01752 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Thursday, February 24, 2005 14 Oakbank United Church 15 Oakbank, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 Volume 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01753 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 01754 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 Mr. Ron Dubinsky Mr. Vern Johnson 6 Ms. Brenda Kennard Ms. Alf Poetker - Consultant 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01755 1 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS 2 Cooks Creek Conservation District Presentation 3 Cross-examination by MFA 1760 Questions by Panel 1766 4 Peguis Indian Band Presentation 1792 5 Cross-examination by MFA 1813 Questions by Panel 1815 6 Rural Municipalities presentations 7 Reeve Dave Gera 1977 Reeve Strang 1987 8 Reeve John Holland 2012 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01756 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 68 Mr. Bruce Allen's presentation to 1820 3 CEC 4 69 Additional documentation from Mr. 1820 5 Millman 6 70 Mr. Earl Stevenson's presentation 1821 to CEC 7 71 Mr. Moir's presentation review of 1976 8 the Red River Floodway Expansion Environmental Impact Study 9 10 72 Mr. Jonasson's Coalition for Flood 1976 Protection North of the Floodway 11 presentation 12 73 Bill 22 Water Protection handout 2034 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01757 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 01758 1 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2005 2 UPON COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come to order, 5 please? It is 9:00 o'clock. Order, please. 6 Welcome back to day eight. I see that 7 everybody is quite beside themselves this morning 8 figuring out how to spend the $16.00 tax break we 9 all got in yesterday's budget. 10 We have a busy schedule in front of us 11 today, and I hope, but I won't hold my breath, I 12 hope we can get through all of it. First up -- 13 and this agenda that you may have seen or the 14 schedule that you may have seen is ever changing, 15 sort of a dynamic, or an evolving, to use the 16 word, an evolving schedule. 17 Our lineup for today, hopefully first 18 up is the Cooks Creek Conservation District who 19 will pick up where we left off a couple of days 20 ago, and that is with cross-examination of them. 21 It will be lead off by the Floodway Authority, 22 followed by members of this panel and then members 23 of other participating groups. 24 Following Cooks Creek we will have 25 Peguis Indian Band; following that the Coalition 01759 1 for Flood Protection North of the Floodway, and 2 hopefully we will get them on today at least to 3 start their presentation; the three 4 municipalities. That's the order of business for 5 today. 6 Mr. Buhler, you have one or two new 7 faces. Will the new faces be giving evidence, 8 will they be answering questions? If so we will 9 have to swear them in. 10 MR. BUHLER: No, they won't. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to 12 introduce the whole table and then perhaps we can 13 get under way. 14 MR. BUHLER: My name is Jake Buhler, 15 manager of Cooks Creek Conservation District. To 16 my right is Daryl Chicoine, legal counsel for the 17 district; to his right is Brenda Kennard, our 18 administrator for the district; to her right is 19 Jon Stefanson from Stefanson Watershed Services; 20 to his right is Alf Poetker from Cochrane 21 Engineering; to his right is Ron Dubinsky, a 22 producer in our region; and to his right is Vern 23 Johnson. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Floodway 25 Authority, questions? 01760 1 MR. MCNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 2 Doug McNeil. I will just have a few questions for 3 the Cooks Creek Conservation District based on 4 their presentation a couple of days ago. And 5 Mr. Buhler had indicated that we have had a good 6 working relationship to date, and of course we 7 look forward to continuing to work with Cooks 8 Creek Conservation District and their engineers as 9 we proceed with final design of the project, and 10 specifically the drainage drop structures and 11 drains on the floodway right-of-way. 12 Also, I might add that in our 13 responses to the Cooks Creek Conservation District 14 information requests through the CEC, that we have 15 indicated that we will continue with this positive 16 working relationship. However, I do have a few 17 questions as a result of a lot of statements that 18 Mr. Stefanson made in his presentation. So with 19 the permission of Mr. Buhler, I would like to ask 20 Mr. Stefanson a few questions. 21 Mr. Stefanson, would you agree -- and 22 first of all, I'm glad that we are finally as 23 engineers, getting to engineers asking engineers 24 questions, at this point in time it is probably 25 more appropriate. Mr. Stefanson, would you agree 01761 1 with the MFA principles that the project 2 components be technically feasible, practical and 3 cost effective? 4 MR. STEFANSON: I would agree, but I 5 would also hope that when we make the final 6 decisions that we can get a little bit beyond 7 engineering and listen to what the local people 8 have to say. 9 MR. MCNEIL: And standards, depending 10 on the standard that you pick, that could 11 incorporate what the local people have to say, 12 correct? 13 MR. STEFANSON: Yes, it could. It is 14 just a matter of possibly modifying our approach a 15 little bit based on what we hear from the local 16 people. 17 MR. MCNEIL: Would you agree too that 18 to be truly cost effective and to use public funds 19 appropriately that the design and construction of 20 the work should be based on lifecycle cost 21 analysis, that is an analysis that takes into 22 consideration the capital and the operating costs 23 of project or component over its life? 24 MR. STEFANSON: Yes. 25 MR. MCNEIL: Having said this, 01762 1 however, we both know that the designer must first 2 consider the standards to which the design is to 3 meet. And as you indicated, we will be designing 4 and constructing drains and drop structures to a 5 standard that is, and I quote you, 6 "...far in excess of anything that we 7 could conceive of as being required 8 for agricultural systems." 9 Would you agree that there is likely no or few 10 other areas of the province that would have the 11 capacities that we are proposing? 12 MR. STEFANSON: In terms of 13 agricultural drainage, yes, the capacities that 14 you have chosen are essentially flood protection 15 standard. 16 MR. MCNEIL: Considering your earlier 17 comments that the 10 per cent capacity generally 18 is sufficient, would you agree that maybe the 1 19 per cent capacity standard is not cost effective 20 for the drop structures and that maybe they should 21 match the capacity of the drains within the 22 floodway right-of-way leading up to them, which 23 are being designed to the 2 per cent capacity? 24 MR. STEFANSON: That depends on 25 whether we consider the whole thing only relative 01763 1 to the agricultural drainage system. I assume 2 that the 1 per cent, 2 per cent standards were 3 chosen for other reasons, and I'm not in a 4 position to explain what those would be. 5 MR. MCNEIL: Would you agree that a 6 drop structure that serves two or three drains, as 7 an example, and the drains leading up to that 8 structure can be designed to work as effectively 9 and efficiently as three separate smaller 10 structures, one on each of the three drains? 11 MR. STEFANSON: I think you have to 12 look at that at each individual location, because 13 it is -- I don't think it would be appropriate to 14 answer that on a generic basis, we should look at 15 each individual situation. 16 MR. MCNEIL: However, prior to the 17 construction of the existing floodway, 18 approximately how much further did those drains 19 carry water before discharging to the Seine River 20 or the Red River, for example, the Bibeau drain or 21 the Dugald Road drain? 22 MR. STEFANSON: Offhand I would say 23 three or four or five miles. 24 MR. MCNEIL: And in some cases eight, 25 nine or ten miles, is that correct? 01764 1 MR. STEFANSON: Possibly. 2 MR. MCNEIL: And these three in the 3 situation of, for example, the Bibeau drain, how 4 much further -- the three drains that go into the 5 one structure, how much further do they go along 6 the floodway channel to reach the outlet 7 structure, as opposed to the length of distance 8 that they used to go? 9 MR. STEFANSON: I'm sorry, maybe my 10 mind wandered a little bit, could you repeat that? 11 MR. MCNEIL: In the case of the Bibeau 12 drain drop structure, it has three drains leading 13 into one structure. And what is the farthest that 14 one of those drains has to go along the floodway 15 channel to reach the drop structure, as opposed to 16 how far it used to go? 17 MR. STEFANSON: In that case, one 18 mile. 19 MR. MCNEIL: So there was an 20 improvement over the drainage from what was 21 original prior to the floodway? 22 MR. STEFANSON: Absolutely. Our point 23 is not that the floodway hasn't provided a 24 benefit. It certainly has. What we are trying to 25 do is maximize that benefit. 01765 1 MR. MCNEIL: But, again, one structure 2 serving two or three or even four drains can be 3 designed to be as efficient and effective as 4 separate structures, smaller structures? 5 MR. STEFANSON: From a purely 6 engineering perspective, it probably could, but I 7 wouldn't comment on any location until things have 8 been analyzed. 9 MR. MCNEIL: Would you agree that 10 construction and maintenance of one large 11 structure is most likely more cost effective than 12 three separate smaller structures, especially 13 considering that the combined drain systems 14 already exist in a lot of these locations? 15 MR. STEFANSON: I would rather defer 16 that to see what comes out of the final design 17 exercise. 18 MR. MCNEIL: Just a couple of more 19 questions, three I think. 20 Does your report include sufficient 21 engineering and cost analysis to conclude that 22 additional drainage drop structures on the 23 floodway are required? 24 MR. STEFANSON: No. What we are doing 25 is simply putting forward concepts, and our 01766 1 expectation is that these proposals will be 2 analyzed for technical feasibility and cost in the 3 final design exercise. 4 MR. MCNEIL: Then would you agree that 5 it is premature for the CEC to make additional 6 drop structures a condition of the licence until 7 final design and cost analysis of the structures 8 is undertaken? 9 MR. STEFANSON: Yes. The only thing 10 that the district is looking for is to try and 11 ensure that these things are in fact given serious 12 objective consideration in the final design 13 exercise. 14 MR. MCNEIL: That's good. And that's 15 in fact what we indicated when we responded to 16 your information requests through the CEC IR 17 process. So thank you very much. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: You are finished? Much 19 briefer than the lawyers. I see you even 20 confiscated his microphone. Mr. Webster. 21 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 22 My questions this morning are going to focus on a 23 couple of things. First of all, the request for 24 the drain system to be lowered below what is 25 specified by the Floodway Authority, and so that 01767 1 I'm looking for the justification for that 2 particular request beyond what was said a couple 3 of days ago. 4 Last night we heard positive comments 5 about the Floodway Authority's intent to twin the 6 highway 15 bridge, and that recognizes to some 7 extent the future needs as predicted for that 8 area. But I wondered, what kinds of future needs 9 and unforeseen needs are you thinking about in 10 terms of lowering those drains to the extent that 11 you have requested? 12 MR. STEFANSON: Well, as I mentioned 13 yesterday, any upgrading of the system is likely 14 to require lowering of the channels, the 15 agricultural system channels at the floodway 16 boundary for a number of reasons. And I should, I 17 think the local producers feel that the system is 18 in need of upgrading, and I might just add a 19 little comment. In the late '60s and '70s, and a 20 little bit in the '80s, the province undertook a 21 program of upgrading the provincial waterway 22 portions of the agricultural systems in the Red 23 River Valley. They spent millions of dollars, 24 maybe hundreds of millions of dollars with federal 25 cost sharing to do that. For reasons that I can't 01768 1 really explain, even though I was a part of that 2 at the time, most of that, all of that was spent 3 west of the Red River and very little to the east. 4 So the producers in this area feel that they have 5 some catching up to do just to get on par with 6 their counterparts in the west. And beyond that 7 they would look to upgrading. 8 So there is upgrading to be done to 9 sort of catch up to standards elsewhere, but 10 agriculture is changing all of the time, so the 11 needs will likely change in the future. And of 12 course when you get far enough into the future, it 13 is very difficult to see what those needs might 14 be. So we are looking for flexibility to be able 15 to handle whatever comes up. 16 MR. WEBSTER: I suppose if the 17 construction of the drop structures along the 18 floodway, which is really what we are talking 19 about in terms of floodway expansion, if that's 20 the focus, the question that arises then is how 21 much more money will it cost to build them a 22 little bit lower to accommodate what you are 23 requesting? Will it in fact require a double drop 24 structure. What you showed in the diagram, I 25 think it was in your presentation, is something 01769 1 that included a couple of drop structures. What I 2 guess I need to know at this point is whether that 3 is a standard item that's there at the moment, or 4 whether in fact that's required because of your 5 request to accommodate a lower channel bottom 6 opportunity for the future. This is not numbered 7 in my presentation. 8 MR. STEFANSON: Is that the schematic 9 sketch? 10 MR. WEBSTER: That is this one here, 11 that's right. You showed two drop structures in 12 this model. Is that normally the case or is that 13 there to accommodate the further lowering of 14 drains that you want to include? 