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. This, as I 22 said, is, as you can see in the picture under the 23 bridge, this is the hole and that's the piles for 24 the bridge on highway 44. 25 It appears to me in all of the 01858 1 discussions we've had up until now about the 2 groundwater that people aren't concerned about, or 3 at least the Floodway Authority isn't concerned 4 about the direct connection between the floodway 5 and the aquifer. I'm concerned, I'm really 6 concerned. The well at Hay Road shows that 7 apparently, because of the decrease in 8 conductivity that in fact there is surface water 9 in the floodway, or in the aquifer after the 10 floodway is used. 11 I live at the end of Hay Road, so you 12 can see the measure of my own personal concern. 13 And I thought I would share these pictures with 14 the Commission and with the people who are here, 15 and the Manitoba Floodway Authority. 16 Just getting back to that decision 17 already being made to expand the floodway. There 18 was no environmental study at that time, no CEC 19 examination of the expansion and no licence. We 20 are told that a great deal of money has already 21 been spent on the design and engineering. 22 Another concern we have is the EIS, 23 the Environmental Impact Statement produced by the 24 MFA. It has been developed on a baseline 25 guaranteed to recommend licensing, but it will do 01859 1 little to address the environmental impacts of the 2 total project because it ignores anything that is 3 existing, including sewage in the present 4 floodway. That is unacceptable. 5 The existing floodway recharges 6 aquifers with polluted flood waters every time 7 it's activated. 8 Another concern here is, we are 9 hearing now that there is contemplated summertime 10 operation. The infiltration of flood water is 11 dismissed, because after a year, apparently there 12 is a reverse in the hydraulics, or whatever it's 13 called, and this flood water is magically pushed 14 back into the confines of the floodway and back 15 out and into the floodway. But it takes a year 16 we're told in the EIS. 17 Well, if you operated in the spring, 18 then again in July or August, what's going to 19 happen, even if that were true? 20 The floodway, the existing floodway 21 and the new one created huge problems for the 22 municipalities that host it. When it was being 23 constructed, just as now -- because I was around 24 then, I have the advantage of hindsight -- many 25 promises were made to the municipalities because 01860 1 they had huge concerns. Just let us build it and 2 we will look after your concerns. One of them was 3 this transportation thing. Their answer to the 4 municipalities at that time was they would build 5 99 per cent roads. Don't worry, you'll have your 6 roads. Where we've cut them, we will allow you to 7 cross the floodway, but you will only be able to 8 do it 99 per cent of the time because the other 1 9 per cent of the time the floodway will be in use 10 and they will be blocked. 11 None of those roads were built, zero. 12 St. Clements was left with one crossing. East St. 13 Paul was left with one crossing. In order to get 14 emergency vehicles from one side of the floodway 15 to the other, they had to travel inordinate 16 distances. 17 I was the assistant superintendent of 18 schools in River East School Division, and we have 19 bus transportation to provide, to get kids to and 20 from school. It usually ran them up and down the 21 roads, square grid kind of thing, no problem. But 22 with the floodway, obviously you can't do that, so 23 it disrupts that whole system. It disrupts that 24 system for the municipalities too with respect to 25 their maintenance and all of that kind of thing. 01861 1 I now live just south of Lockport in 2 an area that was probably the truck farming centre 3 of Manitoba, it certainly provided a good deal of 4 the vegetables for the City of Winnipeg, and all 5 of you probably can remember driving down there 6 and seeing all the stands selling vegetables. 7 That doesn't happen anymore. The floodway cut all 8 those farms in half and basically they are not -- 9 the land now is sitting fallow, it's not being 10 used all that much, because the farms were no 11 longer viable. And anyway, to get their equipment 12 from one side of the floodway to the other is 13 pretty expensive. 14 So I just want to make that point that 15 the floodway, the existing floodway and the new 16 floodway do have impacts. 17 We believe, not from the models that 18 are presented, the virtual reality created by 19 computer models that in fact the floodway has no 20 effect on ice jams, we believe in anecdotal 21 evidence. It's there. We see that when the 22 floodway is operated, while the ice is jamming in 23 the river, we believe it's exacerbated by the 24 extra slug of water that comes down from the 25 floodway. 01862 1 We believe that there is an increase 2 in water levels downstream due to that slug of 3 water that's coming down, and also to some other 4 things. Following the 1997 flood there was a 5 quick and dirty environmental study, or 6 engineering study of the floodway and ways of 7 making it more efficient. They decided that what 8 they would do was to take out several sections of 9 the east side of the floodway so that the water 10 could get into the floodway more efficiently. 11 Apparently this was a three per cent improvement 12 in the efficiency of the floodway. 13 I asked the question of the engineers 14 in the MFA if in fact it is three per cent more 15 efficient, wouldn't that suggest that there is a 16 three per cent impact downstream of the floodway? 17 The answer was not really, no. 18 Now either they are able to compress 19 water, and I don't think that's possible, I can't 20 understand how the -- and nor can any of our 21 members understand how the members of the present 22 Water Resources or the past Water Resources 23 Branch, their engineers and the engineers that we 24 have present before us, can say there is no effect 25 of the existing floodway or the expanded floodway 01863 1 downstream. We believe they cannot absolutely 2 make that statement. 3 The groundwater study that was done is 4 described as voluminous and rigorous, but it 5 failed to detect massive amounts of raw sewage 6 being dumped into the floodway immediately 7 upstream of the wells, wells that are the drinking 8 water supply for several rural communities. That 9 to me indicates a fundamental flaw in that 10 document. 11 A study that detected surface water, 12 that is polluted flood water, in monitoring wells 13 after the floodway operation was dismissed as 14 being an insignificant environmental effect. I 15 don't think so, nor do any of our members think 16 so. It's unthinkable. The groundwater study -- 17 or groundwater study that was conducted and did 18 not include testing for pathogens. What kind of 19 study? We don't accept that that was a reasonable 20 study. 21 We believe that the EIS should not 22 just be given a failing grade, it should be 23 returned as unacceptable because it is not an 24 environmental study. It is a study between the -- 25 the difference between what the existing floodway 01864 1 does to the environment and whether or not the new 2 floodway will be significantly increased or 3 decreased. That's nonsense. It's not acceptable. 4 I suggest to you, Commissioners, that 5 if this were a private enterprise building 6 something, and if they turned in a report with 7 this kind of baseline, they would be sent packing. 8 They would have to do it over again. 9 The Floodway Act was touted as being a 10 model for the provision of a fair and ample 11 compensation. Except that when asked how would 12 this work for the anticipated additional 13 downstream flooding, the answer was, there would 14 be no downstream compensation as any flooding 15 there would be deemed natural. We asked for an 16 explanation and got it. 17 The indication was, despite the fact 18 that the MFA had decided that their baseline would 19 be the existing floodway, the answer to the 20 question was, if there were no existing flood 21 protection, no floodway, no Shellmouth, no 22 diversion, Portage diversion, that naturally in a 23 one in 700 year flood it would be as high at 24 Selkirk as it would be with the expanded floodway. 25 I don't understand the two -- the 01865 1 different baselines. It appears to us living 2 north of the floodway that, to save money or 3 whatever, a second baseline is now being chosen. 4 I will later show you these documents, 5 okay. 6 Rational or irrational -- despite the 7 fact that MFA predicts the expanded floodway will 8 cause artificial flooding, that created by the 9 existing floodway. And I just went through this 10 discussion. I don't think the Floodway Authority 11 can have it both ways. They have to, if they pick 12 one baseline, then that's their baseline. 13 I have a picture from the Selkirk 14 Journal, spring of 2004, and the question of the 15 protection of the Selkirk Bridge has come up, and 16 there is no indication that that's going to be 17 done because ice would never get up to Selkirk 18 Bridge. The ice hit the Selkirk Bridge in 2004. 19 As a matter of fact, we had ice jamming occurring 20 north of the -- or north of the outlet in 1996, 21 2001, 2004 -- 1996 saw a level of the river that 22 was caused by the ice jamming at a record, it had 23 never been seen that high before. And I believe 24 2004, in some places it was even higher. 25 So the MFA assertion that floodway 01866 1 operations have no effect on ice jams, it is more 2 than coincidental that there have been more ice 3 jams recorded in its 38 year history or existence 4 than in the 115 years prior to its construction. 5 Ice jams seem to be exacerbated following floodway 6 operation, certainly 1996. 7 Recent ice jam occurrences, as I said 8 were in '96, 2001, 2004, all were following or 9 during a floodway activation. 10 Ice jams studies done by the MFA have 11 looked at peak flood conditions; however, a large 12 flood event is not required to create an ice jam. 13 And a good example of that is 2004. We asked that 14 this whole question of ice jamming be studied 15 further and that action be taken. 16 Incidentally, in 2003, the premier 17 promised a fund to deal with or start dealing with 18 the ice jamming situation. To our knowledge, 19 nothing happened with that fund and nothing was 20 done in 2003 or 2004. And we have with us some of 21 our members who suffered through the 2004. 22 Should I go on? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm just thinking, Mr. 24 Jonasson, looking at your presentation, this looks 25 like this might be a natural place to have a 01867 1 break. I assume you're about to turn to the 2 stories from some of your members? 3 MR. JONASSON: We were going to, yes. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps this 5 would be the place to take a lunch break. We will 6 come back in one hour exactly at ten after 1:00. 7 8 (Proceedings recessed at 12:10 p.m. and 9 reconvened at 1:10 p.m.) 10 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come to order, 12 please. We are ready to proceed with 13 Mr. Jonasson's group. Just as we are waiting for 14 him to take his seat, I'll just inform all of you, 15 and it's probably come as no surprise but we have 16 made tentative arrangements to hold one or two or 17 three extra days of hearings the week of March 18 7th. It will be at the Delta Hotel. We've 19 managed to secure some space there. We'll confirm 20 next week if indeed we do need to use that time 21 and the exact times. 22 Mr. Jonasson, you may continue. 23 MR. JONASSON: Thank you. We're going 24 to take some time out now to have some of our 25 members make short presentations about their 01868 1 experience living north of the floodway. We'll 2 start with Dr. Ian Reid. Dr. Reid is a long time 3 resident of Selkirk, has spent a good portion of 4 his life on the river with his children who were 5 champion water skiers, both Canadian and American. 6 And right now I believe his grandson is the 7 American champion water skier. Ian, would you go 8 ahead. 9 DR. REID: Yes. I have lived for 10 pretty well 60 years in four locations along the 11 Red River, on the Red River. I have worked on it, 12 made my living on it, I have played on it, I have 13 played under it. So I have a lot of experience 14 with the Red River in all seasons. 15 One of the points made by Mr. Moir is 16 that we have a huge holding pond in Southern 17 Manitoba and I would like to expand that a little 18 bit. We have two holding ponds, one south of the 19 floodway beginning and one past that in Winnipeg. 20 Winnipeg is a holding pond when the floodway is 21 activated. 22 When the floodway was first opened, my 23 land and some of my buildings were damaged. And 24 when I suggested to the government that they 25 should compensate me for the loss of damage for my 01869 1 property, I was informed that in no way could that 2 be possible, that the flow rates were the same 3 before and after the floodway was activated. 4 Now, if you look at a map, and the one 5 up there is a little small to see. I have given 6 the Board over there showing the Red River in 7 Winnipeg. And in the City of Winnipeg. You can't 8 see it here, but I left on -- I think they've got 9 it, yeah. It's very tortuous in here. The 10 floodway coming along here is 48 kilometres in 11 length and the Red River from the floodway 12 beginning to Selkirk or to Lockport is about 13 double that, about 90 kilometres. And extremely 14 tortuous and bending. 15 So now when the floodway is activated, 16 it's draining the number one water retention pond 17 which is Southern Manitoba. It is not draining 18 number 2 retention pond which is the City of 19 Winnipeg. That is still being drained by the Red 20 River. And because it has to travel so much 21 further than the floodway, when the water that 22 enters the floodway reaches Lockport, the Red 23 River is still emptying the water that was in the 24 river when the floodway was opened. So now we 25 have two rivers coming together, for a few hours 01870 1 at least, north of the floodway. 2 And they tell me their cubic feet per 3 second is the same but on none of those statistics 4 have I seen when that measurement was taken. If 5 it was taken within a day after the opening, the 6 activation of the floodway, it would not be the 7 same if it was taken two or three days after the 8 floodway is opened and the Winnipeg retention pond 9 has drained. 10 The first time I've heard ice 11 mentioned was by Mr. Moir. And to us in Selkirk, 12 that is the whole crux of the floodway. If there 13 is an extra bunch of water, a bolus of water that 14 comes after the two drainage ditches, the floodway 15 and the Red River have combined to increase the 16 amount of water, the volume of water and probably 17 cubic feet per second, hits the ice and causes ice 18 jams. 19 Now that is all dependant, and you've 20 heard the word once today "candling." Now that to 21 us that live on the river is black ice. If the 22 ice has a chance to candle, turn black, when that 23 bolus hits, it breaks up very quickly and the 24 small particles will disappear underneath the main 25 flow of ice with no problem. If the ice is blue 01871 1 and still thick because of an early thaw and this 2 bolus hits, it now breaks up big pieces and it 3 goes straight to the bottom and we get a jam. 4 In 1996, the big flood, the Flood of 5 the Century -- the building I live in now which is 6 the Kiwanis on the Red in the Red, right on the 7 docks in Selkirk, in '97, no problem, we didn't 8 need a dyke. In '96 with thick ice and a bolus of 9 water and blue ice, we needed flood. We had 10 8 feet of water in our basement. So yes, it does 11 make a difference. 12 The government has attempted in 13 previous years to break up the ice. Years back, 14 they had the army blasting it which again the game 15 and fish were not happy with. Then they had the 16 fishermen from Lake Winnipeg drill holes right out 17 to the mouth of the river hoping it would break up 18 quicker and not jam to the bottom. None of these 19 were too successful. 