba, through the Fairford River into
 23   Lake St. Martin, and then into Lake Winnipeg.
 24               I want to, in addition I want to make
 25   a comment with this first paragraph.  Before they
01738
  1   built that water control structure there was a
  2   natural flow, and then they expanded that flow,
  3   doubled that flow, which then of course goes right
  4   into Fairford, right into Lake St. Martin.  And
  5   then before this control structure was built, I
  6   had been asking for an environmental social impact
  7   study regarding Lake St. Martin.  And to date I
  8   haven't been satisfied.
  9               They went ahead and build this control
 10   structure without giving any consideration to the
 11   people downstream.  And as a result of that we
 12   suffered.  We lived in duress the last 40 years.
 13               Whenever the province wants to lower
 14   water in Lake Manitoba, it dumps that water into
 15   Lake St. Martin, which has a very small outlet.
 16   The water rises, covers our roads, surrounds our
 17   houses, causes our septic tanks to pop out of the
 18   ground like corks, contaminate our wells, our
 19   children get sick, our elders.  Permanent damage
 20   is caused.  Our houses rot at the foundation.  The
 21   soil of our reserve is super saturated with water.
 22   It is now there permanently, even when there is no
 23   flood.  Our hay fields have been permanently
 24   destroyed, converted into marsh land.  Our once
 25   prosperous cattle industry has been destroyed.
01739
  1               What does that have to do with the
  2   Winnipeg floodway?  Well, when Winnipeg gets
  3   concerned about too much water, it cuts down the
  4   flow of water from the Assiniboine River by
  5   operating the Portage diversion.  This diverts
  6   water into Lake Manitoba, and that water too goes
  7   through the Fairford control structure.  This
  8   causes flooding in Lake St. Martin.  It floods our
  9   homes and roads and makes our people sick.
 10               It is very interesting to compare the
 11   way in which flooding homes of non-native people
 12   in Winnipeg is handled compared to the flooding of
 13   Indian homes.  I see where a few homeowners
 14   received millions of dollars as compensation for
 15   flooding.  At Lake St. Martin community nearly 200
 16   homes have been severely damaged by flooding, and
 17   we didn't receive one penny of compensation.
 18   These homes should be condemned, but our people
 19   continue to live in them because we have no
 20   choice.
 21               When I was Chief we took the Province
 22   of Manitoba to court for damages to our homes and
 23   lands.  Instead of being concerned, having
 24   hearings like you have here today, negotiating a
 25   settlement, being decent about it, the Province of
01740
  1   Manitoba fought us tooth and nail, putting us into
  2   bankruptcy with legal costs.
  3               When I read in the newspapers about
  4   the Winnipeg floodway being good for all the
  5   people of Manitoba, I think of my people at Lake
  6   St. Martin reserve, and the unfair and the racist
  7   manner in which we have been treated.  The
  8   floodway may be good for other people, but when I
  9   see the waters rising around the homes on our
 10   reserve, I know it is not good for us.
 11               I have delivered my presentation.  I
 12   would have more, but I'm just thankful to have
 13   made my presentation.
 14               Thank you for hearing my words, the
 15   Commission.  Maybe there is something that you can
 16   do to help.  Thank you very much.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
 18   Mr. Traverse.
 19               We have one person who wanted to make
 20   a presentation if we had time, we still have a few
 21   minutes.  Mr. Bruce Allen, you have ten minutes.
 22   
 23               (BRUCE ALLEN SWORN)
 24   
 25               MR. ALLEN:  First of all, thanks for
01741
  1   on short notice allowing me this opportunity.  I
  2   would like to talk primarily about ice jamming
  3   north of the floodway.
  4               I guess I sat through a lot of public
  5   meetings last fall, and heard a lot of my
  6   neighbors talk about their experiences and
  7   correlations between observances of ice jamming
  8   and the operation of the floodway.  It seemed to
  9   me that there was a connection there, it was
 10   pretty coincidental that these things occurred
 11   almost simultaneously.
 12               At one of the meetings I heard a
 13   representative from the Floodway Authority get up
 14   and say, with absolute conviction, that there was
 15   absolutely zero impact between operation of the
 16   floodway and subsequent ice jamming events.  I
 17   guess that was a wake-up call to me, because
 18   absolutely zero, I mean, how can anyone be that
 19   confident, particularly a professional individual?
 20   The statement seemed to be political, it seemed to
 21   be opportunistic, they effectively absolved
 22   themselves of any responsibility with that
 23   statement, and it is pretty hard to refute a
 24   statement such as that.