15 MR. STEFANSON: The situation as it 16 exists would be something along these lines. The 17 existing agricultural, bottom of the existing 18 agricultural drain will be at this level, and 19 currently it simply continues on until it comes to 20 the drop structure. And the concrete sill that 21 you would remember seeing in the photograph would 22 be at this level. 23 What we are suggesting, and we don't 24 know how this would play out in each individual 25 location, this is simply an approach that we are 01770 1 suggesting. 2 Now, the Floodway Authority has 3 already indicated that they will build the 4 channels on floodway property to the 2 per cent 5 standard, which is substantially in excess of 6 agricultural needs, which means a larger channel 7 than currently exists because the hydrology has 8 increased. So what I'm suggesting is that it is 9 almost inevitable that the bottom of the new 2 per 10 cent channel will come below the existing channel. 11 And it is standard practice in channel design that 12 whenever that occurs, you introduce a drop 13 structure to prevent erosion. 14 So what we are suggesting -- and again 15 how this plays out in each location, we don't know 16 yet -- what we are suggesting is that the two per 17 cent channel is the channel that the MFA would 18 install in any case and it will require a drop 19 structure here. What we are suggesting is that 20 they introduce some flexibility at this location 21 so that we don't have a permanent sill at this 22 location, but we have a temporary sill at that 23 location which can be in the future, if required, 24 when required, it can be lowered to another level. 25 So, again, I don't know how this plays 01771 1 out in each location, but what we are suggesting 2 is that the additional flexibility that we are 3 looking for is basically in this area. 4 MR. WEBSTER: You are looking for 5 flexibility at the lip going down the slope into 6 the floodway? 7 MR. STEFANSON: Yes. 8 MR. WEBSTER: What you mean by that, 9 when you say flexibility, you mean you want the 10 thing to be lower than is planned currently by the 11 MFA? 12 MR. STEFANSON: Right. I will just 13 put up another sketch here. This relates to the 14 photograph, if you can remember yesterday, and the 15 sketch is the -- at least this is the type of 16 configuration that was used in the original 17 design. And assuming that the new structures will 18 follow a similar pattern, what we are suggesting 19 is that the concrete sill, which is at this 20 level -- and if you remember the photograph, the 21 concrete sill is at this level -- that's permanent 22 sill, we can't really do too much about that. 23 What we are suggesting is that we put that low 24 enough to allow flexibility for the future, and 25 create the current sill by raising stop logs to 01772 1 the level of the 2 per cent channel as it will be 2 constructed. Then in the future then we can lower 3 this, if we need to, to accommodate future 4 upgrading. And again, as I say, this has to be 5 worked out at each location, each location will be 6 different. 7 MR. WEBSTER: One of the things that 8 comes to mind, since we are talking about the stop 9 logs at this point, is how would you store those 10 stop logs so they can be used if necessary? 11 Taking them out and putting them aside is not a 12 problem, putting them in is a problem. 13 MR. STEFANSON: Well, they would be 14 in, in the first instance. Just to be clear, the 15 stop logs would be exposed on the downstream side, 16 they would be in effect buried on the upstream 17 side, they are in place, they will be buried on 18 the upstream side, because the top of the stop 19 logs would be coincidental with the bottom of the 20 new 2 per cent channel. 21 MR. WEBSTER: I understand. I think 22 what I'm concerned about is, should the floodway 23 be filled to capacity, those stop logs, as I 24 understand it, are also a measure for protecting 25 flowing of water on to that land? 01773 1 MR. STEFANSON: We are suggesting that 2 if that is a concern, any indication, then this 3 feature would allow a convenient way of preventing 4 that. 5 MR. WEBSTER: So my question is, how 6 do you take care of those stop logs so they can be 7 installed when necessary? 8 MR. STEFANSON: Well, in normal 9 situations where we have that situation, we simply 10 have a shed off to one side. You can have 11 elaborate mechanisms to handle the stop logs, you 12 know, if that is very difficult, or you can have a 13 more simple, more of a hands-on method of doing 14 it. It depends on what is required. But that's 15 something that needs to be looked at in the final 16 design. Hopefully, the simpler it is the better, 17 of course. 18 And of course, this is not a structure 19 where stop logs are manipulated frequently as may 20 be the case in other types of stop log structures. 21 It would be very, very infrequent. So the 22 mechanism to manipulate the stop logs probably 23 should not be very elaborate. 24 MR. WEBSTER: I think my concern is 25 exactly derived from the fact that they wouldn't 01774 1 be used very frequently. And my concern is that 2 in that case these stop logs can be overgrown, 3 buried, abused, otherwise not usable when the time 4 comes. 5 MR. STEFANSON: Well, I would hope 6 that they would be stored in a small shed or 7 something of that sort. 8 MR. WEBSTER: I see. And then the 9 channels into which they could be inserted would 10 be clean and ready to receive them? 11 MR. STEFANSON: Yes. 12 MR. WEBSTER: It would be maintained? 13 MR. STEFANSON: Yes. In fact, I 14 think -- I don't know whether the authority would 15 even find it worthwhile to be concerned about 16 outflow from the floodway except possibly at the 17 Skholny Creek outlet, which is the one furthest 18 north. 19 MR. WEBSTER: I see. So there could 20 be further measures taken at that point to make 21 sure that things were handled, or that the 22 potential was there for them to be handled 23 appropriately? 24 MR. STEFANSON: Right. 25 MR. WEBSTER: I realize that the 01775 1 Floodway Authority is bound to replace the 2 structures because the floodway has to be 3 enlarged, and I wonder to what extent what you are 4 requesting is a more expensive item than what was 5 being planned, to what extent is it more 6 expensive, to what extent is it simply a better 7 structure to serve the purposes of the landowners 8 who need to drain their land? 9 MR. STEFANSON: I'm not quite sure I 10 understood the question? 11 MR. WEBSTER: Is it a question of 12 design or is it a question of increased cost? 13 MR. STEFANSON: Well, it is both, but 14 I think the cost, when considering the cost, I 15 think we have to think of what it is that we are 16 providing for the future. Because we should be 17 prepared to endure some level of cost now so that 18 we don't, we don't find years down the road that 19 we cannot -- we can't make up the upgrading of the 20 system because we are constrained by the fixed 21 aspects of the control structure. 22 MR. WEBSTER: I understand that 23 argument. The question is, how much money beyond 24 what the floodway is proposing are you proposing 25 that they spend to make this modification? I 01776 1 realize that you are going to give an estimate, 2 because you may or may not have those exact 3 figures. 4 MR. STEFANSON: We haven't really 5 considered that question. I think that's a matter 6 of discussion and maybe negotiation when the final 7 design exercise is going on. What I'm suggesting 8 is, if our approach here is viable, that to set 9 the elevation at one level, the permanent sill 10 elevation at one level or another is probably not 11 a significant cost factor. 12 MR. WEBSTER: And can you tell us 13 about the cooperation that you have had with the 14 Floodway Authority in discussing this proposal? 15 MR. STEFANSON: We have had very good 16 cooperation. There has been process, a working 17 group set up, a technical working group set up 18 with representatives of the district and floodway 19 engineers, or authority engineers. And we have 20 had good discussions on it, and we are not -- I 21 think it is fair to say that the district is not 22 here because we are at some sort of an impasse. 23 It is just that we are early in the game and the 24 authority has not committed themselves to 25 seriously following the process that we are 01777 1 suggesting. So the district feels that it needs 2 to try to make sure that these things are 3 seriously considered. 4 We recognize that the authority might 5 not be willing to go any further until we get into 6 the final design exercise, but we wish to be able 7 to have serious input into that exercise in 8 discussions with the final design engineers. 9 MR. WEBSTER: Do you think that the 10 Rural Municipality would be prepared to add 11 something to the budget to be able to make this 12 happen? 13 MR. STEFANSON: Well, actually it is 14 the budget of the Cooks Creek Conservation 15 District that's involved, which of course is 16 partially municipal money. 17 MR. WEBSTER: Maybe I can rephrase the 18 question and say, to what extent is the rural 19 municipality participating in the funding of these 20 modified drop structures? 21 MR. STEFANSON: I think Mr. Buhler can 22 answer that better than I can. 23 MR. BUHLER: We have not approached 24 the municipality in that light. However, it would 25 seem to us that because the structures need 01778 1 replacement, where you set that sill elevation 2 shouldn't really reduce or increase those costs a 3 whole lot. Our producers need to have an 4 assurance that the drainage out of their back 5 pieces can in fact discharge into the floodway. 6 That is our only outlet. 7 And history is a fairly good teacher, 8 and over the last 40 years it has taught us that 9 the existing sills really aren't to the right 10 elevation if we take today's production of crops 11 into consideration. They may have been in '62, 12 '64, '68, they may have been. Things were a fair 13 bit different. 14 Over the last 20 years, we started 15 about 20 years ago where we reconstructed most of 16 the drains to a standard that we could, given the 17 sill elevations. We propose that because the 18 structures need replacement in this particular 19 exercise, then to add an additional bit to the 20 sill elevation, lowering them somewhat, really 21 wouldn't in our opinion increase the cost a whole 22 lot and, therefore, that should be part and parcel 23 of the project. 24 The times have changed so drastically 25 over the last 40 years that cereal crops then 01779 1 were, the input costs weren't there, the profit 2 margin for the producer was a fair bit higher. I 3 think we are now to the point where our producers 4 need to make use of every acre that is available 5 to them, just to have a profit margin that they 6 can actually survive. 7 Second is the producers in our area 8 and others are actually quite adaptable. They 9 will adapt very quickly to changing crops. So if 10 something, if a change comes along, I think they 11 would change up pretty quick if allowed to do so. 12 But we are restricted by the elevation of those 13 structures. 14 Secondly is that if we were to get 15 into the drainage issues, the Red River Valley 16 most of the Red River Valley was actually, the 17 drainages were designed to the value added 18 standard. There is a fair amount of 19 correspondence between the old Water Resources 20 Branch and the district to have this area also, 21 the drainage designed to the value added. The 22 agreement was there at one point in the late '80s 23 and it just did not happen. But, largely, if we 24 were to design our drains to that value added, we 25 likely will need that lower, at least what the 01780 1 proposal is. The additional lowering, we are not 2 going to get an opportunity to redo that, so we 3 are suggesting then lower them, give us the option 4 of lowering that lip so that we can serve our 5 producers. 6 MR. WEBSTER: Just to carry this one 7 step further, last evening we heard from a number 8 of citizens. At least one was talking about, and 9 it was mentioned earlier as well, talked about the 10 prospect of retaining water on land to reduce the 11 severity of a potential flood. 12 Now, a good deal of the agricultural 13 land in the Red River Valley has been developed as 14 a result of the land being able to be drained, or 15 drainage being supplied over the last 100 years or 16 more. 17 To what extent can, or could the area 18 that this drainage system drains, to what extent 19 could it be used in that way, and is it really a 20 feasible use in your mind? 21 MR. BUHLER: We have embarked on a -- 22 in an area on the upstream area of the Cooks Creek 23 itself, on the watershed, and we have had 24 Stefanson Watershed Services do some investigation 25 as far as storage and retention areas in that 01781 1 particular area. And that's actually out in 2 Richer country upstream of number 1 highway. And, 3 yes, it is possible with some progressive thinking 4 and construction, we can store some runoff in that 5 area. But basically we are not overly concerned 6 about the spring runoff as much as the summer 7 rains, that is where the damage occurs. We can 8 actually get damage throughout the spring flooding 9 also, but our main thrust is to try and have our 10 fellows produce and carve out a decent living. 11 That's basically where we are at. 12 There is a certain amount in spring 13 that happens now, and last spring was a fairly 14 good example, where that waffling effect, it 15 actually did happen. It happened through the 16 RM -- in Ste. Annes, RM of Tache, and a good 17 portion of southeast Springfield. And it would in 18 fact fill up one section and spill over to the 19 next, and that kind of thing, it wasn't a control 20 thing, but nonetheless it did happen. And yes, it 21 has an effect, sure. 22 MR. WEBSTER: One further item about 23 channel deepening, and I wondered to what extent 24 it was compatible with the concerns of people in 25 the area about the aquifer, the carbonate aquifer 01782 1 underneath, and whether in fact deepening those 2 drainage channels would increase the possibilities 3 of blowouts and leakage from the carbonate aquifer 4 into those drains? 