20 So our main concern now is, is there 21 an increased flow? And I argue that there is when 22 those two streams get together for a few hours 23 until the Red River has drained. And number two, 24 the ice. What colour is the ice when you open the 25 floodway and how thick is that ice? And I think 01872 1 that should partly determine how much water you 2 let through. Thank you. 3 MR. JONASSON: Thank you, Dr. Reid. 4 We'll now ask Joyce Ward to give her story about 5 how she was flooded in the ice jam of 1996 and 6 then again in 2004. Joyce. 7 MS. WARD: Hi. I live at 1375 Breezy 8 Point Road, not a flood zone until '96. We moved 9 to our present location in spring of 1966, never 10 experienced anything more than a little water on 11 the driveway during a spring breakup for the first 12 30 years. Then in 1996, three hours after the 13 floodway gates were opened, our yard flooded. I 14 came home, watched the newscast. They said the 15 floodway gates were open at 6:30, and bingo. I 16 was just devastated and in shock and in terror. 17 The ice had jammed across the slough 18 on the river and overland flooding occurred 19 rapidly as a result from the front and from 20 behind. Water came pouring over the road 21 reminiscent of a miniature Niagara Falls. No 22 words can describe the terror I felt. I was in 23 total denial. I couldn't believe what was 24 happening. 25 My son and his girlfriend had arrived 01873 1 about half an hour before this and already the 2 driveway was impassible. They too were now 3 stranded. 4 By 9:30, my husband, our son and his 5 girlfriend, two dogs and I were ordered to 6 evacuate from our home via Zodiak provided by 7 local authorities. I was terrified to get onto 8 that Zodiak because there was ice floating around 9 on the water. I just somehow couldn't envision 10 that this Zodiak would carry me safely to the 11 road. And besides that, I didn't want to leave my 12 home. And I somehow still didn't believe that my 13 home would be flooded. 14 We did go to the Darewood Inn to wait. 15 And several days later, we were to learn that we 16 had 8 feet of water in our basement. You can't 17 begin to imagine. Our potato storage shed had 18 standing water for several days which actually is 19 probably more than a week or two. It destroyed 20 the insulation and that was, at that time, part of 21 our living. We grew potatoes and so that was -- 22 it really devastated our lifestyle. 23 We had no hydro, no heat, no clean 24 water, none of the amenities necessary to move 25 back in for many weeks. My husband Don had to 01874 1 shock the well over a period of a couple of months 2 in order for our drinking water to be declared 3 safe for consumption. He barely escaped falling 4 head long into the basement when he put his foot 5 onto the first step going into the basement and 6 the stairs fell down out from under him. 7 The partially finished basement was a 8 shambles of debris, what had once been treasured 9 belongings, furniture and appliances. We had to 10 replace the washer, dryer, gas furnace and gas 11 water heater, the latter of which had been newly 12 installed in 1994. We lost, forever, 13 miscellaneous items of value that are not covered 14 by EMO compensation, treasured Christmas 15 ornaments, artificial Christmas trees, et cetera. 16 We also lost three vehicles that year to flood 17 water, one of which was covered with water right 18 up to its roof. Aside from material goods that 19 year, we lost our sense of security and safety. 20 The sense of security and safety was 21 again breached last year when we flooded during 22 the week of April 2nd. Once more, ice jamming 23 occurred at several points along the Red River. 24 The floodway gates were opened prematurely and 25 overland flooding was the result. The Red River 01875 1 again swiftly poured across the road. It rose 2 rapidly until our hose was surrounded and then the 3 water began entering our basement on the north 4 side where there were no windows or openings that 5 we knew of before that. 6 Because our submersible sump pump kept 7 pumping and we continued to receive electricity, 8 the amount of water in the basement was a good 9 deal less than in '96. But in '96, we didn't have 10 a submersible water pump so I think that if we 11 didn't have that pump, we would have had almost 12 the same amount of water in the basement again. 13 So we experienced approximately 3 feet 14 of water which again was enough to necessitate the 15 replacement of washer and dryer. We had been 16 advised the furnace and hot water heater again 17 need replacing. We just finished paying for the 18 last ones two years previous to that. 19 And if you think compensation 20 compensates you, it really doesn't. Stuff 21 depreciates and they don't give you the full value 22 of what it costs you to replace. 23 This was over and above having to redo 24 a room we had built in the basement for our son in 25 spring of 2003. We actually were foolish enough 01876 1 to think that we were safe from flooding for the 2 second time because after all, we had been there 3 for 30 years before that and it couldn't possibly 4 happen again. 5 Structural damage is now also apparent 6 by way of large lengthy cracks in the basement 7 floor and weakening of the basement walls as 8 evidenced by incoming flood water. My son Laury, 9 a paraplegic, and I, who you can see is vertically 10 challenge not to mention no longer in my youth, 11 attempted to bring, in panic, as much as possible 12 from his room to the main floor of the house. 13 These items included a queen-sized bed, TV, 14 computer, et cetera. With cold dirty river water 15 rushing across our driveway, I got my two cars to 16 higher ground at my peril. 17 When coming back after taking the 18 first car to my sister-in-law's down the road, I 19 almost lost my footing from dizziness as I walked 20 through the swirling water. 21 After driving the second car to the 22 same place, I had to get a ride on the back of my 23 neighbour's quad in order to get back into my 24 house. My husband came home from working all week 25 as a professional trucker and had to be ferried to 01877 1 the house in our neighbour's boat. We spent the 2 night listening in terror and horror to the water 3 rush into the basement, feeling helpless and 4 abandoned. 5 Not once did we hear from our 6 municipality, from EMO or anyone that there was 7 impending disaster. In fact, we didn't hear from 8 them any time during our night of terror either. 9 Luckily I had a cell phone with which 10 to communicate to my sister-in-law who attempted 11 to get help for us. That help arrived in the 12 early morning in the form of a half tonne truck, a 13 man in hip waders with a grappling hook saying he 14 was from Water Rescue. This is a joke, right? 15 Wrong. Again, our neighbour stepped into the 16 breach, so to speak, with his boat and we boarded 17 it from our deck. 18 He and his partner had been 19 frantically moving stuff out of their basement and 20 pumping water all night as well, trying to keep 21 water from entering his basement which, by the 22 way, according to experts, was well above the 23 flood level when he built his house a few years 24 before that. 25 He did not have life jackets on board 01878 1 but then, he had not expected to be called upon 2 for such a task. How long does it take for 3 hypothermia to set in? 4 Not only did we have to worry about 5 the house, we had three bins full of wheat at risk 6 which, by the way, was our mortgage payment, plus 7 a welder and other miscellaneous equipment in the 8 storage shed. Most of the gravel was washed off 9 the driveway. Again, we were faced with potential 10 water contamination. Our water had to be 11 submitted for testing and we refrained from using 12 it until the tests thankfully came back negative 13 for contamination. However, our water now has a 14 smell. It never used to before. 15 What are we paying taxes for if only 16 to realize that we are not valued north of 17 Winnipeg, but that we are a disposable society in 18 the greater scheme of things. 19 Our land and property have been up for 20 sale for three years now but who wants to buy 21 property that floods on a regular basis? My point 22 here is that we have lost the value of our land, 23 and with it, our retirement nest egg. 24 With the expansion of the floodway, 25 upon its completion, will my entire house be swept 01879 1 away? I want mitigation, not compensation. Or I 2 want you to do something to fix this so it won't 3 happen. We can't afford this every couple of 4 years or every year. 5 I am pleading with you, make very sure 6 that expansion will not mean destruction, not only 7 of property, but of the environment, personal 8 security and safety. 9 And as spring approaches this year, I 10 am terrified. If there's not a day that goes by 11 that I'm thinking oh man, I wonder how thick that 12 ice is and I wonder are we going to have to go 13 through this again? And I don't know if I can 14 without losing my mind. Thank you. 15 MR. JONASSON: Thank you, Joyce. 16 Joyce's son Laury has asked to say some things. 17 MR. WARD: Hi, I live where she lives. 18 And the day of the flood in '96, I came over with 19 my girlfriend and like within half an hour -- well 20 actually, my dad came up to me and says I think 21 you should probably go back to town because it's 22 going to be a big flood. And I was like no way. 23 Like I never seen nothing like what happened ever 24 since I have lived there, which is all my life 25 pretty much. And like it poured over the highway 01880 1 like it was a waterfall. I just couldn't believe 2 it. And I didn't think it was going to fill up 3 the basement neither but that's what ended up 4 happening anyway. Like I thought the whole house 5 was going to be under water like the way the water 6 was rising. Like it was just crazy. 7 And then eventually, the water guys 8 came floating up our front yard in a Zodiak boat 9 and telling us through the fog horn, or whatever 10 you call that thing, and we're supposed to be 11 evacuated. 12 And the aftermath of that flood was I 13 lost two cars, lots of furniture and other 14 belongings that meant a lot to me and they are 15 gone forever and I still miss it today. I still 16 miss a lot of stuff. Like I had musical 17 equipment, I had vintage magazines and comic books 18 down there. They were all destroyed. I had a 19 whole -- I had took an electronics course for a 20 year and all my notes, gone. Like a lot of stuff 21 like that. And now I just felt terrible. Like 22 it's just like it was a real pain not having a 23 home for all that time. We needed to get back in. 24 So anyway, time goes by and you get 25 over it and you figure it's kind of a freak thing, 01881 1 it's not going to happen again. And here we go 2 2004, it's happening again. And I seen the water 3 rising and I got deja vu of '96 flood all of a 4 sudden. I thought well, I'd better get my stuff 5 the heck out of the basement. 6 And as you can see, I'm not the 7 furniture moving type. Like my mom mentioned, I 8 am actually a partial paraplegic. I've got one 9 paralysed leg. I wear a full leg brace to walk. 10 I'm basically dragging my leg so you can imagine 11 I'm going upstairs, carrying as much as I can, you 12 know, in one arm, hopping up the stairs on one 13 leg. It's not too easy. 14 I was pretty much killing myself and I 15 was like sore for a week. I was probably in bed 16 for a week after that, too. 17 Anyways. And my mom, and she was 18 helping me and she is like not a piano mover 19 either. So anyways, I don't know if you can 20 imagine what I went through but I never want to go 21 through that again. But I managed to save most of 22 my stuff this time around because it looked like 23 it was going to be the same thing again. But I 24 had to leave my couch downstairs on top of a 25 couple of tables. And well the tables were under 01882 1 water and I'm still using them, just rinsed them 2 off. But still there was like, you know, that 3 nice clean river water all over it and that's not 4 really an appetizing thought really. Like one of 5 them was my kitchen table. I don't think I'll be 6 using it for that ever. 7 Like I can't replace the stuff, I'm 8 not a rich guy. I'm on disability. I don't get 9 much money at all. And I don't work. Well 10 obviously, I'm on disability. 11 Let's see. I was kind of stressed 12 out. I had a couple of pets I had to leave behind 13 in there. I was worried that they were going to 14 die or something, drown. 15 And I don't know, I'm expecting it to 16 flood again this year. I'm not very optimistic 17 that it's not going to at all. I'm really 18 expecting it. I'm really annoyed that it's 19 happening again. It's like the place that I loved 20 and lived at for so long is just turning into a 21 big toilet. Like I feel like I'm like a sewer 22 rat, like nothing. Like I know I have a hard 23 life, you know, living as a disabled person. I 24 used to be, until I was 18, I was, you know, 25 above-average big strong country boy, you know. 01883 1 And ever since this happened to me, it's been 2 hard. But, you know, but I don't need this to 3 complicate my life even further. Like I'd like a 4 nice secure place to live at. Like I've lived 5 there all this time, like. 6 And I have just learned, you know, 7 that the floodway is opening too early both these 8 times so like that kind of explains it right 9 there. I'd say what's going on. 10 So I guess that's about it. Instead 11 of doing this every year, opening the floodway too 12 early, you can just drop a bomb on us or buy us 13 out or something. 14 MR. JONASSON: Thank you, Laury. 15 Before we move on, there is one point that I want 16 to make very very clear to the CEC. When the 17 flood of '97 -- or '96 took place in Selkirk, that 18 was a very large flood as far as Selkirk and north 19 was concerned. Its level was quite a lot higher 20 than 1996 -- or the '97. 21 When the flood protection program that 22 we hear about that they spent $100 million dollars 23 on south of the floodway was made available to 24 people north of the floodway, they were told to 25 protect themselves to 1997 plus 2, and they did. 01884 1 A lot of them did. Incidentally, they had to pay 2 25 per cent of the costs so they had to mortgage 3 this. 4 A number of people who did that in 5 1997 or protected themselves to 1997 level were 6 flooded in 2001. And I have a picture up on the 7 board there of that. Using a standard that was 8 the standard for south of the floodway wasn't a 9 good idea for north of the floodway. You also 10 heard I guess Joyce say that she was not in a 11 flood zone. A lot of people north of the floodway 12 were refused that program because they were told 13 they were not in a flood plain. 14 We have one of our members who 15 researched very very extensively to see that he 16 did not buy a house in a place that ever flooded, 17 ever. There was ice blocks left on his lawn after 18 1996 and again in 2004. 19 The work has not been done north of 20 the floodway. We were told at the public meetings 21 that were held by the MFA that there wasn't enough 22 data to do the kind of work. They were going to 23 do a lidar survey that would provide us with that 24 information. There is a site that you can go to 25 that will tell you, if you pinpoint your house 01885 1 south of the floodway, that will tell you how high 2 the water will be at that spot in a one and 100, 3 one in 200, one in 500, whatever it is, and how 4 many sandbags you would need to protect yourself. 5 If you try to go to that site and find the same 6 information north of the floodway, there is 7 nothing. 8 I have here a letter from one of our 9 members who has a development. The letter says 10 that the area where he is developing, the design 11 flood level is 727.2 feet. He is now told that in 12 a flood of 1 in 700 years, the level will be 13 735 feet. There is a great deal wrong with the 14 information that is available for modern resources 15 with respect to downstream of the outlet. 16 The picture on the screen from a 17 former member of our coalition, he protected his 18 place to 97 plus 2 feet, 2001. He actually was 19 flooded in 1996. 