 25               So, I took some time and thought about
01742
  1   it, and I came up with a few links, I think that
  2   were defendable, based on common sense, if not
  3   absolute theory.  I'm an engineer by profession.
  4   I deal in structures.  Hydrology isn't my
  5   expertise.  But when I looked at it I thought
  6   there was linkages, I thought I could defend them.
  7   I wrote these up, I put them in a letter to the
  8   editor initially, and at one of the subsequent
  9   hearings I submitted a report and asked for a
 10   review of the observations, and if I was wrong,
 11   show me where I was wrong, or conversely show me
 12   you were right.
 13               I deal in structures as a engineer,
 14   but there are a few absolutes in my business.
 15   When we are dealing with materials such as steel
 16   and concrete, they are a pretty well known
 17   commodity, but the unknown when it comes to doing
 18   design is the environmental factors.  Just how
 19   much snow will there be in a given year, how much
 20   ice will build up, how hard will the wind blow?
 21   History will provide us some examples and these
 22   are used in design work.  We draw from history,
 23   but then we apply factors of safety to the designs
 24   to account for the unknown.  And again, a lot of
 25   it is the variability associated with
01743
  1   environmental loading.
  2               So with that as a background, what I
  3   would like to really talk about then, is to try
  4   and get a point across that I tried to make
  5   before, but I think I failed because of the
  6   technical nature that I presented.  So I would
  7   like to draw a couple of observations here.
  8               These are not my numbers, I took them
  9   from the proceedings that happened here.  And so
 10   again, if these are wrong, I think even if they
 11   are wrong, the trends demonstrate my point.  But
 12   the other day here it was said that there was six
 13   flooding events in 115 years prior to the floodway
 14   being built, six in 115, that's about 5 percent.
 15   Since the floodway was built, there has been six
 16   events in 38 years.  That adds up to about
 17   16 percent, so almost a three-fold increase.
 18               Now, how coincidental is that?  I
 19   think at the time, and again correct me if I'm
 20   wrong, but I think at the time the statement was
 21   made that it has been abnormally wet years since
 22   the floodway was built, and that this would
 23   explain that away.  Certainly wetness is one of
 24   the variables at play here, but there is far more
 25   variables at play here.
01744
  1               Just a few of the variables, there is
  2   ice thickness, there is the structure of the ice,
  3   how the ice is anchored to the shore at any one
  4   point in time, snow cover, water depth, water
  5   flow, upstream conditions, downstream conditions,
  6   there is a host of environmental factors that come
  7   into play, how much rain, how much snow, how much
  8   sun, the temperatures that are being observed.
  9   Since the conditions are constantly changing,
 10   there is a time element involved.  And there is
 11   the effect of the river channel itself which
 12   varies as you move along it.  So there is, some
 13   points there will be more probability than other
 14   points, and it is the probabilities that I wanted
 15   to get down.
 16               So during 115 years there were six
 17   naturally occurring events -- again, your numbers,
 18   or numbers that came out of this proceeding.
 19   Since most naturally occurring events can be
 20   plotted on a curve, they don't just spike up all
 21   of a sudden, but the combination of elements that
 22   lead to those events in any given year would be a
 23   probability associated with them.  So there had to
 24   be years during that period where conditions,
 25   natural conditions would be a very high
01745
  1   probability, almost reaching the threshold of a
  2   flood event or an ice jamming event, but the ice
  3   jamming event didn't occur, the conditions were
  4   not quite right, almost, but not quite.
  5               So then the floodway was built,
  6   man-made intervention in a naturally occurring
  7   environment, a device that by the Floodway
  8   Authority's own admission impacts one of the very
  9   key variables, that being water flow.  By their
 10   own admission, they artificially increase the flow
 11   of water at an extremely critical and vulnerable
 12   point.
 13               And since the floodway was built, the
 14   number of ice jamming occurrences have increased
 15   by a factor of over three times.  I don't think
 16   this is a coincidence.
 17               Now, the FA and their consultants have
 18   suggested that their studies and computer models
 19   prove that the increase in water flow has no
 20   impact on ice jamming events.  The increased water
 21   flow has been a slug, a slug of water, and that
 22   this slug apparently has absolutely zero impacts.
 23               Now, I use computer models in my line
 24   of work.  They are an excellent tool and they
 25   provide insight into any number of things.
01746
  1   However, they are based on theory and assumptions.
  2   Any number of variables are quite often assumed
  3   away, because it gets too complex and unmanageable
  4   to try to account for everything.