5 MR. BUHLER: I would pass that over 6 either to Jon or to Alf. 7 MR. STEFANSON: I think if you looked 8 at the floodway cross-sections, you could see that 9 they came very close to the carbonate aquifer, but 10 may or may not have touched it. That is a deep 11 channel, and through the layer of lake deposition 12 clay, plus a layer of glacial till. The 13 agricultural structures will be very much less 14 deep than the floodway, of course. So, no, there 15 is really no prospect of having any impact on the 16 carbonate aquifer. 17 MR. WEBSTER: I guess I wondered 18 whether the carbonate aquifer surface sloped 19 upwards to the east, and whether in fact those 20 channels would impact in a similar way to the 21 floodway. Can you give us assurance that's not 22 the case? 23 MR. STEFANSON: I can't give you 24 absolute assurance, I am not aware that it is 25 close enough to the surface to be involved, but I 01783 1 can't say that for absolute certain. Of course, 2 that's something that would have to be taken into 3 account any time upgrading was considered. 4 MR. WEBSTER: Whereabouts could that 5 information be obtained? 6 MR. STEFANSON: I suppose one source 7 would be the provincial well log files. Every 8 well driller is required by law to submit a report 9 on the circumstances they find while drilling the 10 well, so it could be determined in some fashion by 11 the well records. 12 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, 13 maybe I could add a little bit to that. In the 14 southern portion of the district where it is all 15 clay, where we produce, you know, we have over the 16 years wells drilled, either by personal experience 17 or neighbors. I had a well drilled at my farm in 18 2003, and we hit bedrock at 82 feet, vertical 19 feet, so we are a long ways from bedrock. There 20 is a substantial amount of pure sticky clay for a 21 long ways down. And that's not just in our area, 22 that's in the entire area through south of Dugald 23 up towards Oakbank here, you don't get into that 24 situation until you get up into that Birds Hill 25 area. 01784 1 MR. WEBSTER: Which is actually part 2 of the district that we are talking about overall, 3 but only a very small part of it, is that correct? 4 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, that's correct. 5 The other thing that you have to look at is the 6 slope that comes off Birds Hill is a substantial 7 slope, so the deepening in some of those areas 8 isn't required as much as in the southern areas 9 where it is extremely flat, where the deepening 10 can have the most beneficial effect because we can 11 increase the grade, instead of being a foot per 12 mile, we can maybe increase it to two feet per 13 mile, which is a substantial benefit to drain 14 water off the land in a timely manner. 15 MR. WEBSTER: One final question, and 16 it has to do with wells. You commented about 17 abandoned wells in your presentation, and I 18 wondered how those abandoned wells are located, 19 and perhaps what has allowed them to be left 20 abandoned? Maybe the first question is, how are 21 you locating the abandoned wells? 22 MR. BUHLER: If I may, Mr. Webster. 23 The majority of the times we advertise in the 24 paper, and then we get people coming forward that 25 may or may -- at least do the investigation, and 01785 1 then we go out and investigate it and see if it is 2 in fact an abandoned well, and we then proceed to 3 seal it. And we use bentonite and sand and 4 whatever it takes. 5 MR. WEBSTER: And have you found that 6 to be an extensive problem or one that's 7 occasional? 8 MR. BUHLER: No, it depends on the 9 year naturally, and just to illustrate, we used to 10 charge the landowner $50.00 a well, and then we 11 would pick up and do the work and pay the 12 remaining -- in partnership with PFRA. However, 13 we increased that last year and our participants 14 just dropped by a good 50 or more per cent. So 15 what the board wants to do this year, we will have 16 to decide in the next month or so. But certainly 17 it is an issue. It is a major issue actually. 18 There is a fair amount of abandoned wells in the 19 area. If we see one that isn't being used, we 20 will get ahold of the owner and investigate and 21 see if it in fact is not being used and therefore 22 seal it. 23 MR. WEBSTER: Is well abandonment 24 something that happens today, or is it something 25 that the system now essentially discourages and 01786 1 prevents? 2 MR. BUHLER: No, it is an ongoing 3 thing. Wells have a life, just like anything 4 else. And sometimes when the new one is drilled, 5 the old one maybe gets used for a bit and then 6 sort of just gets forgotten about. So it is an 7 issue that we try and prevent it, contaminants 8 getting down into the aquifer. 9 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Motheral. 11 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you, Mr. 12 Chairman. 13 I would first like to congratulate you 14 on your presentation, it was an excellent 15 presentation to us yesterday, and I was hoping 16 that we would be able to cross-examine immediately 17 after. I have to bring all of this information up 18 the next day to put me on square one. I'm very 19 familiar with the way the conservation district 20 programs operate, I was involved in one myself, 21 and I do know that one of the major funding 22 partners, of course, is Water Stewardship of the 23 Manitoba Government. 24 Your willingness, or plan I should 25 say, to drop in excess of the .6 metres that the 01787 1 Floodway Authority has said they would, to go to 2 an extra .8 metres, has that been brought up to 3 Water Stewardship in your presentation to them or 4 to the Commission or whatever, when you are after 5 funding, because these -- this would require 6 licensing. Am I correct? 7 MR. BUHLER: It may require a water 8 licence, I suppose. No, we haven't taken that to 9 Water Stewardship. However, that would be the 10 process, though, it would go through that process. 11 I may add that we are in fact involved 12 in the licensing end of drainage, licensing, so we 13 don't licence ourselves naturally, but -- 14 MR. MOTHERAL: I'm aware of that and 15 it has been a new project the last couple of years 16 to do that, I realize that. 17 Another simple question, but it can be 18 very complicated, who controls the logs? 19 MR. BUHLER: If I may, I think you are 20 referring to the stop logs in this? 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Yes. 22 MR. BUHLER: I would presume that the 23 control would rest with the floodway, either the 24 authority or the people operating the floodway 25 would be best suited, I would presume. 01788 1 And as far as storage, as was 2 mentioned by Mr. Webster about storage of the stop 3 logs, I understand that they are looking at a 4 facility near the floodway and number 1 highway in 5 the expansion. I'm sure -- there is a yard there 6 that belongs to Water Stewardship. 7 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. Another 8 question, the .6 metres that you are allowed to 9 drop the structures because they are going to be 10 replaced, is that a very significant amount, and 11 will that improve the situation, the present 12 situation a great deal for your landowners and 13 your producers? 14 MR. BUHLER: Yes, it will. It 15 probably suffices for today. It gives us the 16 opportunity to construct and reconstruct our 17 channels so that in fact it will discharge the 18 upper ends. What we are proposing, the additional 19 .6 to .8 lowering is to allow us the option that 20 if the producers need to readapt, change their 21 practices, and if crops are such that they are 22 very vulnerable to water, then in fact we would 23 like to probably reconstruct them so that it could 24 actually remove that water a little quicker. 25 MR. MOTHERAL: Good luck in that 01789 1 endeavor, by the way. 2 And just as a word, just if -- I had 3 more questions, but Barrie took a lot of them that 4 I was going to ask, of course. There is nothing 5 wrong with that. 6 Perhaps, just as maybe some advice, 7 and you are saying that your well abandonment 8 program kind of went down in popularity, you 9 didn't have the demand for the -- it is maybe 10 proper at this stage, would be proper at this 11 stage to increase your awareness of that with the 12 light of what is going on in the next while. 13 Because I think the protection of the aquifer at 14 this point is a very important issue. So just -- 15 maybe I'm trying to promote that myself, and 16 probably for the good of public and for your own 17 organization. 18 MR. BUHLER: You are absolutely 19 correct, and I think that would be our plan. 20 MR. MOTHERAL: I think that's all I 21 have, Mr. Chairman. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think I 23 just have one question, and it was more or less 24 answered in the final question that Mr. McNeil 25 asked of Mr. Stefanson. Am I correct in assuming 01790 1 that what you would like this panel to do is just 2 recommend that the Floodway Authority continue to 3 cooperate with you in advancing your aims? 4 MR. BUHLER: That would be certainly 5 number one, but I think we would like to see that 6 go just a touch farther. And I refer back to our 7 experience with some of the senior level of 8 government where we actually did sign an agreement 9 and got a small portion of. The fellows around 10 here and the municipalities are fairly 11 progressive, and they will work, they will 12 cooperate, they will assess, they will do any 13 number of things to get a job done. 14 What we would really like is for the 15 Commission to recommend that, that condition sets 16 out that they should and must cooperate with 17 ourselves. We would like to be part of the 18 process. It may be something else, it may be 19 instead of .6, it may be .4 or something like 20 that. That's fine. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want us, or 22 would you like us to recommend specific technical 23 changes, or just that they must cooperate with 24 you? The cooperation becomes -- 25 MR. BUHLER: We would like specific -- 01791 1 THE CHAIRMAN: You would like us to 2 recommend specifically a further 0.8, and then 3 matters like that as in your submission? 4 MR. BUHLER: Yes, please. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, I 6 have no further questions. 7 There is an opportunity for any of the 8 registered participants, and there is really only 9 one or two of them in the room today, to ask 10 questions of the Conservation District, if they 11 wish. I don't see any. 12 Mr. Chicoine, do you have any 13 re-examination of your clients at this point on 14 any of the matters that have been brought up? 15 MR. CHICOINE: No. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 17 That concludes your presentation. Thank you. 18 Next is the Peguis Band presentation. 19 (BRIEF RECESS) 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come back to 21 order, please? We will proceed with the next 22 presentation. Just as an aside, it won't affect 23 most of you people in this room, but believe me, 24 before the next round of hearings we are getting 25 better at electronic equipment. 01792 1 Mr. Stevenson, I will have the 2 commission secretary swear you in. 3 4 (EARL STEVENSON SWORN) 5 6 MR. STEVENSON: First of all, I would 7 like to thank the Commission for giving me the 8 opportunity to speak in front of them, and in 9 front of the audience. I will read our submission 10 into the proceedings. 11 Peguis First Nation recognizes the 12 value and importance of the floodway expansion 13 project to the economy and well-being for the City 14 of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba. 15 Secondary benefits will occur in Manitoba and 16 Canada as well. 17 Through our participation in the 18 process, our expectation is that we will benefit 19 from a project of this magnitude. We welcome the 20 process and it is with hope that the process 21 itself is useful to all interveners, the Manitoba 22 Clean Environment Commission, the proponent, and 23 of course, the project administration team. 24 The opportunity before us provides 25 Manitoba and the proponent a chance to accommodate 01793 1 improvements suggested not only by Peguis First 2 Nation but by other intervenors. We trust that 3 the process itself will enhance the final outcome 4 of this initiative that we are participating 5 within. 6 The submission provides key areas for 7 discussion and consideration to enhancing the 8 Environmental Impact Statement. Peguis First 9 Nation requests the Manitoba Floodway Authority to 10 fully consider and accommodate the needs when 11 finalizing the plans for the project. In 12 addition, advocacy is urged to ensure flood 13 protection is afforded to our community in an 14 equitable manner. 15 Our community is under constant flood 16 threat every year. We can not allow another 17 generation of our people to endure the scope of 18 circumstances as a result of the flooding. Now is 19 a time for action for protection for our 20 community. 21 Just a brief historical basis. Our 22 people from the Peguis First Nation have a strong 23 connection to the lands and waters associated with 24 the Red River Valley. This area has always and 25 continues to be an integral component of our 01794 1 traditional territory since time immemorial. 2 In post contact history, our great 3 leader, Chief Peguis, established our community 4 along the banks of the Red, which later became 5 known as St. Peter's Reserve in 1871. The image 6 up here shows the St. Peter's Indian Reserve 7 adjacent to the Town of Selkirk, which you really 8 can't see. But, again, St. Peter's Indian Reserve 9 was located on the east and west banks of the Red 10 River, or the lower Red River, near the mouth of 11 the Red River along Lake Winnipeg. 12 Chief Peguis recognized the value of 13 friendship, and thus when the Selkirk settlers 14 arrived in the area, the chief welcomed them by 15 ensuring their survival in the first harsh winters 16 by sharing game, shelter, warm pelts, and 17 providing protection. Chief Peguis offered 18 assistance and ensured the survival of the Red 19 River Colony, and was a major force in 20 guaranteeing the success of the Colony. 21 History has shown that Chief Peguis 22 and his people have shared the bounty of the land 23 and the waters, and helped further by teaching and 24 showing the newcomers how to survive and prosper 25 in our ancestral lands. Lord Selkirk recognized 01795 1 the philanthropy of Chief Peguis, as he presented 2 the chief with a silver medallion in 1871. Our 3 connections and footprints are indelibly marked on 4 this landscape. 