2001, he flooded again. Applied 20 for compensation, was denied it. His marriage 21 broke up. He went bankrupt. His business isn't 22 there anymore. This is what was called the 23 Ponderosa. It was quite a thriving business. 24 We have another story, very short 25 story. A businessman, had his own business. The 01886 1 depression you see there is, right here, is from 2 the dug-out he used to build a dyke around his 3 house. He no longer is able to work. He has lost 4 his business and is under medical care. 5 We have with us John Shachtay, 6 affectionately known as the Mayor of Breezy Point 7 because he's been there so long. He has a short 8 story to tell you about ice and water and 9 flooding. John. 10 MR. SHACHTAY: My name is John 11 Shachtay. I live in Breezy Point since 1960. And 12 I watching the Red River how it operates. A few 13 floods we had in Breezy Point. We were damaged in 14 1974. We were paid for it. 2004, we made 15 application, we were advised to make application 16 for the damage. What we did, we sent a letter to 17 the board. They wrote me a letter in here, I got 18 proof, and they said they going to uphold my 19 application. 20 So we left this. Now about the ice 21 jamming. The ice jamming, I live in Breezy Point, 22 second cottage, half a mile down the street. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you speak into 24 the microphone, Mr. Shachtay. 25 MR. SHACHTAY: Down the street. The 01887 1 last cabin from the first one, they had 18 inches 2 difference of water because the ice jam there. 3 And the water was just forcing against the ice. 4 Then what happens when the ice start 5 moving, the water drops right away, goes back to 6 the river. What the water leaves behind, we got 7 proof, we got pictures. Anybody wants to find out 8 what the water leaves behind is amazing. I got 9 proof, pictures that it happens. 10 The worst flooding we had since 1960, 11 we had a big flood in 1974 but not come close to 12 2004. And I seen the water going for years when 13 the ice jams but not as bad as last spring. And 14 what we got to do, I don't know, but we got to see 15 when we go to stop this going out by the water. 16 When the water comes in, you should see the trees, 17 the garbage actually coming back all at once to 18 the river. We got the pictures to prove. 19 Therefore, my concern is we got to do 20 something to avoid this for our future. Thank 21 you. 22 MR. JONASSON: Thank you, John. Now 23 I'm going to finish off my presentation and if 24 there's anybody else in our group wants to say 25 anything, I'll ask. 01888 1 Our group is of the opinion that the 2 existing floodway causes a great deal of grief for 3 a whole host of reasons, one of which is the 4 flooding, ice jamming. But that aside, I hope 5 that you have heard that the people who live north 6 of the outlet need the same kind of consideration 7 as we are giving to the City of Winnipeg. Do you 8 realize that the City of Winnipeg, and it should, 9 but has been protected for the 38 years by the 10 existing floodway. You're going to build it and 11 expand it to protect them to maybe another 700 12 years, maybe another century or maybe forever. 13 Just remember that the people most 14 often flooded in this province are the people 15 north of the floodway outlet. Something must be 16 done, whether it's compensation, whether the land 17 is -- you can protect it. You know that the 18 floodway needs to be there and operated, then I 19 think you will need to think about another way of 20 compensation, maybe purchasing the homes, 21 whatever. 22 One last plea to the CEC and to the 23 MFA. Selkirk's infrastructure is vulnerable to 24 large floods, the result of which if we go to 1 in 25 700 year flood, it will overwhelm all of Selkirk's 01889 1 flood protection that is in existence today. Its 2 infrastructure is just as vulnerable as the City 3 of Winnipeg and they need help in order to prepare 4 their town to deal with flooding. 5 In 1996, the town had its marine 6 museum flooded. It cost approximately a million 7 dollars. The golf course park, waterfront, dry 8 dock, several businesses and I think it was one 9 senior block at the time, not two. Dr. Reid 10 chronicled that just a few minutes ago. These are 11 still vulnerable to flooding and you will notice 12 that that flood happened in 1996, not '97. 13 These are the other places that we 14 never hear about but we want to read into the 15 record that are affected by flooding: East 16 Selkirk, St. Peter's, Breezy Point, Petersfield 17 and many farms and residents, particularly those 18 located along the many creeks and gullies are also 19 vulnerable. The creeks are Waverley, Dubas, 20 Netley and Cooks Creek. People don't think of 21 Petersfield as being flood prone. Petersfield is 22 a long way from the river but in 1996, it had a 23 terrible flood. 24 Reeve Forfar is here and maybe he can 25 give us an idea as to how many houses were 01890 1 threatened. 2 MR. FORFAR: I can't recall but I do 3 know last year that several got flooded again. 4 MR. JONASSON: In 2004, yes. Now you 5 don't think of Petersfield as being flood prone, 6 but it is. And I guess from our point of view, 7 this whole flood protection scheme that was to be 8 a plan for flood protection for the residents of 9 the Red River basin, has created two types of 10 citizens. And this is my wife's characterization, 11 Sheila came up with this: Those who are invited 12 on the ark and those who are left to fend for 13 themselves. 14 This is no longer acceptable in Canada 15 2005. And under Canadian and provincial law, no 16 one, even the government, is allowed to pollute, 17 as was happening and still, I understand, 18 happening in the Transcona dam. 19 The Contaminated Sites Act, passed in 20 Manitoba in 1996, requires that the site like 21 Transcona sewage spill be decontaminated, cleaned 22 up. And just to reiterate, Winnipeg was protected 23 for the last 38 years. I think I've said this one 24 before. 25 The last two statements, assertion 01891 1 that the existing floodway and the proposed 2 expansion of the floodway have no effect 3 downstream of its outlet is nonsense. In our 4 view, those of us who live north of the outlet and 5 the experts that we have called upon will not 6 accept the fact that, as asserted by the MFA, that 7 that's true. 8 And secondly, the MFA has used a 9 double standard in dealing with the people north 10 of the floodway. One standard is when they are 11 dealing about or doing the EIS, the baseline is 12 the existing floodway. But when it comes to 13 compensation for people living below the floodway, 14 the new standard is before any kind of flood 15 protection. Not fair. 16 And finally, we would like to thank 17 the Clean Environment Commission for their 18 financial support and for hearing our concerns. 19 We would like to thank the reeves and the councils 20 of the rural municipality of Springfield, East St. 21 Paul, St. Clements, St. Andrew's and West St. Paul 22 and our members from the City of Selkirk for their 23 support. 24 We would like to commend all of those 25 who participated or all the other participants for 01892 1 their individual efforts that they put into this 2 process. Thank you. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 4 Mr. Jonasson. In keeping with our endeavour to be 5 completely fair, I should point out that while the 6 Clean Environment Commission recommended the 7 funding for you, the cheque was actually cut by 8 the proponent, the Manitoba Floodway Authority. 9 MR. JONASSON: Thank you. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll turn now 11 to some cross-examination. Floodway Authority? 12 MR. MCNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 13 What we'd like to do is first ask Mr. Jonasson a 14 few questions. 15 MR. CHORNEY: I wish to ask the 16 Chairman, when we have members of our coalition 17 speaking, Mr. Herferd (ph) having the video camera 18 just a few feet in front of their faces may be not 19 the most comfortable. If he can be a little more 20 discreet, I think it might be appreciated. That's 21 a reasonable request. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Point taken. 23 Mr. Herferd. 24 MR. MCNEIL: Okay, Mr. Chair. What 25 we'd like to do is ask Mr. Jonasson a few 01893 1 questions. Certainly through our extensive 2 consultation process, we have heard all these 3 points and issues before. And certainly we 4 acknowledge, as the Floodway Authority, that ice 5 jams are an issue for the area including north of 6 the outlet through Selkirk to Breezy Point. And 7 so we take to heart a lot of the personal 8 experiences that people have talked about today 9 and at other times during our public consultation 10 about the stress and whatnot that goes with 11 experiencing events such as that. Personally, I 12 haven't lived through something like that. 13 MR. JONASSON: You were going to ask 14 me a question? 15 MR. MCNEIL: We will. Okay, 16 Mr. Jonasson, then let me get right into it. 17 MR. JONASSON: Good. 18 MR. MCNEIL: You stated in your 19 presentation earlier before lunch that KGS 20 recommended floodway expansion. Could you advise 21 us as to where that is in the documentation? 22 MR. JONASSON: The second study flood 23 protection for Winnipeg? 24 MR. MCNEIL: Yeah, we're quite 25 familiar with that study. We don't know where 01894 1 that is in there. And certainly we know that it 2 isn't in there, so could you point it out exactly 3 where. 4 MR. JONASSON: Well, I don't have it 5 right here right now. But I think the rationale 6 you presented in that report and argument for both 7 of the floodway expansion and the Ste. Agathe but 8 in reading the report, the evidence and the way 9 the report is written, it's obvious that you 10 favoured the expansion of the floodway. That's 11 the way I read it. 12 MR. MCNEIL: That's your 13 interpretation. 14 MR. JONASSON: That's right. 15 MR. MCNEIL: But there is no specific 16 recommendation in that report that KGS made. 17 MR. JONASSON: No. 18 MR. MCNEIL: Okay, thank you. You 19 made a broad statement that this project provides 20 no benefit whatsoever to the citizens north of the 21 City of Winnipeg. Do you realize that without the 22 expansion project and when an extreme flood 23 occurs, that there will be considerable economic 24 ramifications to all Manitobans and considerable 25 environmental impacts to the Red River and Lake 01895 1 Winnipeg when Winnipeg floods? 2 MR. JONASSON: Absolutely. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I interrupt for a 4 minute, Mr. McNeil. There's a lot of chatter 5 going on in the room and I'd ask that it stop, 6 please. I've said many times if you want to carry 7 on conversations, please go out in the hallway. 8 I'm sorry. 9 MR. MCNEIL: Also with respect to 10 benefits north of the floodway, and this is 11 specifically related to flows, are you aware that 12 in the 1997 flood, as a result of going into 13 operation rule 2, that it causes water to store 14 upstream of the City of Winnipeg, thereby being a 15 benefit to people downstream by delaying that flow 16 to the area downstream? 17 MR. JONASSON: It possibly does but 18 there is no -- can you show me how there is a 19 direct benefit in terms of the levels of water 20 downstream? The people north of the outlet are 21 vulnerable. They have not been given the same 22 level of consideration for flood protection as the 23 people within the City of Winnipeg. Maybe there 24 is potential, differential, incremental, 25 environmental positive here but it's certainly not 01896 1 obvious in terms of flood protection like dyking. 2 You, in your presentation, indicated 3 that mitigation for Selkirk would consist of 4 sandbags while you are protecting Winnipeg from a 5 1 in 700 year flood. That doesn't make the people 6 north of the floodway feel very good. 7 MR. MCNEIL: Having said that about 8 the operation of the existing floodway, you have 9 indicated that we claim that there is no impact of 10 floodway expansion on the residents downstream. 11 And that's not true. 12 Are you aware that in figure 2-6 of 13 appendix L of the preliminary engineering report 14 that supported the EIS, and it's also included in 15 the EIS, that with a 700 year flood, because 16 Winnipeg doesn't flood, there will be slightly 17 more water delivered to the area north of the 18 outlet? I think it's about .4 of a foot. So I 19 would call that slight. And as a result of that, 20 we acknowledge that as a direct impact of the 21 project. And so we've committed to mitigation and 22 that mitigation may take the form of sandbags. Or 23 if that doesn't work, then compensation, as we've 24 responded, when we responded to your Coalition for 25 Flood Protection North information request number 01897 1 4 through the CEC. Are you aware of that? 2 MR. JONASSON: I have it on the 3 screen. 4 MR. MCNEIL: Yeah. So it's in the 5 last paragraph of that response on that page. 6 MR. JONASSON: But I want to read what 7 it says. 8 "The properties affected by these 9 incremental levels are not expected to 10 be eligible for compensation under the 11 Red River Floodway Act." 12 That's what it says. 13 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. And so 14 what the Floodway Authority has committed to is 15 over and above or rather separate from the Red 16 River Floodway Act. Then we will ensure that 17 anybody affected by that incremental flooding, now 18 that's the incremental flooding as a result of 19 this project over and above what would happen in 20 any event with the existing floodway, we're 21 committed to mitigating that incremental flooding. 22 And if that doesn't work, we are committed to 23 compensation. And that's what that paragraph 24 discusses. So I just wanted to point that out, 25 make sure you are aware -- 01898 1 MR. JONASSON: The question asked how 2 are you going to deal with incremental flooding? 3 Are you going to pay for the 4 inches? 4 MR. MCNEIL: Basically -- 5 MR. JONASSON: How is this going to 6 work? 7 MR. MCNEIL: The normal procedure in 8 communities that don't have permanent protection 9 to a forecasted flood level are provided 10 assistance through the municipality, and Manitoba 11 Emergency Measures assists as well where they can. 12 And so we would expect that the normal procedure 13 would be for the municipality first to respond or 14 help its citizens to respond to that event and we 15 will supplement that assistance. That's our 16 commitment in this regard. 17 MR. JONASSON: But how would you 18 compensate? How would you figure it out? Who is 19 going to do this? And how do you know what 20 4 inches of flooding does? 21 MR. MCNEIL: We can calculate that 22 through the existing forecasting and HEC-RAS 23 models and Mike 11 in order to determine what the 24 effect of an expanded floodway is. We already 25 have indicated to you what that effect would be 01899 1 for those three flood events. 2 MR. JONASSON: How are you going to 3 compensate a person for the top 4 inches of 4 flooding to their house? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: We're engaging in 6 debate here that's going the wrong way. 7 Mr. McNeil should be asking you the questions. 8 MR. JONASSON: Well, that's -- 9 THE CHAIRMAN: And it should be in 10 respect of your presentation here today. 11 MR. MCNEIL: And it is, I can assure 12 you. We took -- these questions are directly in 13 response to some of the statements that were made 14 in Mr. Jonasson's presentation. 15 Also are you aware that the Manitoba 16 Floodway Authority has recommended to Canada and 17 Manitoba that they consider additional investment 18 and flood protection measures north of Winnipeg. 19 And let me just add one more thing. This was done 20 following the round 2 public consultation that 21 occurred in March, April of 2004 and was included 22 as a specific recommendation in a report about 23 that round 2 consultation that we submitted to 24 both Manitoba and Canada. Are you aware that we 25 did that on your behalf? 