  5               I would suggest that the variables
  6   involved with the Red River and trying to model
  7   that are hopelessly complex.  I would suggest that
  8   attempting to model and predict all of the
  9   naturally occurring variables that occur during a
 10   spring runoff period is far more analogous to
 11   predicting the weather than it is to designing a
 12   building.  And as pointed out earlier, even when I
 13   am designing a building, there is few absolutes.
 14   And we all know how accurately the weather models
 15   predict what weather is going to be.
 16               The best analogy that I can think of
 17   is this; in the year when we have tinder dry
 18   conditions in the forest, we all know that you
 19   don't go around lighting fires.  When conditions
 20   are right for a forest fire, when the combination
 21   of naturally occurring events align themselves so
 22   that the probability of a fire starting is
 23   extremely high, you don't want to so much as
 24   create a spark for fear of the consequences.  By
 25   the same token, when conditions on the Red River
01747
  1   are ripe for ice jamming, you don't want to shock
  2   the system.  When the combination of naturally
  3   occurring events align themselves such that the
  4   probability of an ice jamming event is itself very
  5   high, due to none other than the combination of
  6   naturally occurring events the unto themselves at
  7   that point in time, this is the wrong time to
  8   artificially increase one of the primary variables
  9   such as water flow.  This is the wrong time to
 10   send a slug of water through the system.  And in
 11   the forest fire analogy, this is the spark that
 12   you want to avoid.
 13               I think this is a more plausible
 14   explanation for the three-fold increase since the
 15   floodway was built than to simply state we have
 16   had wet years.  There is a lot more to it than
 17   that.  In any given year, if you truly understood
 18   the process, and if you care to study and
 19   understand the variables, you may be able to say
 20   that the probabilities of ice jamming are
 21   relatively high or low.  You might be able to
 22   predict with a fair degree of certainty that in a
 23   given year, when the probabilities due to
 24   naturally occurring events are already low, that
 25   you could safely operate the floodway without
01748
  1   flooding.  However, in a year where the
  2   probabilities due to natural occurring events are
  3   high, we do not understand the situation enough to
  4   make any accurate predictions like the weather.
  5               So if the  FA, if the Floodway
  6   Authority can't tell me with absolute certainty in
  7   any given year whether or not we will have an ice
  8   jamming event, then by that very nature they have
  9   not demonstrated that they know the whole story,
 10   that their models aren't as accurate as they would
 11   have us believe, that there are too many variables
 12   to try to piece together what is happening there.
 13               So if they can't tell me in any given
 14   year if the floodway is going to ice jam or not,
 15   or if the river is going to ice jam north of the
 16   floodway, how can they make the statement with
 17   absolute certainty that the operation of the
 18   floodway itself poses absolutely zero impact?  I
 19   can't see that.
 20               Unfortunately, an expanded floodway
 21   brings with it expanded water flows and
 22   regrettably the potential for larger slugs of
 23   water.  If anybody here cares about the flooding
 24   potential of ice jams north of the floodway, then
 25   this needs to be studied and better understood,
01749
  1   and a resolution to the problem of ice jamming
  2   determined.
  3               I guess my parting comment is this:  I
  4   can't understand how an individual from the
  5   Floodway Authority can get up in front of a public
  6   forum and say with absolute conviction that the
  7   impact of the floodway on subsequent ice jamming
  8   events has absolutely zero impact.
  9               Thank you for your time.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much.
 11   That brings the evening to a conclusion.  See you
 12   all bright and early tomorrow morning at
 13   9:00 o'clock here.
 14               MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. Chairman, could I
 15   enter those last few exhibits, Mr. Arklie's
 16   presentation will be exhibit 65, Mr. Znamirowski's
 17   presentation will be 66, and Mr. Traverse's is 67.
 18   Thank you.
 19   
 20               (EXHIBIT 65:  Mr. Arklie's
 21               presentation to CEC)
 22   
 23               (EXHIBIT 66:  Mr. Znamirowski's
 24               presentation to CEC)
 25   
01750
  1               (EXHIBIT 67:  Mr. Traverse's
  2               presentation to CEC)
  3   
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  5   
  6               (ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M.)
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
01751
  1               OFFICIAL EXAMINER'S CERTIFICATE
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   I, CECELIA REID, a duly appointed Official
  6   Examiner in the Province of Manitoba, do hereby
  7   certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct
  8   transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken by me at
  9   the time and place hereinbefore stated.
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13                       ----------------------------
 14                       Cecelia Reid
 15                       Official Examiner, Q.B.
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25