5 I just want to speak a little bit 6 about flooding in Peguis reserve 1B. And the 7 image that we are projecting up there is the 8 designation of drains for the Fisher River 9 watershed circa 1990, and right in the centre of 10 that image you would notice the boundaries for the 11 Peguis Reserve. If I had the pointer I would 12 point that out. 13 So this would be the boundary for the 14 Peguis Reserve. And this is the Fisher River 15 watershed designation of drains, and it drains 16 into the Fisher Bay, which is part of Lake 17 Winnipeg. And this is the Fisher River Cree 18 Nation here. 19 The City of Winnipeg and our lands at 20 the Peguis Reserve 1B share a phenomenon, and that 21 is flooding. In addition, our current reserve 22 lands and potential future land acquisitions 23 within the former St. Peter's Reserve area are 24 also under similar threat. Drainage has a 25 tremendous impact on water regime flows. It is 01796 1 evident for the Red River Valley and the Fisher 2 River watershed. 3 A made in Manitoba drainage system 4 that was created in the southern portion of the 5 Fisher River watershed exceeds 400 kilometres. 6 Consider the fact that the Town of Fisher 7 Branch -- right there -- sits approximately 121 8 feet higher than the administration complex in 9 Peguis -- right there. 10 For your information, and in my 11 consideration, Peguis Reserve 1B is probably the 12 most often flooded community in Manitoba, and 13 perhaps in Canada. 14 In the late 1960s and early 1970s 15 Canada and Manitoba initiates a drainage program 16 in the Rural Municipality of Fisher as part of its 17 fund for rural economic development program, borne 18 out of the Federal Agricultural Rural Development 19 Act. This was the genesis for the huge drainage 20 system now evident primarily in the southern half 21 of the watershed. That drainage system has 22 created significant artificial flooding in Peguis. 23 Our elders have pointed out that our community 24 never experienced this type of flooding before the 25 drainage system was built. 01797 1 Peguis First Nation has now 2 experienced major flood events at these times 3 where partial or complete evacuations of the 4 community have occurred, starting in 1974, 1979, 5 1986, 1989, 1996, 1997, 1998. In 1999 there was a 6 summer flood event, in 2000 a summer flood event, 7 and in 2001 a spring and summer flood event. And 8 of course in 2004 there was a spring event where 9 the majority of our community was evacuated. 10 I would just like to point to this 11 image, it is from the Winnipeg Free Press, 12 April 24, 1974. I would like to read the caption 13 underneath. 14 "Seven year old Earl Stevenson from 15 the Peguis Reserve passes time by 16 working on a colouring book while 17 living in a temporary residence in the 18 Gimli Industrial Park. Earl is one of 19 about 800 people who have been 20 evacuated from the Fisher River and 21 Peguis Reserves because of flooding." 22 Again, Winnipeg Free Press, April 24, 1974. 23 This image shows the drainage system 24 as it ends at the southern boundary of the Peguis 25 Reserve. So I will just point that out. That's 01798 1 the southern boundary for the Peguis reserve, here 2 is the drainage system that was improved in the RM 3 of Fisher, so the waters are draining north into 4 our community, and there is an abrupt end where 5 the drainage system has been stopped. 6 This is an image of a house from 1979, 7 this 1979 flood event. Right here, if you can 8 barely make it out, that's a canoe, that's the 9 mode of transportation that we had to utilize in 10 order to ferry this family back and forth from 11 their house. 12 This is from 2001, that's a business 13 in the north end of the community, there is a car 14 wash. And outside of the picture on the immediate 15 right there is a gas bar that is also completely 16 surrounded by water. That's Provincial Road 224 17 on the left of the picture. 18 This is from April 2004, one of our 19 homes again has had to undergo temporary sand 20 bagging to protect that home. This is an image of 21 the west road, that's west of the Fisher River, 22 and there is a truck driving on the road that is 23 evacuating a family for their safety and 24 protection. I would like to point out that the 25 level of the water on that road exceeds the bumper 01799 1 height of that three-quarter ton truck. 2 This is just an aerial photo of, I 3 guess of the left of that image. That's our new 4 school complex that was recently built at a price 5 of $32 million approximately. 6 And our, the education of our children 7 is at risk every year because a lot of these roads 8 that we have to travel on are impassable, and they 9 are a definite hazard to the number of our school 10 children. A number of school days are lost as a 11 result of flooding every year. So there is 12 significant impacts socially and, of course, the 13 delivery of education programs is impacted by 14 events of this type. 15 In the years that I didn't mention 16 earlier, there would be a variety of magnitude of 17 localized flooding. So we endure flooding every 18 year as a result of the drainage impacts south of 19 our community. 20 In the spring of 2004, we again 21 experienced major flooding in our community. Many 22 of you may have seen the images splashed across 23 regional telecasts or nationally on the weather 24 network. Because we experience major flooding 25 with regularity, our community is in a state of 01800 1 perpetual recovery. 2 The following is a snapshot of 3 consequences as a result of the 2004 flood. There 4 is approximately 800 evacuees to Winnipeg, 100 5 evacuees moved in with their families out of the 6 flood zone in the community, and our senior centre 7 citizens were relocated to Gimli; 197 homes were 8 flooded; 33 homes and trailers were damaged; 28 9 businesses of course affected; and 147 areas where 10 water was over the roads with 17 areas completely 11 washed out. There were 700 pump-outs of basements 12 and 300 pump-outs of septic tanks. Nine new wells 13 had to be dug after shock treatment could not 14 rehabilitate those wells. 15 As it stands, our community has had to 16 deal with an incomplete water management plan laid 17 out for the Fisher River watershed. We were not 18 involved in any of the planning for the incomplete 19 drainage program for the Fisher River. We hope 20 that a similar situation does not occur with the 21 Red River, and that environmental effects from the 22 floodway expansion project do not surface in the 23 future. 24 By participating in this process, we 25 wish to signal our readiness to assist in water 01801 1 management regimes that affect the Red River, a 2 system that is integral to our well-being as an 3 indigenous community. 4 From there I will delve briefly into 5 our EIS commentary. As stated in the Peguis First 6 Nation initial commentary on the floodway EIS, 7 there were three crucial areas of discussion, and 8 the following will provide some detail on all 9 three points. 10 The first point we advocate for is a 11 rights based approach. Peguis First Nation 12 leadership and technical staff have consistently 13 stated that the project must consider and respect 14 the rights of First Nations. These may be treaty, 15 Aboriginal, inherent, and human rights, along with 16 other rights related to other international 17 covenants. Peguis First Nation citizens are 18 rights holders and not mere stakeholders or a 19 special interest group. This approach provides 20 credence and clarity to the demands for improving 21 the quality of life, opportunities that exist with 22 this project. 23 We are in a continual struggle for 24 justice, and the rights based approach provides 25 greater political weight and legitimacy. Based on 01802 1 recent judicial history in this country related to 2 First Nation rights, it is apparent that the 3 government must deal with the facts that the 4 rights held by First Nations, not only in economic 5 and social policy, but also on the basis of 6 constitutional law. 7 Improvement on the interface between 8 law and policy can be achieved in the recognition 9 of section 35 rights and guided by the principles 10 of the Supreme Law of Canada. 11 On a number of occasions inquiries 12 were made to the proponent and the EIS consultants 13 regarding the approaches utilized that ensure the 14 protection and preservation of rights that we as 15 indigenous people hold, since the project is 16 located within the lands and waters of our 17 traditional territory. 18 No exploratory questions were asked 19 with regard to potential impacts to rights. The 20 social impact assessment did not even consider the 21 issue regardless of the fact that, 22 "The EIA focuses on estimated effects 23 to land and resource use for 24 traditional and other purposes by this 25 Aboriginal community and does not 01803 1 attempt to describe or define effects 2 on any specific Aboriginal or treaty 3 rights." 4 That's located in the EIS volume 1, page 8-39. 5 If there were a change in the 6 environment as a result of the project, this may 7 have an effect on the pursuit of our activities, 8 activities that provide the basis for many of the 9 rights that we hold. The EIS guidelines were in 10 part to examine potential changes to the 11 environment, including, 12 "The current use of lands and 13 resources for traditional purposes by 14 Aboriginal persons." 15 The results achieved from the EIS do not meet the 16 expectations presented within the guidelines. 17 Second point that would we like to 18 raise, in terms of the geographic scope of the 19 project, the flood study region as described in 20 the EIS volume 1 is, 21 "Defined for all environmental 22 components based on a maximum 23 geographic extent to which the project 24 may be expected to have discernible 25 biophysical effects." 01804 1 That's located on page 2-5 volume 1. 2 Contrasted, the EIS subsequently 3 reduces any potential for assessing the full scope 4 of the project by limiting specific environmental 5 effects to within the site footprint or expanded 6 right-of-way. What is requested is rationale or 7 clarification why an eco-system based approach was 8 not utilized, even though the flood study region 9 and environmental components therein have the 10 potential to be impacted. 11 The Manitoba Government's approach in 12 dealing with the Devils Lake issue can be viewed 13 as employing an eco-system based approach. Common 14 sense will dictate that a similar approach with 15 this project would assist the NDP Government in 16 working towards a holistic strategy for improving 17 the Red River, Netley Marsh and Lake Winnipeg 18 eco-systems. 19 It is unfortunate that the EIS is 20 focused primarily on the floodway right-of-way and 21 scuttled an opportunity to create synergies for 22 the health of interrelated eco-systems and the 23 promotion and conservation of biological diversity 24 within these eco-systems. 25 The third point, in respect of the the 01805 1 cumulative effects assessment, and in conjunction 2 with eco-system based approached suggested the 3 following must be considered: From a cumulative 4 effects standpoint, the hydrodynamic modeling 5 conducted for the lower Red River utilized data 6 that covered between five to seven kilometres on 7 the east and west side of the river. This does 8 not allow for a full cumulative effects assessment 9 on the existing drainage in the region. 10 Our history and experiences with 11 flooding and cumulative impacts require that an 12 expanded study be conducted to include drainage 13 conditions from all creeks and drains that flow 14 into the Red River north of the City of Winnipeg. 15 Such information may assist Peguis First Nation in 16 future long term planning. 17 In addition, cumulative effects 18 assessment should be utilized to consider total 19 suspended solids, potential sedimentation and 20 downstream impacts within the Netley Marsh and 21 Lake Winnipeg due to nutrient loading and fecal 22 indicator bacteria. Examining of point and 23 non-point sources of pollution along the related 24 eco-systems fed by the Red River, in collaboration 25 with a body such as the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship 01806 1 Board, would certainly assist the Provincial 2 Government in working towards sustainable 3 development and stewardship targets, while 4 enhancing the environmental assessment process for 5 the project. 6 I would like to point out that the 7 Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board, their report was 8 released last Friday, and I haven't had time to 9 rigorously examine that report yet. 10 Related to the total suspended solids 11 issue, a chemical usage appendix is required for 12 outlining the amounts and the spatial and temporal 13 applications of biocides used in the project and 14 after project completion. 15 Furthermore, the construction phase in 16 the environmental protection plan lacks detail. 17 It amounts to little more than a "plan to plan" 18 for environmental protection. 19 The construction phase environmental 20 plan should, as an example, in its monitoring 21 follow-up, assess the accuracy of the assessments 22 related to the environmental effect measurement 23 and identification. More detail is required, 24 otherwise we go through an iterative process over 25 and over. 01807 1 There is more discussion on the 2 construction phase environmental plan that should 3 be happening at this point in the process. 4 Just a few concluding comments on the 5 EIS. The residual from environmental effects, 6 whether real or potential, will occur. The 7 impacts outlined within the EIS are negligible or 8 not significant within the right-of-way of the 9 project. What occurs if one or more of the 10 predictions are wrong? An unpredicted 11 environmental effect could surface as a result of 12 the project. The logical sequencing of a rights 13 and eco-system based approach, along with a more 14 detailed cumulative effects assessment will 15 certainly enhance the EIS. The opportunity exists 16 to utilize a global approach to encouraging 17 healthier eco-system services. The opportunity to 18 enrich eco-system integrity and enhanced 19 biological diversity can be realized from a 20 project of this magnitude. 