01900 1 MR. JONASSON: Yes. I remember 2 reading the administrative or executive summary of 3 the EIS, looking for a mention of north of the 4 floodway. And there was a sentence in there that 5 said -- that referred to north of the floodway. 6 And it said that we are recommending that the 7 Government of Manitoba and the Government of 8 Canada I believe look into rural flooding, 9 particularly north of the floodway. I remember 10 that sentence. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Could I interrupt 12 again. Mr. Herferd, could you move back behind 13 the front row of tables? I've had a number of 14 people over the last few days just express 15 uneasiness with being filmed. I understand that 16 you want to keep a record of the proceedings but 17 they just feel that with that small camera, you 18 need to get a little too close to them and they 19 are uncomfortable. Thank you. 20 MR. MCNEIL: I think I've got one more 21 question for you, Mr. Jonasson, and then we're 22 going to move to your expert. 23 Are you also aware that the Minister 24 of Water Stewardship, in a letter dated 25 February 11, 2005 to the Reeves of St. Clements, 01901 1 St. Andrew's, West St. Paul, East St. Paul and 2 Springfield and the Mayor of Selkirk, discuss the 3 issue of ice jams? And I'm going to read a 4 paragraph from that letter for your benefit. And 5 I quote, 6 "With respect to ice jam mitigation on 7 the Red River, I reiterated our 8 government's commitment announced in 9 December 2002 that we would monitor 10 ice conditions and ice core when 11 necessary in consultation with the 12 municipalities. I further advise that 13 the department regularly carries out 14 coring on a sample basis as part of 15 its river level forecasting program. 16 We also discussed the difficulty in 17 making accurate projections with 18 respect to ice jamming. I am pleased 19 to establish a municipal/provincial 20 adhoc working group which could focus 21 on the degree of coring activity and 22 alternatives which would be effective 23 in mitigating ice jamming. This 24 working group is to also consider the 25 establishment of an early warning 01902 1 system with respect to ice jams. I 2 understand that there has been an 3 initial meeting of the working group 4 and activity on these matters has 5 begun." 6 And that again was from the Minister 7 of Water Stewardship in a letter dated 8 February 11, 2005. Are you aware of that letter 9 and that commitment? 10 MR. JONASSON: I'm aware that he made 11 a commitment. I have no access to that, no way of 12 having access to it. I have heard through press 13 releases or -- I mean I'm aware that he has made 14 that commitment. I should also make you aware 15 that he made that commitment two years ago and 16 then we had 2004. 17 MR. MCNEIL: Thanks for that. 18 Mr. Chair, we're finished questioning Mr. Jonasson 19 and his group. What we'd like to do now is move 20 into a line of questioning for Mr. Jonasson's 21 expert, Mr. Moir. But can we just have five 22 minutes to caucus before we move into that line of 23 questioning? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Five minutes, okay. 25 01903 1 (BRIEF RECESS) 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come back to 4 order, please. Mr. McNeil. 5 MR. HANDLON: I have a few questions 6 of Mr. Moir, and then on some background matters. 7 And then Mr. Carson will ask a few more technical 8 questions. 9 So if I could, Mr. Moir, my name is 10 Rick Handlon, counsel for the Manitoba Floodway 11 Authority. And I had the pleasure of reading the 12 report that was put together by your group, the 13 Conestoga-Rovers. And I understand, did you have 14 a part to play in the preparation of that report 15 which is about 50 odd pages of written text? 16 MR. MOIR: I had a part to play. 17 MR. HANDLON: And on your area that 18 you focused in on, do you have the report there? 19 MR. MOIR: In my briefcase. Would you 20 like me to get it? 21 MR. HANDLON: Yes, that would be 22 helpful. So is there a specific section that you 23 can identify that you were involved with as 24 opposed to the other gentleman from your company? 25 MR. MOIR: The sections, if you went 01904 1 to the -- let's go to the table of contents. 2 MR. HANDLON: All right. 3 MR. MOIR: I have underlined in yellow 4 the pages sections 3.1 through 3.6. 5 MR. HANDLON: So that's on pages 16 6 to -- 7 MR. MOIR: Twenty. 8 MR. HANDLON: And that's in section 3 9 which is headed "Impacts Attributed to the 10 Existing Floodway," correct? 11 MR. MOIR: I had a part with that, 12 yes. 13 MR. HANDLON: Yes. And those 14 sections, particularly 3.1 deals with hydraulic 15 effects and it goes on for a number of pages. 16 Section 3.3, perhaps you can just direct -- I can 17 direct you to that. Do you have that? 18 MR. MOIR: Section 3.3? 19 MR. HANDLON: Yes. 20 MR. MOIR: On page 18? 21 MR. HANDLON: Yes. So section 3.1 22 dealt with hydraulic effects. Section 3.2 dealt 23 with description of maximum water level processes, 24 and section 3.3 natural (uncontrolled) water 25 levels. And in the second, in the second 01905 1 paragraph, you state. 2 "That the water levels downstream of 3 the floodway outlet are lower with 4 existing flood control measures than 5 with a 'natural' uncontrolled water 6 levels." 7 And you go on to state, 8 "This is because of the flow diverted 9 at Portage Diversion and the 10 additional storage provided upstream 11 at the Shellmouth Dam." 12 Correct? 13 MR. MOIR: That's what's written 14 there. 15 MR. HANDLON: And that was your 16 opinion? 17 MR. MOIR: No, no. That's a quote -- 18 that's a summary of the information from the EIS. 19 MR. HANDLON: So this section -- 20 MR. MOIR: Parts of this section, 21 parts of this section were -- are an attempt to 22 summarize what is in the EIS. 23 MR. HANDLON: Okay. So that section, 24 and going further along. Are sections 3.1 through 25 to 3.6 then your summary of what was contained in 01906 1 the EIS? 2 MR. MOIR: Section 3.3 in that 3 paragraph, it says the water levels downstream, et 4 cetera. This is because the flow diverted at 5 Portage -- I would agree with that statement. 6 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. 7 MR. MOIR: Yeah. I mean obviously you 8 have taken water out of the system. 9 MR. HANDLON: Okay. In the first 10 paragraph, you refer to the Acres 2004 report. 11 And then the second paragraph, the statement made. 12 Is that a statement that you take from the EIS or 13 from that report or is that your own conclusion? 14 MR. MOIR: Sorry, which statement is 15 this? 16 MR. HANDLON: The one that we just 17 read in the second paragraph. Was that taken from 18 the engineering report or was that your own 19 statement or do you know? 20 MR. MOIR: We assume that what was 21 written in the EIS at this point was correct. And 22 we are summarizing the EIS at this point and that 23 is a statement that is in our report. 24 MR. HANDLON: Okay. 25 MR. MOIR: Okay? 01907 1 MR. HANDLON: That's fine. And then 2 going 3.4, ice jamming and breakup. And again, is 3 that an outline of the EIS? Do you provide your 4 own commentary? 5 MR. MOIR: Well, this is a commentary 6 on what we found in the EIS, what we think we 7 found in the EIS. 8 MR. HANDLON: So this is a summary of 9 your commentary of what you believe you found in 10 the EIS then? 11 MR. MOIR: Yeah, yeah. 12 MR. HANDLON: But in any event, in 13 section 3.3 that second paragraph, you agree with 14 it even though -- 15 MR. MOIR: Oh, yeah. 16 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And then going 17 section 3.4, is there any other commentary that 18 you provide other than a summary of what you found 19 in the EIS from the engineering reports? Do you 20 give any of your own personal opinion or your 21 company's opinion in that section? 22 MR. MOIR: To the best of my 23 knowledge, in the time that I have here to read 24 this, this appears to be a summary of what I think 25 is in the EIS. 01908 1 MR. HANDLON: Okay. So were you 2 reading up to page 20 or were you just looking at 3 sections? 4 MR. MOIR: I was looking up to 19, 5 down to the end of 3.4. I don't want to bore you 6 by watching me read. 7 MR. HANDLON: No. In the section 3.4 8 ice jamming and breakup, there is about -- 9 MR. MOIR: Sorry, which section is 10 this now we're talking about? 11 MR. HANDLON: Well, we're not talking 12 about any different section. It's the same 13 section, section 3.4, ice jamming and breakup. 14 Isn't that what you were just reading? 15 MR. MOIR: It appears to be what I 16 remember as being in the EIS. 17 MR. HANDLON: Right. So in this 18 section, dealing with that subject matter, this 19 report of yours in that section just outlines a 20 summary of what you found in the report from KGS 21 or from Acres, correct? 22 MR. MOIR: Pretty much. 23 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And so you don't 24 see in that section, which goes on for short of 25 two pages, any critique that you give on that 01909 1 section of the engineering reports as summarized 2 in the EIS. You don't give your own critique, you 3 are just summarizing it? 4 MR. MOIR: I think this is pretty much 5 just a summary. 6 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And section 3.5 7 on page 19, going to the top of page 20. Again, 8 is that simply a summary of what you had taken 9 from the EIS? 10 MR. MOIR: In section 3.5? 11 MR. HANDLON: Yes. 12 MR. MOIR: Appears to be pretty much a 13 summary of what we found. 14 MR. HANDLON: There's no critique of 15 that by you? 16 MR. MOIR: I don't see any critique. 17 MR. HANDLON: Okay. I'm just asking 18 you. 19 MR. MOIR: Okay. 20 MR. HANDLON: You are the author of 21 this section, correct? 22 MR. MOIR: No. What happened was we 23 were given a very small amount of money. Let's 24 say -- let's be very accurate about this. We were 25 given a small amount of money which gave us three 01910 1 days of our time to do work. To extend our money, 2 what I did is I asked one of our junior engineers. 3 I said this is what I'm looking for in these 4 documents. You take this foot and a half of 5 documents. You read through it. I'm looking for 6 these points, see if you find them. Based on what 7 my experience was, this is what I hope we'll find 8 in these documents. 9 She did that. For the record, it was 10 Christine Gidda, Bachelors degree from Guelph, 11 year out of school, G-I-D-D-A. She drafted a 12 response, I edited it to death. I provided Peter 13 with one piece of document that described all the 14 ice things in one place. Peter then divided it up 15 to fit how he thought the report would flow 16 better. It went through several edits. 17 MR. HANDLON: Okay. So basically -- 18 MR. MOIR: What Christine gave me, 19 what I wrote on top of it got divided up in a lot 20 of different places. That's where I'm coming 21 from. 22 MR. HANDLON: So Peter Hayes is the 23 Peter that you are referring to. So he took your 24 text that you had edited from your assistant. And 25 it was your text and then he put it into the 01911 1 various sections of the report? 2 MR. MOIR: To make the report flow 3 better. 4 MR. HANDLON: Yes, I appreciate that. 5 But you certainly had a part to play in editing 6 the text of the sections that we've just read. 7 MR. MOIR: Yeah, and wrote some of it 8 too. 9 MR. HANDLON: But going back to my 10 original question. In that section dealing with 11 floodway operation, you don't provide any 12 critique, any criticism? 13 MR. MOIR: Not in this report, no. 14 MR. HANDLON: No. And the next 15 section which is 3.6 timing, which is on page 20 16 and goes on to the top of page 21. Again, is that 17 the same type of information? It's essentially a 18 summary of the information from the engineering or 19 from the EIS? 20 MR. MOIR: From the EIS documents. 21 Now by EIS, I mean itself and the supporting 22 documents. 23 MR. HANDLON: Right, including the 24 engineering reports. 25 MR. MOIR: Yeah. 01912 1 MR. HANDLON: So that section 3 which 2 is, as we said, impacts attributed to existing 3 floodway. And then if you go on to the next 4 section of the report, I believe is another area 5 that you were involved with, and that would be 6 section 4 which is headed in the Table of Contents 7 as "The Incremental Impacts Expected With Expanded 8 Floodway Versus Existing Floodway." And on 9 page -- 10 MR. MOIR: I have on sections 4.1, 4.2 11 and 4.3 as listed in the Table of Contents, on 12 pages 33 to 34 as listed in the Table of Contents. 13 MR. HANDLON: So section 4.1 then is 14 the first section of the report dealing with the 15 incremental impacts of the expanded floodway, 16 correct? 17 MR. MOIR: Section 4.1, yes. 18 MR. HANDLON: And section 4.1 is 19 entitled "Water levels downstream." And again, 20 this is simply an outline of the findings from the 21 EIS? 22 MR. MOIR: The first paragraph is. 23 The second paragraph, the above statements, et 24 cetera, are based on certain assumptions. These 25 assumptions -- to the point. These assumptions 01913 1 need to be validated as the section that Peter 2 wrote. He took a paragraph or two that I wrote 3 and about the modeling uncertainty and trying to 4 put it into a more understandable English for a 5 wider audience. 6 MR. HANDLON: So in that section, 7 which paragraphs are ones that you had some 8 involvement with, the second paragraph you say? 9 MR. MOIR: I would have had 10 involvement in all of them. Peter would have 11 written second paragraph and then he would have 12 provided it to me and I would have said yeah, 13 okay. 14 MR. HANDLON: Just so I'm clear, 15 section 4.1 deals with water levels downstream, 16 and this is dealing in the general heading. 17 Incremental impacts expected to the floodway 18 expansion. So which paragraphs are a critique as 19 opposed to simply a summary of what was found in 20 the EIS material? 21 MR. MOIR: The first part of the first 22 paragraph, excepting the last sentence, would be I 23 would put under review. The last sentence I would 24 say would be an interpretation. The second 25 paragraph would be an interpretation. 01914 1 MR. HANDLON: So simply, a review of 2 what's in the EIS? 3 MR. MOIR: No, an interpretation. The 4 above statements, however, are based on certain 5 assumptions. It's clearly a critique. 6 MR. HANDLON: It's a critique then, 7 okay. 8 MR. MOIR: The second paragraph starts 9 off. 10 "The reports apparently do not discuss 11 predictions with any possibility of 12 erosion." 13 That's a critique. 14 MR. HANDLON: Okay. That's the third 15 paragraph? 16 MR. MOIR: That's the third paragraph. 17 Under "High water elevations during an ice jam," 18 That's a critique obviously. 19 MR. HANDLON: And the next paragraph? 20 MR. MOIR: The fourth paragraph. 21 "Given the above considerations, 22 perimeter flood control measures for 23 those affected north of the floodway," 24 yeah, that's a conclusion based on our critique. 25 I mean that's our conclusion. 01915 1 MR. HANDLON: All right. And I just 2 want to get a general outline of what you are 3 summarizing from the EIS and what your actual 4 criticisms or summary of your opinions. And I 5 just want to move on because we'll go back to some 6 of those. 7 MR. MOIR: My criticism is what I 8 mentioned this morning, commentary. 9 MR. HANDLON: I see. Well, I just 10 want to go through step by step and firstly what 11 was contained in the report because you appreciate 12 that's what we had before this morning. 13 MR. MOIR: I hope you appreciate that 14 when one only has three days to study something 15 and I want to do it in a professional, responsible 16 manner, I don't want to criticize an engineer's 17 work inappropriately or incorrectly. I want to be 18 sure that what I am saying is correct. I had a 19 short period of time to review these materials and 20 put it together. 21 Since then, since the, what, three, 22 four weeks since this went out, obviously I've 23 done additional thinking. And that is represented 24 in the presentation, okay. I trust you are clear 25 on that. 01916 1 MR. HANDLON: Well, you're telling me 2 that. 3 MR. MOIR: Yeah. 4 MR. HANDLON: I hear what you say. 5 MR. MOIR: All I'm saying -- 6 MR. HANDLON: I just want to move on 7 to this report and then we'll go on from there 8 because I want to be clear as to what information 9 you provided in your report and what information 10 you are providing today which is different or 11 expanded from what you had in your written report. 12 So in your next section, section 4.2, 13 "Timing of arrival of waters carried in the 14 floodway." Is that a summary of what was 15 contained in the EIS material? 16 MR. MOIR: That is a summary. 17 MR. HANDLON: There's no critique 18 there? 19 MR. MOIR: Not that I could see. 20 MR. HANDLON: And just for the record, 21 it states. 22 "The preliminary engineering 23 report..." 24 and you cite the report, 25 "...shows that the floodway expansion 01917 1 will increase the travel times by one 2 to two hours over the existing 3 floodway. Additionally, the HEC-RAS 4 model was calibrated to the 1996 flood 5 event and then run for the natural and 6 expanded floodway. The expanded 7 floodway caused a delay of a few hours 8 in the recession of water levels when 9 compared to the existing floodway." 10 MR. MOIR: If I had to re-examine the 11 edit, I would edit that "caused" past tense to 12 "would cause." But that would be a more accurate 13 way to reflect what was in the EIS. Obviously the 14 expanded wouldn't be a past tense. 15 MR. HANDLON: The next section, 16 section 4.3, and that would be, I understand, the 17 last section that you were involved with. Ice 18 jamming and breakup. Again, that is from what I 19 read, simply a summary of what was contained in 20 the EIS material? 21 MR. MOIR: Yes, that would appear to 22 be a summary. 23 MR. HANDLON: It's not a critique? 24 MR. MOIR: 4.3? 25 MR. HANDLON: Yes. 01918 1 MR. MOIR: It says we reiterate -- 2 well, I don't think it's a critique. 3 MR. HANDLON: Okay. Well, let's just 4 read the last paragraph. The first sentence says. 5 "The EIS..." 6 and you give the citation to the EIS, 7 "...reiterated that the floodway has 8 no negative impact on the ice jamming 9 downstream of the floodway outlet. 10 The argument is reiterated that the 11 floodway expansion will increase the 12 travel times by one to two hours over 13 the existing floodway. This increase 14 in travel time theoretically has a 15 positive effect, while not significant 16 on ice jamming downstream, by reducing 17 water levels for a given time during 18 the rising limb of the hydrograph." 19 MR. MOIR: Um-hum. 20 MR. HANDLON: So in your section in 21 your report, you summarized what was in the EIS. 22 MR. MOIR: I believe that's in the 23 EIS, perhaps more than one statement. 24 MR. HANDLON: Right. So you didn't 25 provide in the EIS any of the criticisms that you 01919 1 pointed out this morning, sorry, in your report? 2 MR. MOIR: In this report? 3 MR. HANDLON: Yes. 4 MR. MOIR: No. As I said, our 5 thinking develops with time. 6 MR. HANDLON: But why did you simply, 7 when providing a report, simply summarize what was 8 contained in the EIS? And then after your report 9 is submitted, come to this hearing with new and 10 further developed opinions? Why did you not put 11 those opinions down on paper in advance of this 12 hearing? 13 MR. MOIR: Time, time, pure and 14 simple. I mean, you folks have been living this 15 project for, what, five years? I've been living 16 this project for a grand total of maybe a week 17 now. It takes a while to think. I mean, surely 18 your thinking develops over time, too. 19 MR. HANDLON: When did you first 20 become involved yourself? 21 MR. MOIR: Sorry, I didn't hear? 22 MR. HANDLON: I don't see in the 23 report anywhere where you say what I'm going to do 24 right now is simply summarize what is in the EIS 25 and then I'm going to think about it a little more 01920 1 and then I'm going to come to the hearing and give 2 you my opinion. You don't state that in your 3 report at all, do you? 4 MR. MOIR: No, not that I'm aware of. 5 MR. HANDLON: So somebody reading this 6 report wouldn't know that you are simply 7 summarizing the EIS without giving any of your 8 personal opinions. 9 MR. MOIR: That's perfectly true and 10 that's what happens with all reports. Same with a 11 book. You put something in writing, that's your 12 thought at that moment that it is written. It's 13 up to the reader to make sure there is not a later 14 opinion. 15 MR. HANDLON: So what you're saying 16 then at the time that you did your edit, that you 17 were accepting the position as outlined in the EIS 18 on these points. 19 MR. MOIR: I wouldn't say I was 20 accepting the position. I was what the -- I would 21 say based on the information that was provided in 22 the EIS, which I started off with the assumption 23 that the modeling was done accurately, that the 24 work was all-encompassing, done to a 2004 or 2005 25 standard and that the information could be taken 01921 1 at face value. 2 We were scrambling around for 3 additional information the whole time. We 4 found -- for example, I never had access to the 5 models. To this day, I do not have access to the 6 models. That would be fundamental. I'm assuming 7 at this point that I am writing this that the 8 models were done accurately and completely. 9 MR. HANDLON: My understanding, 10 Mr. Moir, is all of the models and all of the 11 engineering reports were available and the reports 12 were available for your review. 13 MR. MOIR: I asked for -- 14 MR. HANDLON: And actually supplied to 15 your company. 16 MR. MOIR: No, not true. I asked for 17 the Mike 11 files, input files. I asked for all 18 the HEC-RAS modeling files. What I was provided 19 was two geometry files only. The CD that came to 20 me had two geometry files only for the Red River 21 from the inlet to The Forks, the other file was 22 from The Forks to the outlet. They did not 23 receive the flow data. I did not receive the 24 other crucial files that are part. 25 Now, whether that was a copying error 01922 1 on the CD or not, I don't know. I have no idea. 2 In fact, that disk was provided to me after I 3 wrote these sections. 4 MR. HANDLON: My understanding in the 5 report itself, the 50 page report was provided I 6 understand, or completed in January 2005. 7 MR. MOIR: This report or which 8 report? 9 MR. HANDLON: The main report, the 10 written report. 11 MR. MOIR: This report? I wrote my 12 sections in the middle of January. And I received 13 the modeling about the middle of January. 14 MR. HANDLON: Did you ever speak to 15 Mr. Carson? 16 MR. MOIR: Did Christine talk to you? 17 MR. HANDLON: No, no. If you thought 18 that something was missing or you needed further 19 information, did you phone Mr. Carson? 20 MR. MOIR: No, I did not. 21 MR. HANDLON: And Christine is your 22 assistant, correct? 23 MR. MOIR: She is one of the junior 24 engineers that works with me, right. 25 MR. HANDLON: And did she come to you 01923 1 at any point in time and say there is insufficient 2 information or did you question her, have you 3 received all of the information? 4 MR. MOIR: I asked her did she get the 5 disk. She said yes. 6 MR. HANDLON: So let's go back to your 7 report. So at the time that you did your report 8 in mid-January, then what's stated in here, if 9 it's a summary in the EIS and you don't provide a 10 critique or a criticism, then at that point in 11 time, can we take it that you were accepting what 12 was contained in the EIS? 13 MR. MOIR: No. 14 MR. HANDLON: Well, can you -- 15 MR. MOIR: Very simple reason. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Order. 17 MR. MOIR: Very simple reason. And 18 this is perhaps a lesson of other EIS going back 19 25 years. I thought we were over this 1970's type 20 confrontational style. 21 We have anecdotal evidence. We have 22 technical numbers. They all have a kernel of 23 truth in them. Those have to be reconciled. Now 24 some of the opinions that are being presented by 25 people in opposition are not technically correct 01924 1 but their observations are valuable. You have to 2 understand and come to an understanding, I think, 3 where they are coming from. It would make the 4 process go so much more smoothly. 5 I mean this was not new at all about 6 how one conducts an environmental hearing. This 7 is a piece of cake to working in the Mackenzie 8 Valley. 9 MR. HANDLON: I don't think we can 10 make the comparison. 11 MR. MOIR: There is anecdotal 12 evidence, there is numerical modeling. There is a 13 kernel of truth in both, they have to be 14 reconciled. The question in my mind all along has 15 been what's missing from the numerical modeling 16 that explains what these people are seeing? 17 That's been the whole question all along. 18 And I think quite frankly, it's the 19 hydrology, not the RAS modeling, not the Mike 11 20 modeling, it's the fact that we really haven't, 21 how do we put this, explained what we're doing 22 technically with the big storm water pond. The 23 RAS modeling assumes a discharge, does it not? 24 You put a discharge, you stick that into the 25 model, out comes a water level. Where did that 01925 1 discharge come from? That comes out of the 2 hydrology modeling. 3 I would be asking -- if I was in your 4 shoes frankly, I'd be asking myself all along why 5 are these people saying these things? What is it 6 that's in what they are observing that can be 7 explained by what I can see with my technical 8 numbers? To me, that's been the issue all along 9 here. And so that's what I've been trying to 10 figure out. 11 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Moir, you appreciate 12 you are part of a process here. And from what you 13 have told us, you are not fully appreciative of 14 it, and I'm not meaning in a critical way, but you 15 just haven't been involved in all of the 16 consultation, all of the reviews of the many 17 issues in the EIS. 18 MR. MOIR: Of course not. 19 MR. HANDLON: But you are part of the 20 process. And part of your process was being part 21 of a company that provided a report. And what I'm 22 suggesting to you is that in your report itself, 23 the written report that you provided, and I 24 appreciate you had assistance, that that report 25 contains certain summaries of what's contained in 01926 1 the EIS and it contains your critique. And any 2 critique, criticism you had at that point in time, 3 at that point in time, is contained in the written 4 text. And that any criticisms -- 5 MR. MOIR: That's my thinking at that 6 moment in time when this was written. 7 MR. HANDLON: That's my only point. 8 And as you have come here and you have heard other 9 matters, you have expanded upon that. But I 10 appreciate -- 11 MR. MOIR: Not necessarily. I 12 wouldn't say as I've heard other matters. Quite 13 frankly, as I have been away from the office and 14 had a chance to think about this project and only 15 this project. 16 MR. HANDLON: And you appreciate as 17 part of any process that opinions expressed by 18 experts, that people that may need to respond to 19 it need to understand what the point is that you 20 are making. 21 MR. MOIR: Um-hum. 22 MR. HANDLON: And to understand what 23 you may have said in the past. And if you're 24 changing what you said in the past, I think that's 25 fair enough to let us know what it is that you've 01927 1 changed. 2 MR. MOIR: Absolutely. That is what I 3 tried to say to you. This is my thinking, 4 regardless of whether Christine or who did it, 5 it's my responsibility, the water hydraulic ice 6 sections in here are my state of thinking the 7 middle of January. 8 MR. HANDLON: At that point in time. 9 MR. MOIR: And as I said, this is my 10 thinking as of now, this morning. 11 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And the thinking 12 as of this morning, did you read any other reports 13 between your written report and your presentation 14 today specifically on this issue? 15 MR. MOIR: I probably went through all 16 your EIS documents three times since writing the 17 report from cover to cover. I went onto your 18 website. I went to try to find everything that I 19 could possibly find over the last week, week and a 20 half that related to these issues, trying to 21 figure out where the two things were, what was 22 missing. 23 MR. HANDLON: The reports specifically 24 dealing with ice jamming, the ice issues, did you 25 read the preliminary engineering report, appendix 01928 1 L which was the Acres report? 2 MR. MOIR: I have section 4 here in 3 front of me, yes. Yes, I read appendix L. 4 MR. HANDLON: Had you read that before 5 your initial -- 6 MR. MOIR: I read it in November. 7 MR. HANDLON: And also the main report 8 which is the main report, engineering report which 9 has section 8 dealing with these issues. 10 MR. MOIR: Section 8.3? 11 MR. HANDLON: Yes. 12 MR. MOIR: Yes. 13 MR. HANDLON: So you've read those? 14 MR. MOIR: Yeah. I read 8.3 back in 15 November. And I've been through it I don't know 16 how many times since. 17 MR. HANDLON: All right. I just want 18 to be clear, because you had stated that your 19 assistant had done the preliminary review. Did 20 you -- 21 MR. MOIR: I went through things, saw 22 an enormous pile of documents like this, tried to 23 find out quickly what was there, realized that it 24 was more than I could do in three days. Having 25 looked at these key items, I asked Christine to go 01929 1 and look for these things. I expect to find them. 2 She went through them. I don't think I read these 3 sections again until after the report was written. 4 MR. HANDLON: Just dealing with the 5 written report, and I just have a couple questions 6 myself. On the recommendation section of the 7 report which is right at the end, are there any 8 recommendations contained in there which relate to 9 the issue that you're speaking here today on? 10 MR. MOIR: Which page would that be, 11 sir? 12 MR. HANDLON: I believe it's at page 13 50. 14 MR. MOIR: The only recommendation 15 that I have in highlight is recommendation number 16 8. And that summarizes or is the end result of 17 three or four other recommendations we thought 18 about adding in. 19 MR. HANDLON: And your statement 20 number 8 is areas downstream of the outfall and 21 that means the outlet of the floodway -- 22 MR. MOIR: Um-hum. 23 MR. HANDLON: -- will experience 24 incremental flooding and appropriate safety factor 25 needs to be incorporated into the design of the 01930 1 required downstream flood control measures to 2 address modeling, uncertainty, permanent flood 3 control measures downstream are warranted, and 4 that would be permanent measures, whether it 5 related to the existing floodway or any expansion. 6 MR. MOIR: It could be taken in any 7 means, including expanding the floodway further 8 downstream. It could mean dykes, it could mean 9 any number of things. But something permanent, 10 not sandbags, not active measures. 11 MR. HANDLON: There's some questions 12 that Mr. Carson will have. 13 MR. CARSON: Mr. Moir, just a few 14 technical questions on some of your work. 15 Firstly, in your presentation this morning, I 16 found it interesting that you compared the Red 17 River to some other rivers in Canada and made the 18 comment that this is a north flowing river and is 19 a classic, I believe you used the word classic for 20 ice jams. 21 MR. MOIR: Um-hum. 22 MR. CARSON: Would you agree then that 23 with or without the floodway, ice jams would 24 likely be a concern or a problem? 25 MR. MOIR: Oh heavens, yes, with or 01931 1 without, yes. 2 MR. CARSON: Okay, thank you. 3 Earlier, Mr. McNeil disputed the fact that you had 4 stated that the floodway provides no benefit to 5 the people north of Winnipeg. And I think he went 6 through that. I'm not going to touch that. But 7 did you realize that there are substantial 8 improvements provided by the Shellmouth Dam and 9 the Portage Diversion to this area? 10 MR. MOIR: Yes. 11 MR. CARSON: Also this morning -- 12 MR. MOIR: Whether they are 13 relevant -- whether they are sufficient would be 14 an issue I would be talking about. They are good 15 but they are not the whole answer. 16 MR. CARSON: No, of course not, no. 17 But I think it has been proven, and you may have 18 seen in the reports that the Shellmouth Dam plus 19 the Portage Diversion are equivalent to roughly 20 30,000 CFS of flood reduction in the area of 21 Selkirk? 