21 I would just like to point out some of 22 our reserve lands along the Red River. This slide 23 shows the mouth of the Netley Creek as it enters 24 the Red River, and to the immediate north of 25 Netley Creek we have Indian reserve 1D, and 01808 1 immediately south of the Netley Creek to the west 2 of the road, you would find Indian reserve 1E. 3 In addition, with those two parcels -- 4 there are six parcels of reserve land adjacent to 5 or very near the Red River. These small parcels 6 of land total just over 500 acres but have great 7 historical and cultural significance to our 8 community. The six parcels are located within the 9 boundaries of our former St. Peter's Reserve. 10 This is an image of the mouth of 11 Netley Creek looking at reserve 1D. 12 In addition, protection initiatives 13 should be explored and implemented for the St. 14 Peter's Dynevor Church and graveyard which is 15 threatened by flood events, such as the one that 16 occurred last year with regards to ice jamming. 17 One may consider this is a value added component 18 to the expansion project. 19 This is an image of St. Peter's Church 20 from across the Red River, and the magnitude of 21 the ice jam is evident. And here is a close-up of 22 the graveyard from St. Peter's Dynevor Church, and 23 the proximity of the ice jam to the graveyard, and 24 there is a certain threat there to the graveyard 25 as a result of ice jamming. 01809 1 Currently Peguis First Nations is near 2 a final agreement with Canada and Manitoba with 3 respect to our outstanding treaty land 4 entitlement. A unique aspect of the agreement is 5 a return of the portion of the former St. Peter's 6 Reserve back to Peguis. The land offer consists 7 of Crown land and would also be found within the 8 boundaries of the former St. Peter's Reserve. 9 Further, the Crown lands are located on both sides 10 of the Red River, and it should be noted that 11 Peguis First Nation may complement its Crown land 12 acquisitions by acquiring other lands in the same 13 vicinity in the future. 14 As one should understand, our 15 interests and rights may be directly affected by 16 this project. This would warrant strong 17 consideration for the commentary provided by 18 Peguis First Nation by both Canada and Manitoba. 19 As a result, the three points raised earlier 20 hopefully will be followed through to completion. 21 I just want to try to synthesize the 22 comments that I have made so far and provide an 23 understanding to the Commission for our rationale 24 and justification for raising these points. 25 Peguis First Nations is pleased that 01810 1 the City of Winnipeg will further enhance its 2 flood protection system. In addition, many 3 communities in the Red River Valley have received 4 flood protection and mitigation measures since and 5 prior to the flood of 1997. We are envious of the 6 flood protection strategies implemented for these 7 communities. We can only wonder where and when 8 will our community have enhanced flood protection. 9 In addition, many of these same 10 communities will have an opportunity to seek 11 legislated compensation for future artificial 12 flooding. We can only wonder where is the 13 opportunity for compensating our community from 14 past artificial flooding? In addition, we are 15 excluded from obtaining artificial flood 16 compensation in the future, when future events are 17 certainly going to occur. 18 To that end, the Clean Environment 19 Commission must recommend that a diversion project 20 for the Fisher River be implemented for the Peguis 21 First Nation to protect our community from 22 artificial flooding. We require a made in 23 Manitoba solution to a made in Manitoba problem. 24 Due to the fact that the floodway 25 expansion project is located within our 01811 1 traditional territory, and impacts on our lands 2 along the Red River may occur, it is imperative 3 that the proponents guarantee a minimum set aside 4 for Peguis First Nation employment within the 5 project that must be negotiated. Peguis First 6 Nation citizens can provide expertise from the 7 engineering project management side down to the 8 services and general labour categories. A further 9 set aside may be necessary for other First Nations 10 interested in working on the project. 11 The proponent must monitor and report 12 annually on First Nations hiring for the project, 13 and further report on the effectiveness of 14 associated training programs resulting from the 15 project. Nothing short of full and equal 16 opportunity for Peguis First Nation procurement 17 within the project is expected. 18 As we develop further expertise 19 resulting from the project, we will then be able 20 to carry this expertise forward to the diversion 21 on the Fisher River that must be constructed. 22 The recent history of flooding 23 activity at Peguis Reserve 1B has provided us with 24 the unfortunate experience of dealing with 25 environmental effects too often. Peguis First 01812 1 Nation is envious of the flood protection offered 2 to the City of Winnipeg and to Manitobans in the 3 Red River Valley. 4 Premier Doer and Prime Minister Martin 5 have often stated that Manitoba is the best 6 Province and Canada is the best country in the 7 world in which to live. I would like the same to 8 be said for us, that we can also boast that we 9 have the same quality of life derived from our 10 ancestral lands and waters as other Canadians, but 11 we can not. Equity must be provided to our people 12 as well when it comes to flood protection, we 13 deserve no less. 14 The floodway expansion project is also 15 an opportunity for the provincial and federal 16 governments to embrace concerns from communities 17 north and south of Winnipeg and to look beyond the 18 perimeter, providing more secure sense of 19 togetherness in defending all communities from 20 hazards that the floodway was designed for. This 21 must be achieved. 22 The position take by the Peguis First 23 Nation on the floodway expansion project is to 24 provide conditional support for the project. It 25 is evident that the project will proceed, and that 01813 1 we assume that environmental approval will occur. 2 Due to the fact that the project will affect our 3 community in a variety of ways, we have to be 4 involved at all levels. 5 The issues raised from this 6 presentation can be addressed and met with 7 willingness and commitment of both levels of 8 government. 9 I like to thank the Commission for the 10 time and opportunity to make this presentation. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 12 Mr. Stevenson. Are there any questions from the 13 Floodway Authority? 14 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Jon 15 Osler has a couple of questions. 16 MR. J. OSLER: Just two questions. 17 The first question is, has the Manitoba Floodway 18 Authority been working with Peguis First Nation to 19 help facilitate your identification of your 20 traditional land use and current resource use 21 within the study region? 22 MR. STEVENSON: Working? 23 MR. J. OSLER: Working with you to 24 help facilitate your identification. 25 MR. STEVENSON: I would say -- I 01814 1 wouldn't say they are working, but I would say 2 they have made attempts to meet some of our 3 concerns with regard to our traditional land and 4 resource use. 5 MR. J. OSLER: Thank you. The second 6 question is, has the Manitoba Floodway Authority 7 also been working with you to help facilitate your 8 identification of any potential infringements on 9 your treaty and Aboriginal rights? 10 MR. STEVENSON: I would say no. 11 MR. J. OSLER: Why would you say that, 12 sir? 13 MR. STEVENSON: I have posed questions 14 at workshops with regards to protection and 15 preservation of treaty and Aboriginal rights but 16 have not received what I would consider adequate 17 response. 18 MR. J. OSLER: The question was, have 19 they been working with you to help facilitate your 20 identification of any potential infringement of 21 treaty and Aboriginal rights? 22 MR. STEVENSON: I think the issue is 23 whether or not the Floodway Authority has 24 recognized perhaps that -- whether or not, there 25 may or may not be potential infringements. So I 01815 1 haven't received that level of assurance yet from 2 the proponents to warrant a response. 3 MR. J. OSLER: Okay. Those are the 4 two questions, sir. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: To follow on Mr. 6 Osler's questions, are discussions, or working 7 together, or however you want to characterize it, 8 is it continuing a relationship with the Floodway 9 Authority, or between the Floodway Authority and 10 Peguis First Nation? 11 MR. STEVENSON: I would like to point 12 out that the dialogue between Peguis and the 13 Floodway Authority has been positive. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: And are you hopeful 15 that your concerns will be met through this 16 dialogue? 17 MR. STEVENSON: I am always hopeful. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you expect it will 19 be met? 20 MR. STEVENSON: Well, expectations and 21 hope are two different things. I guess part of 22 our participation here is to raise our issues, not 23 only with the Commission and the Floodway 24 Authority, but also with civil society, and to 25 point out that we deserve the same level of 01816 1 respect, the same level of equity as other 2 Manitobans. We hear a lot of the political 3 leaders in the province state that, you know, they 4 would like to treat everybody as Manitobans. And 5 if that's the case, then I would like to be 6 treated as an equal Manitoban and be afforded the 7 opportunity to protect our community from similar 8 hazards as the City of Winnipeg. So I'm sort of 9 indulging myself here in trying to raise our 10 profile a little bit to wrestle with some of the 11 issues that we have to deal with. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I recognize that you 13 are taking advantage of this situation to profile 14 your other concerns. Your other concerns would 15 clearly be outside of our mandate; however, is any 16 progress being made on that front? 17 MR. STEVENSON: There is limited 18 progress, not as much progress as we would like 19 obviously. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any kind of a 21 Federal/Provincial/First Nation agreement, or even 22 a study group? 23 MR. STEVENSON: We are in the process 24 of working towards a MOU with Manitoba and Canada 25 hopefully on flood protection for our community. 01817 1 By being here also we are hoping to expedite that 2 process. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Coming back to the 4 Winnipeg floodway, are you making any progress in 5 respect of training and work opportunities for 6 members of your First Nation? 7 MR. STEVENSON: We have a number of 8 individuals that have undergone heavy equipment 9 training, and we have a fairly in-depth human 10 resource data base that we are willing to share 11 with the Floodway Authority with regards to 12 providing human resource, human capacity for the 13 project. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: And are you working 15 with the Floodway Authority in that regard? 16 MR. STEVENSON: Yes, we are prepared 17 to work with the Floodway Authority in that 18 regard. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Prepared to, or have 20 you been -- 21 MR. STEVENSON: We have had an initial 22 meeting with regard to the discussion of the human 23 resources issues, so we have shared our database 24 with them and we are willing to work with them 25 further on that. 01818 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have no 2 further questions. Mr. Webster. 3 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. One of the 4 messages that you've left with us is that former 5 floodway construction, in another part of the 6 province that is nevertheless Peguis First Nation 7 territory, that is south of the territory, has in 8 fact provided a mechanism for water to enter that 9 particular territory, at the end of an engineering 10 structure, at the boundary of the reserve -- you 11 have been delivered water that you can't handle. 12 I'm wondering if you have as part of your 13 objective to leave us with the impression that you 14 believe that the planned floodway expansion around 15 Winnipeg is likely to have the same effect on the 16 land, that's Peguis First Nations land, 17 downstream? Is that one of the things that you 18 are trying to leave us with? 19 MR. STEVENSON: Yes. Based on our 20 experience that we have had with the Fisher River 21 watershed and the number of drainage improvements 22 south of our community, the impacts that they have 23 had on our community, we are concerned that, you 24 know, we don't want history to repeat itself in 25 terms of when we potentially develop in whatever 01819 1 manner, the lands that we have currently and 2 future land acquisitions, we don't want to be 3 placed in a position where we are in jeopardy, and 4 we don't want to repeat history. So we want to 5 make sure that by being involved in the process, 6 that we have a voice, and that concerns that we 7 may have in the future perhaps can be dealt with 8 at this time. Whether or not that's feasible, I'm 9 not sure, but at least we want this process to 10 follow through in an equitable manner so that we 11 can try to safeguard our future also. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Am I correct, though, in 13 understanding that your major need is to have 14 involvement and employment in the project, rather 15 than with specific concerns that the floodway 16 itself will have a direct and specific effect on 17 the Peguis land and people? 18 MR. STEVENSON: I think the employment 19 aspect is only one issue of our concerns. I mean, 20 the thing is there is potential for environmental 21 effects to happen in the future, and whether or 22 not an expanded floodway is part of those 23 environmental effects, I think that issue has to 24 be vetted out a bit more. And whether or not 25 those potential environmental effects will occur 01820 1 on our lands or our waters, we have to have some 2 input in terms of what those potentials are, and 3 whether or not there can be mitigative action that 4 can be taken now instead of reacting in the future 5 perhaps. 6 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you very much. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Motheral? Any 8 members of the other participant groups? Seeing 9 none, thank you very much, Mr. Stevenson, for your 10 presentation. We will take a 15 minute break now, 11 after which we will have the Coalition for Flood 12 Protection North. Please set up your technology 13 during the break so that we are ready to go in 15 14 minutes. 15 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, can we add 16 a few exhibits here, we have one left over from 17 last night, Mr. Allen's presentation will be 18 exhibit 68, and an additional item from 19 Mr. Millman will be exhibit 69, and 20 Mr. Stevenson's presentation will be 70. 21 22 (EXHIBIT 68: Mr. Bruce Allen's 23 presentation to CEC) 24 25 01821 1 (EXHIBIT 69: Additional documentation from Mr. 2 Millman) 3 4 (EXHIBIT 70: Mr. Earl Stevenson's 5 presentation to CEC) 6 (Proceedings recessed at 10:45 a.m. 7 and reconvened at 11:00 a.m.) 8 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come back to 10 order, please? Next up is the Coalition for Flood 11 Protection North of the Floodway. 12 Now, Mr. Jonasson, how many of the 13 people at the table will be giving evidence? 14 MR. JONASSON: Four and myself. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: And your consultant as 16 well? 17 MR. JONASSON: Yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't we have 19 everybody introduce themselves first, and then 20 those that are going to be giving evidence, 21 perhaps we'll just have them stand, and then the 22 Commission secretary can swear them in. Okay. We 23 can start at the far end. Just introduce 24 yourself, please? 25 MR. WARD: I'm Laury Ward from 01822 1 Selkirk, Breezy Point Road. 2 MS. WARD: I'm Joyce Ward, 1375 Breezy 3 Point road. 4 MS. ANTAL: I'm Maria Antal, 1358 5 Breezy Point Road. 6 MR. HAGEN: I'm Jack Hagen from 7 Petersfield, Manitoba. 8 MR. CHORNEY: I'm Doug Chorney from 9 East Selkirk. 10 MS. JONASSON: Sheila Jonasson from 11 Lockport in St. Clements. 12 MR. JONASSON: Jack Jonasson, 13 Lockport, St. Clements. 14 MR. MOIR: My name is James Moir, I am 15 a CRA at Waterloo. 16 MR. REID: Ian Reid, Kiwanis in the 17 Red in the Town of Selkirk. 18 MR. NESKAR: Ryan Neskar, East 19 Selkirk, St. Clements. 20 MR. ALLEN: Bruce Allen, Breezy Point 21 Road. 22 MR. SHACHTAY: John Shachtay, Breezy 23 Point Road. 24 MR. SMITH: Norm Smith, St. Clements. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now, 01823 1 perhaps those that are going to be giving evidence 2 will just stand for a moment and I'll have the 3 Commission secretary swear you in. 4 5 (WITNESSES SWORN) 6 7 MR. JONASSON: Mr. Chair, our 8 presentation will be in two parts, one where we 9 have our expert witness testifying. Jim will 10 indicate what his area of expertise is. And 11 following his presentation, there will be a time 12 for questioning him. And then we will go on with 13 our presentation from the people living in our 14 area and members of our group. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 16 MR. MOIR: My name is Jim Moir. I am 17 a civil engineer by training, background and 18 practice. I graduated in '72 and have 19 post-graduate training. My CV's in the back of 20 our report. 21 In 1978, I joined Esso Resources 22 Canada Limited, just two years after the Berger 23 Inquiry in '76 turned down any development in the 24 Mackenzie Valley, started a development at Norman 25 Wells halfway up the Mackenzie Valley. We started 01824 1 in earnest in 1979, and started construction in 2 1983. 3 The approach that Esso took at that 4 time was one of great collegiality and absence of 5 confrontation. The work was thorough, it was 6 extremely thorough, and that is why things went as 7 quickly as they did. 8 I personally had an incredible 9 opportunity. I was 30 years old at the time and I 10 had a $2 million aircraft at my disposal for 11 three, four weeks every month during breakup of 12 Mackenzie. And I was fortunate to be able to 13 record and document the breakup of the Mackenzie 14 River perhaps for the first time anybody had that 15 opportunity. We took aerial photographs, using a 16 standard aerial camera out of the back end of the 17 aircraft. It's a lot of fun looking down through 18 a glass 1,200 feet with nothing but you and this 19 little piece of glass. I also took a lot of 20 oblique photographs as well. 21 Before I went up there the first time 22 in April 1979, I had done a very thorough 23 literature search of ice jamming. I thought I 24 understood what it was about, based on my training 25 as well when I was an undergraduate. And the 01825 1 first time I got up in an aircraft, I said, oh 2 boy -- not quite those words that I said -- 3 because what I saw was totally different from what 4 was in the books. And thereafter, quite a lot of 5 development has gone on in ice jamming work in 6 this country. And I think I know just about 7 everybody who has been involved in it at one time 8 or another in the last 24 years. 9 I'm just going to step through that 10 brief introduction, I'll just go through some of 11 the concerns of the folks who hired us to look at 12 this work. And I'm going to just review some of 13 the issues. I provided an outline here. I will 14 have some explanatory verbal comments as we go 15 through. You might want to copy some of them down 16 where you are interested. Then I'm just going to 17 conclude with comments about compensation or 18 around other issues. 19 I will say that I first heard about 20 this in early November, had about three days in 21 total to do this whole project, to review the 22 material, and then as the opportunity came to do 23 the presentation last week had another few days. 24 I spent most of the weekend padding 25 around the house thinking about this as well. So 01826 1 we had to go through this enormous amount of 2 material that was presented to us and distill it 3 down to something like this. I may have missed 4 something, I may well have missed something that 5 is there. So if I say something like that, my 6 apologies. 7 The Red River is one of the classic 8 rivers, north flowing rivers with ice jams. 9 You've got Mackenzie, you've got three or four 10 rivers in Quebec and you have the Red River. They 11 are absolutely classic north flowing rivers, means 12 ice jams every time. There is no mystery about 13 this. This is something we learned in school 35 14 years ago, and even way before I went to school. 15 We all know the Red River floodway 16 diversion was built in the mid '60's. The channel 17 was designed to be capable of carrying about the 18 one in a hundred year flow, and lo and behold that 19 happened, not surprising. 20 The expansion, as I understand it, is 21 intended to carry the one in 700 year flow. It 22 seems like a particularly odd number. And I 23 assume it's a discharge related number and not 24 something based on maximal probable flood or 25 something like that. It strikes me as a little 01827 1 bit odd, because with dams in this day and age, 2 for quite some time now we've been building to 3 maximum probable flood, or at least taking that 4 into account, and this has aspects of dam 5 technology in it. You've got water held uphill 6 artificially. You have people down below. It's a 7 dam. There are design criteria in this country 8 for those kinds of issues. That may or may not be 9 an issue here. If it's a discharge limited issue, 10 well, I don't think that gets around that, but 11 that is an issue. 12 The current floodway as proposed 13 clearly does nothing for the residents north of 14 Winnipeg. It seems to address something -- issues 15 of people south of Winnipeg and it addresses 16 Winnipeg, but it doesn't seem to do nothing for 17 the people north of Winnipeg. 18 The folks who hired us are, as you 19 know, the folks here. My area that I'm going to 20 be talking about is mostly relating to the flood 21 protection. These were their issues, flood 22 protection, various elements related to the 23 expansion, how the floodway might be operated, of 24 which there are a lot of opportunities there. 25 Peter talked on I believe it was Monday or Tuesday 01828 1 about environmental quality. 2 And their concern as expressed for ice 3 jamming was one of compensation. That may be a 4 mechanism for dealing with the uncertainties 5 attached to what is happening in the Red below. 6 The concerns I think can be expressed 7 maybe in two ways, what's in the proposed 8 expansion and what is not in the proposed 9 expansion. Their concerns are the expansion will 10 exacerbate the ice jam problems north of the 11 floodway outlet and will lead to incremental 12 flooding beyond the state of nature north of the 13 floodway. 14 I remain confused after reading the 15 documentation four or five times at least as to 16 what the baseline is and what is considered state 17 of nature. Nature seems to be used several 18 different ways with several different meanings and 19 intent in the documentation, whether it's 20 pre-development, pre-Winnipeg, the floodway as 21 built in '68 and started to operate, the floodway 22 as exists now in absence of maintenance, or 23 something else, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what 24 the baseline is. It would be helpful to clarify 25 that explicitly in all the documentation and use 01829 1 an explicit meaning for the word nature. 2 I'm not a lawyer, but I think that 3 would be a word that would attract a lot of 4 attention in the future and it needs to be 5 explicitly defined and be consistently used. 6 What's not in the floodway is there is 7 no statement about, there is no benefits to the 8 property owners north of the floodway. But you 9 have this thing that got built in the mid '60's. 10 It didn't, as I know -- I mean, I learned about it 11 when I was an undergraduate -- it was thoroughly 12 engineer but it didn't go through an environmental 13 review process, as far as I know. You have an 14 opportunity to re-engineer, rethink the design 15 criteria for this flood control mechanism. 16 You know, I spent a lot my time now, 17 at this point in my career, fixing up other 18 people's mistakes. I am paid very well to fix up 19 engineering that occurred in the '50's and '60's 20 and '70's. And I would suggest that you have an 21 opportunity here to avoid repeating the errors 22 simply by expanding the floodway as is. There are 23 many things you could do. 24 Whether you are constrained by capital 25 or other things, I'm not sure, but there is an 01830 1 opportunity here to re-examine the existing 2 floodway, what it does, and do it right. It may 3 be another 50 years before you have another 4 opportunity. 5 There are photographs that I've seen 6 of ice jams near the bridge crossing, particularly 7 the one in Selkirk, the lift bridge there, where 8 the ice is pretty, darn close. And again, no 9 compensation. 10 And the way I'm using compensation 11 here, I think about it, my thinking has changed 12 from the literal dollar signs to a safety factor 13 on the uncertainties of the design and what the 14 impact is downstream. Jack may disagree with 15 that. So be it. 16 The hydraulics is really 17 straightforward in how it is applied. I mean, 18 this is a complicated system, but there have been 19 far more complicated systems designed and built. 20 The models used, particularly HEC-RAS, which I 21 would hardly call a model. It's just an automated 22 standard step solution. When I went to school we 23 used a slide rule to do it, and if you're careful 24 you'd get very good results. And it would be nice 25 to be able to "plunk" and have an answer out in 30 01831 1 seconds. But it is no different, it is not a 2 model, it doesn't do any thinking for you. It 3 simply says, you take basically two sets of 4 parameters in and you stick it in there and you 5 get an answer. And the thinking comes in what 6 you're putting in. In particular, you put in 7 cross view and then you are calibrating it, you're 8 fitting, you've got data out there and you have 9 got this calculation, you have to calibrate it. 10 The three parameters are cross-sections, what does 11 the river look like, discharges that you're 12 putting in which may be variable, and then what is 13 called ANN, Manning's ANN, or a roughness value, 14 which is the rate of energy loss which generates 15 the slope. In value, the Manning's ANN are used 16 to calibrate. You've got data and then you 17 calibrate. So you really only have two variables 18 that you're playing with, with any significance. 19 One is the cross-sections. And these models 20 aren't giving you a continuous boundary on your 21 channel. Like a physical model, you would build 22 it with a complete boundary, and you would have a 23 thorough understanding of what was going on. 24 These days with computer models, you'd get a 25 cross-section every once in a while. 01832 1 HEC-RAS and the standard step solution 2 methods are particularly sensitive to where you 3 put your cross-sections, how you want it in, and 4 whether you have them often or not. And when you 5 put a cross-section in every mile, you are 6 essentially just doing a little calculation of 7 what is happening at that cross-section. What 8 HEC-RAS wants to do, or any calculation, is show 9 the interaction between cross-sections. So where 10 you put these cross-sections is very important. 11 It's not something -- and you may do half a dozen 12 different attempts to see whether all the models 13 will give you the same answer or not. It depends. 14 Discharge is another issue. And 15 HEC-RAS has two ways of running. It can run in a 16 steady mode or it can run in an unsteady mode, it 17 doesn't matter. You are supplying the discharge 18 to it. And in some ways -- well, let's go back. 19 HEC-RAS is a river engineering model, 20 it's what we call hydraulic model. In this area, 21 there is hydrology which is how much water. And 22 there is hydraulics which is where is the water 23 going? I haven't seen a whole lot of analysis on 24 how much water, and I don't mean whether it's the 25 one in 700 year flood or not, but what I don't see 01833 1 is how is that water -- how much water, from where 2 and where is it going? 