22 MR. MOIR: I know they are substantial 23 and important. 24 MR. CARSON: Okay, that's the point. 25 You made a comment this morning on the simplicity 01932 1 of the HEC-RAS model, and it struck me as somewhat 2 critical. You were somewhat critical of using the 3 HEC-RAS model for determining travel times in the 4 Floodway and in the Red River. Can you perhaps 5 expand on that as to maybe what other techniques 6 would you recommend be applied that would be any 7 better than the universally acceptable HEC-RAS 8 model? 9 MR. MOIR: For HEC-RAS, simply to give 10 water level elevations given a certain discharge. 11 It requires skill to use. I'm not disputing your 12 skill to use at all. Don't get me wrong. Don't 13 take that implication. My point was that this is 14 not some mysterious black box that gives us 15 guidance. I guess the word is on model. You 16 know, all HEC-RAS, as you well know, is just an 17 automated standard step solution or, in the 18 unsteady mode, it's a little bit better than that. 19 But it does not give you or the operator guidance 20 in terms of what inputs to use, what values are 21 reasonable. I mean, even FEMA publishes a program 22 called CHECK-RAS to verify -- it simply verifies 23 the input and verifies that the outputs are within 24 range. 25 HEC-RAS is a very good solid verified 01933 1 technique for certain things which, for instance, 2 if you have a discharge which you are confident, 3 if you have cross-sections that you are confident 4 in, then you should be able to run it fairly well. 5 Within, you know, flat, muddy streams, sure. 6 MR. CARSON: So for a steady-state 7 condition, you would agree that the HEC-RAS model 8 if properly calibrated, properly applied by a 9 qualified practitioner would be suitable for 10 estimating travel times in either the Red River or 11 the floodway? 12 MR. MOIR: It would give you a 13 velocity, yes, of water. 14 MR. CARSON: Which can be converted 15 into a travel time of water? 16 MR. MOIR: Sure. 17 MR. CARSON: You tended to, or at 18 least the impression I got was that you didn't 19 understand that we had applied the more recent 20 generation of HEC-RAS which is not the standard 21 step method. Are you familiar with HEC-RAS 3? 22 MR. MOIR: I've used 3.11 myself. 23 MR. CARSON: Can you tell us what 24 technique it uses for solution? 25 MR. MOIR: I'm not familiar with the 01934 1 source code, no. 2 MR. CARSON: Are you aware that it 3 recognizes routing effects and is considered a 4 state-of-the-art method of estimating transit 5 times and flood routing and open channels? 6 MR. MOIR: Yes. It is one model that 7 could be used, yes. 8 MR. CARSON: Thank you. You were also 9 critical about our analysis or the consideration 10 of storage upstream and the routing effects and so 11 on. Are you familiar with Mike 11? 12 MR. MOIR: Yes, I'm familiar with some 13 of it. 14 MR. CARSON: Would you agree that Mike 15 11 is a leading method of hydraulic analysis of 16 flood plains? 17 MR. MOIR: It's one of them. 18 MR. CARSON: It's one of the leading 19 methods in hydraulic analysis of flood plains; 20 would you agree with that? 21 MR. MOIR: For hydraulic analysis, 22 yes. 23 MR. CARSON: Okay. Another point that 24 I picked up on this morning that I hadn't seen in 25 your report, it seemed to be a criticism that we 01935 1 did not have air photos. And I must say that I 2 also was sorry that we didn't have air photos. 3 But in an ideal world, we would have had, and we 4 would have preferred to have them. However, what 5 exactly are you driving at? I wasn't quite sure 6 as to what you were proposing with regards to 7 aerial photographs of ice jams. Are you 8 suggesting that the floodway design or 9 implementation await the assembly of five or 10 10 years of aerial photographs? 11 MR. MOIR: My criticism was not 12 directed at you in any way whatsoever. I 13 recognize that engineers are at work under 14 constraints. My comment perhaps went a bit 15 quickly. 16 My personal experience was that I, 17 before doing the Norman Wells work, had done an 18 intense literature search on ice jamming. And I 19 thought I really understood what was going on. I 20 had done some model work and whatnot. I really 21 thought I understood what ice jamming was all 22 about. I got up in an airplane and I think it was 23 probably the second day we went up there and had a 24 look at what the river was doing from the air, and 25 I realized what we were seeing was not what was in 01936 1 the books. 2 Now, that isn't to say that what was 3 in the books was wrong. All I'm saying is it 4 wasn't sufficient. And I think once you get up in 5 an airplane and start tracing up and down a river, 6 you learn an awful lot in a real hurry, and a lot 7 more than you can from standing at the shore. 8 I was suggesting, for your second 9 question, implication about delay -- oh heavens, 10 no. What I'm saying is that there is probably a 11 great deal of existing photography in the National 12 Air Photo Library and I would think -- and perhaps 13 at the university and perhaps at a dozen other 14 places. 15 The Red River is a highly studied 16 river as far as I know. That information should 17 be readily available. You could probably -- not 18 you in particular, but you in general could 19 probably have that information in your hand in two 20 weeks. Send my engineers down to Ottawa. 21 MR. CARSON: For the record, I'd like 22 to clarify that we did look into that and there 23 are no aerial photographs available of ice jams of 24 any type on the Red River. 25 MR. MOIR: In the National Air Photo 01937 1 Library or anywhere? 2 MR. CARSON: That's right. 3 MR. MOIR: I find that hard to 4 believe, but so be it. 5 MR. CARSON: Another question. You 6 said this morning that you thought that we should 7 nail down more carefully the flow at which ice 8 releases on the Red River. Exactly how would you 9 propose to do that? 10 MR. MOIR: You already have the 11 information on when the ice goes out at various 12 points in the river. I assume -- has anybody done 13 a statistical analysis on just the day that it 14 goes out? Has anybody compared those days to the 15 temperatures that were leading up to that toward 16 the amount of heat that went into the ice, or the 17 degree days. I mean that's the sort of thing I'm 18 suggesting. And compare those times to when the 19 water arrives. Has somebody done that? 20 MR. CARSON: If we have proven 21 scientifically, with models that are universally 22 acceptable and properly calibrated, that the 23 travel time in Red River and the floodway is such 24 that with the floodway it actually improves or 25 delays the arrival of flood times downstream, what 01938 1 would be the relevance of determining exactly what 2 you're talking about in degree days of freezing 3 versus breakup time and so on, if we've already 4 proven that it occurs later than it would have 5 under the state of nature? 6 MR. MOIR: Ice jam severity. Ice jam 7 severity -- I think the documentation that's in 8 the EIS assumes that there are only two 9 discharges, one comes in and one goes out, and are 10 not taking into account the changes that occur 11 because of the changes in the storm water pond. 12 That's what I'm trying to get at. If you change 13 the size of the pipe that's coming out of retained 14 water south of Winnipeg, you are releasing more 15 water. So you are changing the time, the amount 16 when that water comes out of the area south of 17 Winnipeg. You have a -- where are you relative to 18 the mean date of breakup, for example, in changing 19 your times. I may not be explaining it very well. 20 MR. CARSON: I'm not here to debate 21 and that's a fact, but I would point out that the 22 storage effects had been very extensively analyzed 23 using Mike 11 and HEC-RAS 3 and we do not see that 24 there is any -- 25 MR. MOIR: Sorry, then I overlooked 01939 1 the Mike 11 results. So I don't know where they 2 are in the documents. 3 MR. CARSON: Well, in general, the 4 results are stated in Appendix L. 5 MR. MOIR: Were they peer-reviewed by 6 somebody outside of Manitoba? Has somebody -- 7 MR. CARSON: My lawyer tells me here 8 that I am asking the questions. 9 MR. MOIR: Sorry. 10 MR. CARSON: Just moving along here. 11 You spoke this morning of the Niagara River and 12 the ice problems on the Niagara River. Are you 13 familiar with the extensive work that New York 14 Power has done over a five year period in the 15 1990s to assess ice jams in the Niagara River? 16 MR. MOIR: Yeah. 17 MR. CARSON: And have you read the 18 engineering reports on that? 19 MR. MOIR: Yes, yes. 20 MR. CARSON: And how did you draw a 21 parallel from the Niagara River to the Red River? 22 MR. MOIR: I didn't, I didn't, I 23 didn't. What I was trying to say was that the -- 24 what happens on the Red and what happens on the 25 Niagara are two different things in terms of ice 01940 1 jamming. What I was trying to say on the Niagara 2 was that the reason they get ice jams is they have 3 a decreasing amount of ice-carrying capacity. The 4 river slows down at a particular point after it 5 goes around one of the islands in the river, Grand 6 Island. And this lack or change in ice-carrying 7 capacity causes jams to form at that particular 8 location. That's the kind of model that tends to 9 be in HEC-RAS and a number of other -- that's the 10 grain model, the force model of ice jamming. 11 On the other hand, what you're seeing 12 on the Red River obviously, from your personal 13 experience, is something very different. Jams are 14 running into intact ice sheets or blocks -- big 15 blocked river with pieces of ice. They are 16 holding back the ice. 17 And that video that the proponents 18 have which was supposed to be part of our report, 19 it shows in the '96 jam, it shows that the jam was 20 keyed by a big huge chunk of ice, just got 21 cockeyed. The water level came up. It freed from 22 the bank because it was open water, and that ice 23 just twisted a little bit and then piled all this 24 rubble behind it. Two different complete 25 mechanisms, and one has to be careful which one is 01941 1 being applied in the model. 2 I am personally not aware of a 3 numerical model of ice jams that models 4 specifically when a sheet of ice of -- a jam from 5 a sheet of ice would break up. Now modeling the 6 water level, no problem, but modeling when, 7 particularly when it would break up and say that 8 there is an ice clearing discharge for that kind 9 of ice jam, I am not aware of that. That was 10 my -- I hope I didn't confuse you. 11 MR. CARSON: Do you understand the 12 analysis that was reported in section 8 of the 13 main report, or referred to I guess in the main 14 report, that addressed the potential breakup of 15 the solid ice cover in the first place, not the 16 formation of the ice jam but the breakup of the 17 ice, the breakup of the static and of winter ice 18 cover? 19 MR. MOIR: Which section was that in? 20 MR. CARSON: That was referred to in 21 the report and it was contained -- an analysis of 22 that was contained in an internal memorandum that 23 we sent to you or your junior engineer. 24 MR. MOIR: That would be your file 25 31107E7 report? Can you point that to me in here, 01942 1 where that was? 2 MR. CARSON: I don't have your report 3 right in front of me here. But do you have a 4 title there listed? 5 MR. MOIR: Would you like to look 6 through it? 7 MR. CARSON: Oh, yeah, that looks like 8 it. That looks familiar, yeah. That's it. The 9 point that was being made there was that river ice 10 breaks up at a reasonably predictable stage. And 11 there has been a number of techniques applied and 12 it was described in that memo. And it showed that 13 breakup in the lower Red River, based on all the 14 evidence that science can provide, would not occur 15 at flows greater than about 100,000 cubic feet per 16 second. 17 MR. MOIR: Yeah, I am familiar with 18 that statement and that's the statement that I am 19 disputing. I am not sure that those are 20 applicable in this particular case. 21 MR. CARSON: But the point that you 22 are making is that you are drawing the parallel to 23 an existing ice jam forced against a thermal ice 24 cover, a stationary unmoving ice cover. That 25 wasn't the point that we were making. What we 01943 1 were pointing to was that the initial breakup of 2 the ice cover that would cause the ice jam would 3 not occur at flows greater than 100,000 CFS. And 4 that has quite a relevance to the floodway. 5 MR. MOIR: Yes, it does. I'm not sure 6 that that quite applies. 7 MR. CARSON: We'll have to agree to 8 disagree then. 9 MR. MOIR: Yeah. 10 MR. CARSON: I'd like to ask you to 11 speculate a little bit. We demonstrated quite 12 clearly, and I think you understood it given your 13 comments in your report, that all the scientific 14 analyses show that the floodway actually delays 15 the arrival of flood flows downstream of the 16 outlet for flows up to close to 100,000 cubic feet 17 per second. 18 MR. MOIR: Yeah, I commented on that, 19 yes. I reviewed that, yes. 20 MR. CARSON: In fact, we showed that 21 the delay was a few hours. Would you think that 22 would be of much benefit to the ice conditions? 23 MR. MOIR: Depends what I was doing. 24 If I was trying to get across the ice, an hour 25 might make a big difference. But in general 01944 1 terms, no. 2 MR. CARSON: So you would agree that 3 we should not take credit for a few hours of delay 4 of that arrival of the rapidly rising flow 5 downstream? 6 MR. MOIR: Well, how does that 7 compare? I mean, where is your error band on that 8 estimate? Is your error band two, three hours on 9 that estimate? Where does that stand in your 10 error band? I don't think it's a big deal frankly 11 and, you know, you and I can talk about that quite 12 a bit. I mean, you know, I think I understand 13 where you are coming from, is change in the shape 14 of the floodway and whatnot. 15 MR. CARSON: So then just to take that 16 a little bit further. Would you think that even a 17 delay, or rather, sorry, a hastening of the 18 arrival of a flood flow by a few hours would make 19 any difference to the formation of ice jams? 20 MR. MOIR: I think that sort of small 21 time increment, hour or something like that, is 22 probably well within the error, you know, error 23 band of the modeling processes and not relevant. 24 MR. CARSON: Okay. Thank you. Just 25 backing up to another point that you made this 01945 1 morning. Yeah, it was in one of your slides which 2 I don't have right here. But you made reference 3 in a slide that was entitled "Ice Jamming on the 4 Red." And you suggested that a mitigation measure 5 could be extending the floodway north of Selkirk. 6 Did you have a look at how far that extension 7 would have to be to be of benefit? 8 MR. MOIR: Past the highway 4 bridge, 9 past the most downstream ice jamming locations. 10 MR. CARSON: And I haven't actually 11 looked at the distance that that would be, but do 12 you have any idea of how far that is from the 13 existing outlet? 14 MR. MOIR: Drove it yesterday, number 15 of miles. 16 MR. CARSON: Yeah, number of miles, 17 yeah. So would you agree that the cost of doing 18 that would be substantial? 19 MR. MOIR: Oh, yes. 20 MR. CARSON: You mentioned on that 21 same slide, or maybe it was the next one I've 22 jotted down "Flood Prevention" or a slide you 23 entitled flood prevention. You suggested that one 24 possible means of mitigation might be the 25 installation of structures to cause weak points in 01946 1 the ice jam -- or rather the ice cover? 2 MR. MOIR: Um-hum. 3 MR. CARSON: Are you aware of 4 locations in Canada that have used that technique? 5 MR. MOIR: Explicitly for that 6 purpose? No. But you are familiar with the 7 structures on the St. Lawrence between Montreal 8 and Quebec on Lake St. Francis, their ice 9 retention structures? 10 MR. CARSON: Oh, yes. 11 MR. MOIR: Yeah, yeah, classic 12 structures. 