3 As I read the documentation, and 4 please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the 5 assumption is that there are two cues, two 6 discharge, what's coming in and what's going out, 7 and they are identical. And therefore they make 8 no difference. Not the situation. What we have 9 here is we have a nice great big storm water 10 detention basin south of Winnipeg. So we have 11 three cues, a cue coming in, cue coming out of the 12 storm water pond, and cue going down the river 13 down here. There is a difference. 14 It is standard technology in a 15 subdivision, for example. You pave over a field, 16 all of a sudden you get more water -- you got the 17 same volume of water but it comes up quicker, 18 flashier, so your peak discharge goes up. You 19 compensate that by putting in a storm water pond 20 so that you have this flash of water going into 21 the pond. The pond stores the water, and then the 22 discharge hydrograph you have coming out matches 23 what you had in your virgin field. Okay. Now 24 this is standard off-the-shelf technology. This 25 is what hydrologists do. 01834 1 Here we have in southern Winnipeg a 2 really nice big storm water pond. And you know, 3 you had a little park down here and in 1965, '68, 4 we took away the park called Winnipeg. So we 5 reduced the capacity of our storm water pond. 6 I don't know whether we can see that 7 effect or not, but I do have a question. The 8 other side of this is that you have a watershed. 9 The larger the watershed, the more it averages. 10 If you've got a roof off a factory and you put 11 water on it, it comes right off, you can see what 12 the discharge is off that one roof. 13 If you have a whole bunch of these 14 things, and then it goes into a channel, the 15 averaging effect from all those roofs, there is an 16 averaging effect that occurs. So it may rain like 17 devil over here and you have this coming off here. 18 But down here over the downstream outlet of your 19 river, all those little effects up there have been 20 averaged out. That may be happening in the Red 21 River, almost certainly is to some degree, but 22 whether that is more than removing part of your 23 storm water pond or not is a question that has to 24 be answered by calculation, by modeling an 25 approach. 01835 1 Now, with this expansion, what we are 2 going to do is we are going to put another big 3 pipe out of the pond. Obviously, the whole thing 4 is to drain that storm water pond faster so that 5 we don't have as much flooding up there or as much 6 flooding around the City of Winnipeg. By up there 7 I mean south Winnipeg. 8 I think this is crucial, because this 9 is where a lot of the misunderstanding is coming 10 in -- well, part of it. So I do not see a really 11 detailed analysis of the reduction in storage 12 capacity that's going on in the storm water pond 13 which is called south Manitoba. 14 I'll just comment on cross-sections 15 too, one other issue. And I apologize for not 16 putting this plot into my presentation. But in 17 one of the studies there is this plot from KGS. 18 Do you recognize it? Do you want a figure number? 19 Plate A1. 20 It shows a historic overflow path, 21 which would seem to indicate at some point extreme 22 flood waters, "extreme"? Those flood waters went 23 to the west. Not all flood water went through the 24 channel between Lockport and Selkirk, it would 25 have gone -- some would have gone around to the 01836 1 west. 2 Now what we're planning on doing is 3 putting all that water, that one in 700 year flood 4 water down through that channel. That's not 5 necessarily just the floodway expansion, that has 6 a lot to do with the dyking and a lot of other 7 works that have gone on. 8 Now, I don't know whether this is 9 geologic or 50 years ago. That's a question I 10 would like to see. But I assume from -- I am 11 making the assumption, because I don't know from 12 reading the documentation, whether this is 13 something that was happening in 1950 or in 1990 or 14 the year 2000 BC. But if something that was 15 happening 50 years ago, then there's a substantial 16 change in the flow regime in that channel around 17 Selkirk, which has very significant implications. 18 For example, just look at it from a 19 river regime point of view. Rivers tend to go to 20 a dimensions to master a discharge that they have. 21 If you have a creek that was carrying a discharge, 22 it will have a certain size. And you start 23 putting a lot more discharge down that creek, it's 24 going to get bigger. In this case, you start 25 jamming that much water down that little channel, 01837 1 you're going to make the channel wider. So it's 2 going to have erosion impacts. 3 Now that's outside what I was asked to 4 look at, but I just bring that up there in terms 5 of thinking about cross-sections. 6 Now, I will say that this calculation 7 procedure done this way, or this HEC-RAS or MIKE 8 11, are really good models and properly used will 9 give proper results in open water. And by open 10 water I mean no ice. Now when there's ice 11 involved, it's a whole new kettle of fish. 12 When you're doing design of the 13 channel for just open water, you extrapolate the 14 historic conditions to some rare design event. 15 One in 100, one in 700, something other than what 16 you've observed in our short history, 50 to 100 17 years of data record. 18 You need to do the same thing with 19 ice. I mean, why would you design something to 20 the ice conditions that you've seen? You design 21 to something less common than what you've seen. 22 The current report seems to apply 23 historic observed ice conditions, rather than 24 extrapolating them the same way that the water 25 conditions have been extrapolated. I would expect 01838 1 to see, based on previous work done in this day 2 and age, 20 years later, or 15 years later, 3 depending on what projects I'm thinking of, I 4 would expect to see a lot of aerial photographs. 5 The National Air Photo -- or at least an analysis 6 of it or a statement about it. The National Air 7 Photo Library, to the feds, to their blessed 8 little hearts, have taken photographs of 9 everything. When anybody starts thinking of 10 building something, they go out and fly over and 11 take lots of pictures. That air photo library in 12 Ottawa is a gold mine of information, there's a 13 lot to be gathered there. 14 Now, Red River expansion would have 15 probably attracted the same attention 30 years 16 ago, 35, 40 years ago. And there should be lots 17 of records in there. I would have expected to see 18 some analysis of ice jamming. Certainly, when I 19 was doing the Mackenzie River work, we had the 20 feds up there, they were side-by-side with us all 21 the time. 22 And I've gone back, recently involved 23 in Niagara River work, relicensing the New York 24 power authority where we are working with them to 25 get their relicence, and looked at the Niagara 01839 1 River ice conditions. And there was photography 2 all over the place yet again. 3 I would expect to see that. I didn't 4 see that. I expect to see some analysis on ice 5 conditions and ice strength, degree day analysis. 6 Some statement about an analysis, the river tends 7 to go out at this date on average, and the 8 extremes are this, and the ice conditions are 9 lousy, weak up here and strong on these dates, or 10 some analysis of that. I did not see any of that. 11 Now, why would I say that? I think 12 when you look at the three discharges and think of 13 it as a storm water pond, there has obviously got 14 to be some effect of the floodway on the river 15 downstream. And when you look at all the dyking 16 and drainage things that have been going on, I 17 think a reasonable person would say, I got to ask 18 questions, there's got to be something there, and 19 I've got to look at it really carefully, and I 20 would want to understand what's going on in the 21 south part -- sorry, in the north part of the Red 22 River before I categorically said there was no 23 effect. I would definitely want to be able to get 24 up and say this is why ice jamming is occurring 25 here. And to do that, I would expect to see some 01840 1 statement about degree days, channeling, ice 2 strength, some extrapolation of ice conditions, 3 and I would expect to see air photo analysis. 4 These folks that I've been talking to 5 over the last two days here, and I've been reading 6 on a lot of interventions on the web that are 7 posted and printed out and whatnot, and there is 8 certainly an intuitive sense that something is 9 going on. And that intuition may or may not be 10 correct, but there is certainly a lot of anecdotal 11 evidence that something is going on, and I think 12 that should be addressed. One of the things that 13 people focused on is travel time, and personally I 14 think that is a bit of a red herring, but it is 15 something that has been focused on. 16 I'll just highlight this. One of the 17 things seems to be on -- the travel time issue has 18 been, because of the slope, and the roughness, and 19 the dimensions of the floodway and the river, that 20 the travel times are the same on both. I believe 21 the issue is simply this. That you have water 22 coming down the Red River. It's going down and 23 takes a certain time to get down to Lockport. At 24 the same time you have, all of a sudden you have 25 more water coming down the floodway, and if the 01841 1 two have drastically different travel times, the 2 two will add up and you will have effects. That 3 will certainly be a concern. But it seems to me 4 from looking at some of the analysis that had gone 5 on, that issue is not there. And the modeling 6 should be very straightforward about that. 7 The issue is particularly relevant if 8 there is ice on that part of the river, and there 9 will be more discharge and therefore you will get 10 more ice jamming. 11 In part, that argument depends on the 12 statement and on an empirical observation that 13 there's never been ice on the river where it 14 discharges over 92,000 CFS thereabouts. Again 15 that is an empirical observation. I would be 16 wanting to nail that one down more carefully. I 17 will show a photograph later on why. 18 I have in my notes here that there are 19 many more than just one kind of ice jamming, but 20 we will go on to that later on. 21 I want to go back here to travel time. 22 These comments come right out of the EIS document, 23 and that's fine, I'm not going to discuss them 24 really, they are there. The issue is highlighted 25 so often in the EIS that I'll just put this 01842 1 comment in. The proponents argue that there can 2 not be any effect of ice jamming because there is 3 no difference in travel time. I would say that's 4 nice, but let's go back to our storm water pond. 5 What the storm water pond does is attenuate the 6 hydrograph. Instead of having -- with a storm 7 water pond, you have a nice hydrograph that does 8 this. Without a storm water pond you get the 9 water coming off faster, say a slightly higher 10 peak discharge. Whether that affects us here or 11 not, I don't know, but there is just no analysis 12 that I've seen. 13 And I reiterate that these studies all 14 talk about historic ice conditions. And then in 15 open water, yes, there will be these changes in 16 water elevation. But, again, these are open water 17 conditions. 18 And I'll just flip over to some 19 comments about ice jamming. I look to the 20 photograph down in the bottom left, the Selkirk 21 Bridge. That's rather typical rubble ice from 22 relatively strong ice. I mean, all these are ice 23 effects here. Ice strength is a big issue here, 24 and when the flows are going out relative to ice 25 conditions really matters a lot. That's a given. 01843 1 But that elevation difference between 2 the bottom quarter of that bridge and the top of 3 that ice is not all that big. And frankly, when 4 I'm working with ice modeling and ice 5 calculations, when you start putting ice on the 6 top boundary, you don't know whether that 7 roughness is 050 or 080, or something higher or 8 something lower. We simply don't know. We have, 9 in jumbled ice conditions like that, we have a 10 number of models that have been calibrated that 11 have ice roughness in the range of 080. And the 12 difference in water elevation is substantial. You 13 know, going from an ice roughness 020 up to 080 it 14 will essentially double the water depth in this 15 reach. So I'm looking at a historic condition 16 here and I'm saying, geez, I hope somebody is 17 looking at this really carefully. 18 The first piece of information I got 19 on this whole issue was a videotape that somebody 20 took in 1996 of the ice jam. And what that showed 21 was -- and I'm looking at the picture in the upper 22 right-hand corner -- was a typical wide big river 23 ice jam where you have got a solid sheet of ice 24 stuck in the river, and behind that, all the 25 jumble comes behind it. That ice jam is not the 01844 1 jamming mechanism that's discussed in HEC-RAS or 2 in other modeling procedures. There they are 3 using the grain bin model, where there is simply 4 not enough capacity to carry the ice through the 5 channel and you get a blockage. This is what 6 happens in the Niagara River. 7 The river slows down, the Niagara 8 River has a point where it slows down drastically 9 and all of a sudden the capacity for that river to 10 carry ice past that point goes way down and you 11 get an ice jam there. It's very serious for them 12 because they lose power-generating capacity when 13 their jams occur. 14 What we're seeing on the Red River is 15 something entirely different. What it is, we're 16 seeing a large competent ice sheet holding back 17 ice, and that force model does not work in those 18 situations. 19 I saw several dozen ice jams in the 20 Mackenzie River over the three years I was flying 21 it, and then photographs later as people took over 22 the work for me. In every case, they were a solid 23 ice sheet and the velocities under that ice were 24 extremely high. I believe HEC-RAS, in its ice 25 modeling work, limits you to five feet per second 01845 1 for water velocity underneath the ice jam. We've 2 seen velocities in excess of 15 feet per second in 3 ice jams, 5 metres per second. I have not used 4 HEC-RAS and I will not use HEC-RAS for ice 5 modeling because of its limitations. I just took 6 080 as your competent roughness, or whatever, but 7 it has serious issues. 8 We've talked about the common 9 occurrence on the Red River. What's also striking 10 to me about this is the consistent ice jam 11 locations on the Red River from year to year. I 12 went and had a look at them yesterday morning. 13 And you can understand the bridge -- I can 14 understand the Selkirk bridge area and Sugar 15 Island area to some degree downstream the highway 16 4 bridge because those are the situations where 17 you would get an ice sheet coming up, turning and 18 jamming. That classic thing. The highway 4 19 bridge is probably something quite different with 20 those piers, in the middle of the bridge, two 21 piers in the middle of the river. 22 But the point that struck me was when 23 we were looking at the Mackenzie River ice jams -- 24 and by the way, one of the first things we did 25 when we did that work 25 years ago was look to see 01846 1 what were the studies done on the Red River, 2 because the floodway expansion had been done. Oh 3 boy, there's going to be a gold mine there, but 4 there wasn't. A surprising lack of information. 5 And we went everywhere, even into the Russian 6 documentation, which is sometimes hazardous, and 7 looked for information. But we ended up doing a 8 lot of original work on that. But one of the 9 things, beside these ice jams always being on this 10 ice sheet twisting cap, they always occurred in 11 the same location year to year to year. And it's 12 because of the geometry of the river and how the 13 ice sheet floated up and jammed. If we were going 14 to have a bad ice year, the ice jams occurred in 15 the same location every year. And when I found 16 this out, it raised a bit of a flag to me too 17 about what was going on here. 18 I'll just share this picture with you. 19 This is the black water ice jam that occurred in 20 1981. It's the jam that is documented in CSCE 21 paper, Bill Campus (ph) and I did in 1983, a 22 peer-reviewed paper on ice jamming on very large 23 wide rivers. 24 The flow is from right to left in this 25 photograph. The opening there where the jam was 01847 1 key, we watched this jam over its life of about a 2 week. It started as a nice big chunk of sheet, 3 caught, and gradually it worked its way into an 4 arch. And the opening here is several hundred 5 feet across, just to give you a scale. The ice is 6 five feet thick, and the velocities we estimated 7 were well up around 15 feet per second. 8 What was happening here was that the 9 jam had reached a hydrodynamic equilibrium at the 10 upstream edge. You got a densitometric Froude 11 number limitation on the upstream edge. And after 12 that, once the flow gets to a point of certain 13 Froude number, the ice starts to peel off the 14 upstream edge and float down underneath. And so 15 the jam disintegrates from the upstream to the 16 downstream and then that releases the key. 17 What we are seeing here is, these 18 black things are chunks of ice, five feet by 19 10-foot, carried underneath the ice and popped up. 20 Discharge here is, I'm going to off the top of my 21 head say 700,000 CFS. So it's a substantial jam, 22 it's just another situation. The forces are large 23 here, it's nothing to play with. 24 This comes back to the concept that 25 there was a single ice clearing discharge for this 01848 1 reach of the Red River that applies to all ice 2 conditions. I don't think so, I really don't 3 think so. Maybe for a force limited ice jam under 4 certain ice conditions, yes, but under all ice 5 jams, no, there is at least three or four other 6 things that are happening as well. 7 Off the cuff, a person could say the 8 only way to handle ice jamming in this reach is 9 not to have any discharges below 100,000 CFS, but 10 I'm not sure if that's true either. I think the 11 real answer is probably to implode the lower 12 reaches in the floodway. Given what is there now, 13 with a floodway, with all the infrastructure 14 that's been built up around Winnipeg, the only 15 reasonable answer might be to expand the floodway 16 beyond Selkirk, in spite of the cost benefit 17 analysis that shows there's only a limited amount 18 of people there to protect, that may be the only 19 rational thing to do. 20 There might be other things you could 21 do, but a lot of them we looked at. For example, 22 we thought about getting the army out to do 23 artillery practice on the Red River, to break up 24 the ice sheet in front of the islands at Norman 25 Wells, the same way they blow up the land slides 01849 1 in Rogers Pass. We looked at dusting the ice with 2 coal dust or some other product. And the 3 Fisheries people didn't like us about that. They 4 didn't like the explosives idea either. 5 After thinking about that for two or 6 three years, we just went away from active 7 measures to passive measures. They are the only 8 thing that's reliable. You set up a monitoring 9 system, you set up a maintenance system, they only 10 decline with time. And I think it's absolutely 11 unreliable to rely on active measures. Besides 12 the ice will go at 2:00 a.m. and it will be hard 13 as the devil to get anybody out there. 14 And compensation, as I said earlier, I 15 think my personal view is there's a lot of 16 ambiguity and there's a great deal of uncertainty 17 about what's going on. I look -- I could be 18 wrong, there may be a very good analysis of 19 showing why these three discharges coming in and 20 out of the storm water pond are all the same. I 21 don't know. There may be a really good 22 understanding somewhere that I haven't read of 23 what the ice jams are doing, why they occur, where 24 they occur, and when they go out, but I haven't 25 seen it. 01850 1 Even the way things are going now with 2 the very best models, especially when ice is 3 involved, there is a great deal of uncertainty on 4 the water elevations, very different from open 5 water flow. 6 I think there has to be some 7 recognition that there is an error bound on the 8 prediction, so what's going to happen. And that 9 error bound needs to be dealt with, whether it's 10 financial compensation or something else, I don't 11 know. All I know is there's an error bound. 12 That's what I have to say. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 14 Mr. Moir. Mr. McNeil, I'm sure you have a 15 question or two. 16 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, is that the 17 conclusion of the Coalition's entire presentation? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't believe so, but 19 they are doing it in two distinct parts is my 20 understanding. 21 MR. MCNEIL: Let's just follow on that 22 point. Is your next part in respect of ice 23 jamming as well? 24 MR. JONASSON: It's basically 25 testimony and a listing of the concerns that we 01851 1 have, and why we have them, and we have some 2 people who want to share with your panel what it's 3 like to live downstream of the floodway. This is 4 an expert witness. Our understanding is that he 5 can be cross-examined, and that's why we're 6 presenting it in two stages. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, actually, our 8 procedure, Mr. Jonasson, is anybody who gives 9 evidence as a participant can be cross-examined, 10 including the other people who will be speaking 11 today. 12 MR. JONASSON: Well, we could move on. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that if the 14 rest of your presentation basically relates to ice 15 jamming, I think we should deal with all of it and 16 then -- 17 MR. JONASSON: No, it basically deals 18 with a whole lot of issues that we have 19 downstream. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: A whole lot of issues. 21 Well, would you prefer to hear the rest of their 22 presentation or do the ice jamming now? 23 MR. MCNEIL: No, Mr. Chair, we'd 24 prefer to hear the whole thing, since some of the 25 other subjects were brought up by their expert as 01852 1 well. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: That sounds fair 3 enough. We'll just take a moment while we yet 4 again change technology. 5 Order please. Mr. Jonasson. 6 MR. JONASSON: Ladies and gentlemen, 7 my name is Jack Jonasson. I'm with an 8 organization called the Coalition for Flood 9 Protection North of the floodway. We've been 10 around since 1999. We were put together at the 11 large meeting that was called by a group of us who 12 were concerned about the way in which flooding was 13 being handled, or not handled, for the people in 14 Selkirk, East Selkirk, Breezy Point, St. Peter's, 15 Petersfield, basically downstream of the existing 16 floodway. 17 We do have the support of the five 18 municipalities on both sides of the river for the 19 work that we're doing. 20 We essentially are concerned about the 21 area downstream of the floodway. But since we 22 have held a number of meetings, concerned people 23 from as far south as Oakbank and Birds Hill have 24 joined our group, basically because of the concern 25 around groundwater. And you have heard that 01853 1 concern already examined, and it will obviously be 2 examined a great deal more before these hearings 3 are over. 4 We have, as was suggested by the Chair 5 at our first meeting, with the group around 6 funding, that group should cooperate and work 7 together so that there would be some synergy in 8 terms of good use of the dollars. And what has 9 happened with the coalition and the rural 10 municipalities, and to some extent the City of 11 Selkirk, we've come together particularly around 12 the issue of groundwater, but there are other 13 issues, as you will see when we go through our 14 presentation. 15 I just want to have the audience and 16 the Commissioners understand that flooding 17 downstream and concerns with flooding downstream 18 are not just the Town of Selkirk. The Red River 19 Valley doesn't stop at the Z-Dyke south of 20 Winnipeg. We're still in the Red River Valley 21 north of the floodway. It's a little different, 22 its shape and so on, but it's still there. The 23 water isn't confined just to the river. It is for 24 a short period of time from the outlet of the 25 floodway to just past the fort, but from then on, 01854 1 the valley is the valley. 2 Just some history. And I need to tell 3 you that this is the way that we see how things 4 have gone since 1997. The International Joint 5 Commission was asked, in a letter from Lloyd 6 Axworthy, the then senior Minister for Manitoba, 7 an identical letter was written to the IJC by 8 Madeline Albright, who I guess would be the 9 counterpart to Lloyd Axworthy at the time in the 10 U.S. That was in 1997. And what they asked in 11 that letter was to make recommendations to 12 prevent, protect and mitigate against flooding in 13 the Red River basin. And that's the keyword, 14 basin. 15 The IJC, after hiring a task force, 16 basically a group of engineers, some maybe in this 17 room were on that task force. The task force made 18 a recommendation that the federal and provincial 19 government should look at ways of protecting the 20 City of Winnipeg from flooding. 21 The IJC modified that recommendation, 22 and they came up with a recommendation that 23 basically says that a plan -- the difference here 24 is a plan be developed to protect Winnipeg that 25 takes into account the needs of the other 01855 1 communities in the basin. We don't see a plan. 2 We see one project now. 3 The IJC report went to the feds and to 4 the province, and essentially the province took 5 over the process. I didn't see much action by the 6 feds following that. 7 The province then commissions a study, 8 flood protection study for Winnipeg. KGS produced 9 that report. It essentially looked at some of the 10 ways in which the City of Winnipeg could be 11 protected. We're no longer looking at a plan for 12 the basin, we're just protecting Winnipeg. 13 I understand that that report, Rick 14 Carson was the main author of that report, right? 15 And following the issuance of that 16 report to the government, it's our impression that 17 the premier announced that he favours floodway 18 expansion. Incidentally, at the same time, after 19 the 1997 flood, the Fillman government caucus also 20 indicated that had they were in favour of floodway 21 expansion. It was kind of the heat of the moment 22 after the flood of 1997. 23 The Government of Manitoba 24 commissioned a second study, I guess to choose 25 from the two favoured solutions, the structure at 01856 1 Ste. Agathe as opposed to the floodway. And this 2 flood protection for Winnipeg study was also 3 awarded to KGS. And it basically -- the second 4 study recommends floodway expansion, despite the 5 fact that the second option Ste. Agathe, has a 6 much more favourable cost benefit ratio, and 7 protects tens of thousands more citizens, and in 8 my mind, provides a measure of redundancy in the 9 flood protection system because it's a second 10 system. There is no clear plan for the rest of 11 the basin. 12 The province announced a series of 13 meetings around the question of flood protection. 14 These meetings were held in January, I think it 15 was 2002. They were chaired by the then Chair of 16 the CEC. The report that they wrote went to the 17 premier. The same day the premier, as I 18 understand it, held a news conference and said 19 that's it, the majority favour floodway expansion, 20 and that's kind of where we're going to go. There 21 were no mention -- there was no mention made of 22 the concerns that were raised in those series of 23 meetings, I think one in Winnipeg, one in Selkirk 24 one in Morris, and one back in Winnipeg again. 25 My understanding is that legislation 01857 1 creates the MFA, an arm's length agency to build 2 and maintain floodway expansion. Basically, we 3 saw it as a done deal. 4 Before I go on, the Coalition for 5 Flood Protection north of the city is not against 6 protecting the City of Winnipeg. What we are 7 concerned about is some measure of equity in terms 8 of flood protection and/or compensation and/or 9 mitigation. 10 The other, I guess it was on the 11 15th -- no, 16th of February, I took my camera 12 out. And because the groundwater was a real 13 concern, I went under the bridge at highway 44 14 looking to see if there were springs bubbling out, 15 because it was cold and that's usually when you 16 can see them very well. I found this under the 17 bridge. It obviously is a spring, but it's not 18 bubbling out right now. The groundwater obviously 19 has fallen back or it has frozen. But there is 20 still a great deal of ice crystals from 21 evaporating water that's down below.