13 MR. CARSON: Ice retention structures, 14 yes. 15 MR. MOIR: The idea would be that 16 the -- the idea that has been -- that idea has 17 been floated a number of times for ice jamming 18 prevention or weakening ice sheets. It's based on 19 the observation that you have a slide show and 20 it's over the course of the winter at the level 21 that the ice freezes up, you end up with an open 22 water area when the ice sheet rises at the 23 beginning of breakup. Instead of having one big 24 large ice sheet to deal with that could jam in the 25 river, you're ending up with a number of smaller 01947 1 ice sheets. 2 MR. CARSON: On your slide entitled 3 "Ice Jamming on the Red River" you suggested, I 4 think, that at discharges less than 100,000 CFS, 5 that there should be no flow pass through the 6 floodway? Was that the inference that I got from 7 that? To be safe in terms of ice downstream? 8 MR. MOIR: That was a snap 9 off-the-cuff thing. But basically the idea is if 10 there is an ice jamming, ice clearing discharge of 11 somewhere below 100,000 CFS, then one of the 12 measures would be to not have any discharge within 13 that ice jamming reach of 100,000 CFS. The 14 implication is that you put a structure to cross 15 the river at that point as part of your ice -- as 16 part of your -- part of the extension of the 17 floodway. So you put another structure in there. 18 Obviously too expensive a suggestion. 19 MR. CARSON: So do you agree then that 20 that would be impractical? 21 MR. MOIR: It wouldn't be impractical, 22 it might be expensive. 23 MR. CARSON: Would you agree that it 24 would not be economically feasible? 25 MR. MOIR: No. 01948 1 MR. CARSON: The last question has to 2 do with the statement about travel times. In your 3 slide called travel times, I guess it was the 4 second slide called travel times, you made the 5 statement that the travel time through the 6 floodway would equalize with the expanded floodway 7 at a travel time of ten hours. 8 MR. MOIR: That comes from one of your 9 graphs which shows the two curves coming down, 10 that 10 hour limit, that's what I was trying to 11 convey there. 12 MR. CARSON: I wonder if I put that 13 slide up. 14 MR. MOIR: By all means. 15 MR. CARSON: The one on the bottom of 16 the sheet, 8.5 I think he means. 17 Okay. For the record, this is figure 18 8-5 in the preliminary engineering report, main 19 volume. And what it shows is the transit time of 20 water, of a piece, of a particle of water through 21 the floodway from the upstream end to the 22 downstream end for a given flow through the river. 23 So, for example, and this might be somewhat 24 difficult for the people at the back to read, but 25 along the horizontal scale we have the amount of 01949 1 flow in the floodway, in terms of cubic metres per 2 second. So, as an example here, at 1,000 cubic 3 metres per second -- at 1,000 cubic metres per 4 second, right there, it would indicate on the blue 5 line for the existing floodway that the travel 6 time through the channel would be roughly 12 7 hours, based on the best scientific evidence 8 available. Do you agree? 9 MR. MOIR: Okay. 10 MR. CARSON: And the yellow line above 11 that is for the expanded floodway. So, for the 12 same 1,000 cubic metres per second, the transit 13 time is slowed somewhat from 12 hours to, I would 14 read it off the graph, perhaps 13 and a half 15 hours. And I think you would agree with that? 16 MR. MOIR: I agree those are the 17 points on your graph. 18 MR. CARSON: Out at the bottom of the 19 graph here you would see that the point that you 20 mentioned in your report, 2,000 cubic metres per 21 second is a travel time of nearly 10 hours -- 22 MR. MOIR: Um-hum. 23 MR. CARSON: -- in the existing 24 floodway, but the travel time in the expanded 25 floodway is estimated to be eleven hours, in other 01950 1 words, it is slower than through the existing 2 floodway. 3 MR. MOIR: And? 4 MR. CARSON: And the point that you 5 put on your slide was that, you intimated that at 6 2,000 cubic metres per second or greater they were 7 roughly equal in travel time, and that would be 10 8 hours. 9 MR. MOIR: If that's what you took 10 from that, then I apologize, because that was not 11 the intent of what I was trying to say. 12 MR. CARSON: I guess what I'm going to 13 point out here is that the actual point at which 14 those transit times become equal is 3,000 cubic 15 metres per second in the floodway, from that 16 graph, and just extrapolating the line 17 horizontally for the blue line to that point, 18 3,000 cubic metres per second. 19 Now, Doug, could you put up the other 20 graph? 21 This is figure 8-6, again from the 22 main volume of the preliminary engineering report. 23 And what it shows is for a given state of nature 24 flow in the Red River, along the horizontal scale, 25 what the diversion of flood waters would be into 01951 1 the floodway, again based on the best scientific 2 evidence that there is in existence, in terms of 3 cubic metres per second. 4 So from that last graph we pointed out 5 that the travel time on the existing floodway 6 would equalize with that of the expanded floodway 7 at a flow of about 3,000 cubic metres per second. 8 So from this graph, one could deduce that in fact 9 we are off the scale here, it is above what is 10 shown at the upper limit at 2,000 cubic metres per 11 second. But if one were to look upwards to 3,000, 12 would you speculate that if you were to extend the 13 line for the expanded floodway that the point at 14 which the travel time on the existing floodway 15 would equalize with that of the expanded floodway 16 would be of a state of nature flow of in excess of 17 5,000 cubic metres per second. 18 MR. MOIR: And? 19 MR. CARSON: And the point is that 20 that flood flow is even greater than the peak of 21 the 1997 flood, which is more than twice what the 22 flow on the river has ever been observed to have 23 an ice cover on. 24 MR. MOIR: What is the significance of 25 travel time here? 01952 1 MR. CARSON: Well, because if you 2 prove that travel time with the expanded floodway 3 is greater than for the existing floodway, that 4 there would be a net result of mitigating ice jam 5 formation downstream. 6 MR. MOIR: To what significant degree? 7 MR. CARSON: I'm not arguing that it 8 is of any significance. In fact, our report 9 states that it would be at least proven to not 10 exacerbate the situation. 11 MR. MOIR: I would not say that it 12 does not exacerbate the situation. I would say 13 that, yes, it is very nice that the travel times 14 are close, but I'm not sure that that is really 15 the issue here. I think the issue here is you 16 have got a bigger pipe draining your storm water 17 pan faster. You have more water coming down there 18 when you may have ice on the river. 19 The fundamental doubt that I have, in 20 my mind, that I'm not seeing in the literature, or 21 in your report, are two things; one is your 22 assertion that there is an ice clearing discharge 23 that applies to these kind of ice jams. That's 24 fundamental. What you have in your report here, 25 in your background report here, is the 01953 1 densitometric criteria, it is not anything to do 2 with the strength of the ice sheet. 3 The second point that I'm making is 4 that you have a bigger pipe coming out of the 5 south Manitoba storm water detention pond. So we 6 are draining more water into a situation where we 7 have ice on the river. We are making things 8 worse. The fact that the -- I apologize if I'm 9 dense and slow on this, you have had many more 10 years than I have had to get your mind around 11 this. But my understanding in my mind, as I 12 visualize this river, is that the travel time 13 becomes an issue where you are worried about 14 having flow from both channels at the same time, 15 at that moment when you open the floodway. And 16 that is the concern, that is the concern over 17 travel time. 18 Why I'm not really too excited about 19 one or two or three hours is that the timing of 20 the breakup varies in days, if not weeks. That's 21 why I'm not really excited about one or two hours. 22 Do you understand where I'm coming from on that? 23 The hours -- 24 MR. CARSON: No, I would say I don't 25 understand where you are coming from. The point 01954 1 of criticism of the floodway has been that, and I 2 think Mr. Jonasson said it himself, that it 3 releases this slug of water downstream much 4 earlier than it would have otherwise. And I think 5 that all of the scientific evidence points in the 6 opposite direction. It is only at flows greater 7 than the 1997 flood that there is actually any 8 additional travel time through the expanded 9 floodway. So the effect on ice jamming is 10 irrelevant. 11 MR. MOIR: My initial reaction to that 12 is that we really need to go out and have a beer. 13 I fully appreciate your technical analysis, but 14 I'm not sure that it is really relevant here. 15 Just because Jack, who is a really nice guy, says 16 something, doesn't make it true with a capital T. 17 I read the EIS. I am reading all of this analysis 18 about travel times, and I'm asking myself why is 19 this relevant? And maybe over a beer you could 20 explain to me why this becomes a lasting concern 21 beyond the few hours, between the flow goes 22 through Winnipeg after the gate opens and you 23 start to move water through the floodway, where 24 you might have a difference in travel time, where 25 you have say 80,000 coming through Winnipeg 01955 1 proper, and then you have another 20,000 coming 2 through the floodway, and it gets there sooner 3 than the same particles that left it. I think 4 what you are telling me about travel times is I 5 have two particles side-by-side, one goes through 6 the Red River, the other one comes to the 7 floodway. If this one gets down here faster, it 8 adds to the flow that was there. If it comes 9 slower, it is less flow. 10 What you are telling me in your 11 analysis is that in the floodway, for a lot of 12 reasons, good reasons, that the travel times are 13 really close. And that says, okay, we have done 14 some great engineering on getting your travel 15 times right, so you have gotten away from one 16 problem that could have been really bad. But I 17 don't think that -- that's fine. Check mark. 18 That's why I'm not making a big deal out of travel 19 time. I think you have done a great job on that. 20 Where my issues, where my issue -- 21 where I'm still having doubts, and I would really 22 like you to convince me of this one, is that ice 23 clearing discharge business. That's one thing. 24 And the other one is looking at the hydrology 25 side, not the hydraulic side, but the hydrology 01956 1 side of this. You have got a bigger pipe there, 2 you have got a lot of water damned up there, you 3 are letting it down sooner -- not you in 4 particular, but in general the water is coming 5 down through that bigger pipe sooner than it would 6 have in natural conditions, because you built the 7 flooding, you built the dyking and everything 8 else. 9 I don't know why we want to deny it. 10 Why don't just we get out and say, look guys, this 11 is what is going to happen, too bad, let's deal 12 with it. 13 MR. CARSON: Could we go back to the 14 relevance of the travel time? You are familiar 15 with ice jams. Could you maybe just briefly 16 summarize what causes ice jams? 17 MR. MOIR: As far as I know there 18 seems to be two causes. One is a reduction of ice 19 carrying capacity in a stream, where you would 20 have jumbles of ice or different sizes of ice pans 21 or whatever, but ice that cannot span from shore 22 to shore. Wherever the ice carrying capacity of 23 that river decreases, there is a higher 24 probability of an ice jam occurring. 25 The second one is where you have very 01957 1 large ice sheets that span bank to bank. When the 2 water comes up -- allow me to show you a picture. 3 The flow is from left to right in this 4 picture. For the record, that is Patricia Island 5 and the Mackenzie River on the right. That ice 6 sheet was in place just upstream of that location. 7 The water level, the banks are say 45 degrees at 8 that point. The ice froze at this elevation. We 9 have already started to get flow increase in the 10 river, so the ice sheet has lifted several metres. 11 This gives you an open water gap on either side of 12 the sheet. As well, in this particular 13 location -- so that ice sheet would go down, will 14 flow down. It is not supported to the banks any 15 more, so it would go downstream. 16 Now, in this particular case because 17 of the flow, the loading on that sheet isn't 18 uniform, so it doesn't go straight down, it 19 curves. So what you have is a very large ice 20 sheet there, five feet thick, and you can see the 21 ice pile up on either shore in the photograph. 22 That is the kind of ice jam we saw on 23 the Mackenzie all of the time. It is the same 24 kind of ice jam that we saw in the video that 25 these folks provided us on the Red River. You 01958 1 would also get, because you have strong ice 2 downstream you might get jams against pieces of 3 ice that have never moved at all. 4 Now the ice jam criteria that are in 5 there -- there are three of them in your report 6 there, the densitometric one that Spiros talks 7 about as well, Spiros Paltaos (ph), and he 8 talks -- his criteria applies to the upstream end 9 of an ice jam. So, it says that the ice jam will 10 unravel from the upstream end and the ice will 11 come down underneath, which is the relevance of 12 the photograph that I was trying to show in my 13 presentation. 14 What I'm saying is the ice clearing 15 discharge may not apply to this kind of ice jam. 16 You will get a thin coating, the densitometric 17 Froude number will give you a thin coating of ice 18 on it, but it won't allow it to thicken, all of 19 the extra ice travels underneath the ice jam. 20 MR. CARSON: I think your answer to 21 that question was one of the mechanisms for the 22 formation of an ice jam is just the fact that the 23 ice jam can't get through a narrowing, it is solid 24 and it jams in place and it causes accumulation of 25 ice upstream; is that correct? 01959 1 MR. MOIR: Yes. 2 MR. CARSON: What was the other cause 3 of ice jamming? 4 MR. MOIR: You have small pieces of 5 ice that are less than river width, and you have a 6 decrease in ice carrying capacity. For example, 7 you could have parallel banks on a stream, but 8 slope changes, so your velocity goes down, so your 9 ice carrying capacity in that river decreases. 10 That's what happens on the Niagara River. You 11 still have water going downstream, but these small 12 chunks of ice, it is small chunks, not big chunks 13 at all on Niagara, and that forms a jam. 14 MR. CARSON: If those are the 15 mechanisms for ice jamming, can you tell how, if 16 the floodway would either slow or increase travel 17 time, or even speed it up for that matter by a few 18 hours, how that would be relevant to the formation 19 of an ice jam? 20 MR. MOIR: That's why I'm saying I 21 don't think that the travel time analysis really 22 applies here. What I'm saying is that you have 23 got a bigger pipe draining more water, it is a 24 more gross effect than the idea of bringing a 25 little bit of water out. 01960 1 Now, the question in my mind that's 2 not in your EIS documents, it may be and I may not 3 have seen it, but what is the capacity of the Red 4 River through Winnipeg, and what is the conveyance 5 of the Red River plus the floodway. If the 6 conveyance of the floodway plus the Red River is 7 greater, then you will certainly have impacted ice 8 jams downstream, the severity of ice jams, more 9 water, more water elevation, right, in an ice jam. 10 If you have more flow, then your water levels is 11 going to go up. 12 MR. CARSON: Well, I think we are just 13 going to have to agree to disagree on this one. 14 Doug, do you have questions? 15 MR. MOIR: That's why I think we 16 really need to go out for a beer. 17 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Moir, you keep 18 referring to the bigger pipe, which is the 19 expanded floodway. Are you familiar with the 20 operating rules that will be used to operate the 21 expanded floodway versus the existing floodway? 22 MR. MOIR: I know there are three 23 rules. 24 MR. MCNEIL: And do you know what rule 25 number one is? 01961 1 MR. MOIR: I will make an educated 2 guess based on my two days of understanding this, 3 I have those documents here as well, but I believe 4 that limits the flow through the Red River in 5 Winnipeg to something in the order of 80,000 CFS. 6 MR. MCNEIL: No. Basically rule one 7 is to maintain the water level upstream of the 8 inlet control structure, and natural in this case 9 is defined as the natural water level that would 10 occur with a landscape of approximately 1960, and 11 prior to any of the major flood control works 12 being in existence. You had some confusion 13 earlier that you didn't know what natural was. So 14 the rule one is to -- 15 MR. MOIR: No, let's not put words in 16 my mouth. What I said was that the word natural 17 in the EIS was used in a variety of means. Now, 18 that Acres report on re-analyzing natural water 19 levels upstream of the river was very good, it was 20 a nice, solid report. 21 MR. MCNEIL: In any event, with the 22 expansion of the floodway, we are not changing the 23 existing rules. And under rule one in maintaining 24 that natural water level upstream, that would 25 occur up to a total system flow of about 01962 1 4,500 cubic metres per second. So how is it then 2 that the operation of an expanded floodway is a 3 concern to you based on this rule one? 4 MR. MOIR: How much water are you 5 taking -- how much water would have gone through 6 the Red River only at that natural water level? 7 MR. MCNEIL: How much would have gone 8 through the Red River downstream of the city? The 9 same amount. 10 MR. MOIR: In the natural? 11 MR. MCNEIL: The same amount. 12 MR. MOIR: Same amount of discharge? 13 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. We are not -- 14 MR. MOIR: Then you added conveyance 15 by adding the floodway? Have you added conveyance 16 by adding the floodway? 17 MR. MCNEIL: What do you mean added 18 conveyance? It is a diversion channel, so it is 19 diverting the water around the city instead of 20 through the city. 21 MR. MOIR: So you have added 22 conveyance to the system, you have parallel 23 conveyance -- 24 MR. MCNEIL: The point is that the 25 structure was built to avoid flooding the city, 01963 1 and the water that would have gone through the 2 city is now diverted around the city. And in 3 actual fact, because of Shellmouth and Portage 4 diversion, the north end of, north of the city to 5 the lake sees less water than under a natural 6 event. But aside from that, aside from that, we 7 are not changing the operating rules, and up to 8 approximately 4,500 cubic metres per second, the 9 expanded floodway will deliver the same amount of 10 flow as the existing floodway. 11 MR. MOIR: That's what you are telling 12 me. 13 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. 14 MR. MOIR: Okay. 15 MR. MCNEIL: So we have completed our 16 questions now, Mr. Chairman. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. For those 18 of us who thought science was absolute, this has 19 been quite disillusioning. 20 I would like to take a short break. 21 Mr. Moir, we are not finished with you. The 22 panelists will have a handful of questions, and it 23 probably shouldn't take too much longer, but I 24 would like to take a short break before we do 25 that. So ten minutes, we will come back, we will 01964 1 have a few more questions. And then if we are 2 lucky we will get to the three reeves who have 3 been waiting patiently all week. 4 (Proceedings recessed 3:15 p.m. and 5 reconvened at 3:35 p.m.) 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come back to 7 order, please? 8 Mr. Moir, I have a handful of 9 questions that I would like to ask. I don't think 10 I heard this, but what, in your opinion, could be 11 done to reduce ice jamming as a result of floodway 12 expansion, or that might be exacerbated in your 13 opinion by floodway expansion? 14 MR. MOIR: Why are we getting ice jams 15 in the lower reach or -- 16 THE CHAIRMAN: No, what can be done to 17 reduce the risk of ice jamming? 18 MR. MOIR: I will try to put some 19 ideas down there. If we are talking the kind of 20 ice jam that's going to occur because of a slowing 21 down or decrease in ice carrying capacity, now we 22 would certainly would want to make sure that we 23 are not getting large amounts of sedimentation in 24 that part of the river. Now, my understanding was 25 that that was a navigable water and kept dredged 01965 1 for quite a long time, and that the dredging has 2 ceased. I don't know whether there has been a 3 change in the bathymetry, that would have an 4 impact or not, but that would be the first thing 5 that I would be looking at, because it is cheap 6 relatively. 7 If it is a kind of ice jam that's 8 formed by big blocks of ice, then you really have 9 no choice, you have to break up the ice blocks 10 where those ice jams would form. For example, 11 putting structures in that would weaken, provide 12 with you a weakened ice sheet. You might decide 13 that active measures, such as trying to bust up 14 the ice sheet might be a lower cost on an annual 15 expense basis. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: What was that again, 17 sorry? 18 MR. MOIR: Breaking up the ice sheet 19 in some way mechanically. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: They drilled holes a 21 few years ago with ice augers. That sort of 22 thing? 23 MR. MOIR: That sort of thing. I 24 would not be a fan of active measures, no. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it help if the 01966 1 floodwater upstream of the inlet were held in 2 place a bit longer, specifically until the ice had 3 passed through Selkirk, before they opened the 4 floodway? 5 MR. MOIR: In terms of the ice jamming 6 at the north end, yes, but that has its own 7 problems at the other end. And you know, to 8 really go back to the first point of your 9 question, you really want to understand why those 10 ice jams are forming. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I want to know 12 why they are forming because of operations of the 13 floodway, and what we might do to reduce that. 14 MR. MOIR: The thing -- the two things 15 that come to my mind -- well, the only thing that 16 really comes to my mind is to build an alternative 17 channel around that area. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 19 MR. MOIR: Either that or live with 20 the ice jams. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I want to change the 22 subject a bit, and this came out of your 23 presentation this morning. You made an analogy to 24 subdivision drainage and storage ponds. Are you 25 saying that because water is no longer stored in 01967 1 the city that there is a quieter flow down the 2 stream of the outlet which the river channel and 3 the floodway then combine and -- could you explain 4 that a bit? 5 MR. MOIR: The problem that I have 6 had, on a strictly technical issue, is that I 7 learned a long time ago that when you have got 8 numbers on one side, and a whole bunch of people 9 saying I live there, I see this. Now, you need to 10 reconcile those or it just doesn't work. That has 11 to be reconciled. Because a lot -- in that 12 material, the things that people are saying that 13 they feel, some of that is just going to be plain 14 wrong, they are not seeing what they really think 15 they are seeing. But there is also going to be a 16 kernel of truth, in a lot of truth of what they 17 say, there are going to be little kernels of truth 18 in there. I think those things have to be paid 19 attention to. And that may be all that's 20 required. And reconcile those. 21 And what I have been trying to do is 22 reconcile what seems to be an increase in ice 23 jamming severity with technical numbers that 24 suggest otherwise. And you know, I go back and 25 turn it around the other way and think of, 01968 1 normally in a hydrology circumstance we compensate 2 for changes by making other changes. How do I say 3 this? The analogy was that, well-known in 4 hydrology, in most municipalities if you change 5 the amount of pervious area or the area where rain 6 water can soak in say by paving, you are going to 7 cause faster, quicker run off, same volume of 8 water, it just runs off quicker. The way to do 9 that is you then add a pond in there, so the water 10 runs off your pavement into the pond, and then 11 there is a control structure, a weir, at the 12 outlet of the pond and the water goes back out 13 slowly. 14 So what you have now got, after you 15 have added your storm water pond you have gone 16 back to the natural conditions, what you had 17 before you paved that part of your subdivision. 18 Well understood. 19 Well, flip this around. What has 20 happened here, and I was wondering if maybe this 21 is an explanation or the beginning of an 22 explanation, I don't know. A lot of thinking has 23 to go into this. You know, we have had a large 24 storm water pond, as it were, upstream at Winnipeg 25 and upstream. What we have done is taken away 01969 1 part of the pond now. What we are doing is going 2 back to a shorter, sharper hydrograph, in theory. 3 And if you bring more water out of that pond you 4 are going back to an even shorter, sharper 5 hydrograph. So what you are doing is taking a 6 hydrograph that would have been this, closer to 7 this, with a higher peak flow, a higher peak flow 8 would develop worse ice jams. That's the theory. 9 It has to be shown by numbers. Maybe it already 10 has. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you. 12 Barrie? 13 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you, Mr. 14 Chairman. 15 Thank you for the presentation, Mr. 16 Jonasson. We have heard all of the concerns and 17 we do know there are concerns north of the 18 floodway, that's for certain. 19 Again, we have a challenge in this 20 Commission to try and understand what possibly can 21 be done with the expanded floodway. That's been 22 what we have been commissioned for here. 23 And as far as ice jams are concerned, 24 can you tell me, Mr. Moir, do you feel -- you may 25 have answered this but I haven't heard it yet if 01970 1 you did -- do you feel as though there is going to 2 be increased incidences of ice jams as a result of 3 the expanded floodway? And when I am talking ice 4 jams, north -- 5 MR. MOIR: I don't know. The 6 information simply isn't there. 7 MR. MOTHERAL: That's what we have to 8 find out? 9 MR. MOIR: The proponents haven't 10 provided enough information to make that judgment, 11 in my opinion. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. That leaves me 13 with a couple of questions. The first one is, in 14 trying to sort out between yourself and Mr. Carson 15 as to what is going on, we were discussing time of 16 travel in the floodway, and were you giving an 17 argument on the basis of, if I'm not mistaken, 18 quantity of water flowing through the floodway. 19 Is that the essence of the difference between the 20 two of you at this point, or is it more than that? 21 MR. MOIR: It could be, yes. It could 22 be. 23 MR. WEBSTER: I'm not able to go 24 beyond that, but I'm trying to find a solution to 25 this as well. 01971 1 Let me go on to the other question 2 which is of a much more general nature -- 3 MR. MOIR: I want to make it very 4 clear that the problem is I don't have the 5 information in front of me. And that's a lot of 6 my problem. I mean, I have tried very hard over 7 the last few weeks to go through that information, 8 because I don't want to sit up here and look like 9 a fool, because the information is right there and 10 have it handed to me. But I cannot see the 11 information that I would need to make a judgment 12 about whether there would be an increase or not. 13 MR. WEBSTER: Is there some way that 14 we can establish with you, given that the 15 information is now available, as to whether more 16 information is required, or whether we have 17 sufficient information to be able to do the kinds 18 of things that you are suggesting with the 19 approach that you have taken today by talking 20 about different kinds of ice jams, which is what I 21 see as the essence of what you are telling us 22 today. 23 MR. MOIR: I think there needs to be a 24 trading of information and discussion and 25 clarification of information. 01972 1 Sorry, I may have missed your 2 question. 3 MR. WEBSTER: I guess what I'm trying 4 to say is, is there more that you could do, in 5 looking at the information of the Floodway 6 Authority in their EIS and associated documents, 7 to be able to give us a better picture as to 8 whether in fact there is an effect on ice jams of 9 the expanded floodway? 10 MR. MOIR: Well, the piece of 11 information that I don't have are the models. 12 That would be useful. 13 MR. WEBSTER: If the models were 14 provided to you, could you in a short time give us 15 that feedback? Could you give us an undertaking 16 to give us that feedback? Is that something 17 that's realistic to ask you to do? 18 MR. MOIR: With discussion with the 19 folks who did the modeling. I mean, the physical 20 files are going to say something, but obviously 21 I'm going to have a whole lot of questions about 22 that. 23 MR. WEBSTER: I guess in asking that 24 question, I recognize there is time required, and 25 I don't know whether in fact you can do this, but 01973 1 the implication from what you have said today is 2 that there is something there that you can't 3 answer us, but you could answer us given the 4 information that you think is there? 5 MR. MOIR: I don't know whether the 6 information is there or not, and what I'm trying 7 to do is find out. 8 MR. WEBSTER: If the information is 9 made available to you, and I see no impediment for 10 that taking place, could you give us the feedback 11 we are looking for based on the things that you 12 told us today? 13 MR. MOIR: From what I see? 14 MR. WEBSTER: That's right. 15 MR. MOIR: Yes. 16 MR. WEBSTER: And could that happen 17 within a matter of days or a week? 18 MR. MOIR: Not a matter of days. 19 MR. WEBSTER: Maybe by the end of next 20 week? 21 MR. MOIR: Not by the end of next 22 week. 23 MR. WEBSTER: Let me ask you how long 24 it takes. 25 MR. MOIR: A better approach quite 01974 1 frankly would be, those folks have done the 2 modeling, it might be simply better for me to sit 3 down, perhaps where I suggested, and just go 4 through this information. Because the information 5 might be there in their drawers, in the desk 6 drawers and hasn't made it to the EIS documents. 7 MR. WEBSTER: Are you prepared to do 8 that? 9 MR. MOIR: Sure. 10 MR. WEBSTER: That's as far as I can 11 take that with you, because I know that Mr. 12 Jonasson has some concerns that I can't answer 13 right away. But we are talking engineer to 14 engineer here now. 15 MR. MOIR: Yes. 16 MR. WEBSTER: You indicated earlier 17 that you had a mechanism for that and it is 18 probably quite a good one. 19 MR. MOIR: You saw us, I went over to 20 introduce myself and we started discussing it. 21 MR. WEBSTER: So I'm looking forward 22 to some feedback from that process, if you can 23 give it to us sometime, as to where we might take 24 it. 25 MR. MOIR: Okay. 01975 1 MR. WEBSTER: The final question that 2 I have is a much more general nature. And you 3 indicated some things might be done to improve the 4 floodway by some other design aspects than what 5 are there. The major one that you told us about 6 is basically lengthening it, or making a channel 7 around where the ice jams happen, or something of 8 that nature. Is there any other aspect of the 9 floodway construction that you are critical of, 10 and that would require some kind of redesign in 11 your estimation? 12 MR. MOIR: I haven't gone into that 13 level of detail at all. I had a very narrow -- 14 MR. WEBSTER: That's the only thing at 15 this point that you have considered? 16 MR. MOIR: That's what I was looking 17 at, yes. 18 MR. WEBSTER: I guess the way back 19 into the other question, the answer to the other 20 question, is going to be to find out either from 21 you in a statement that you can send us, or by 22 asking questions of Mr. Carson at later date, as 23 to whether there has been some resolution of the 24 question that I have in mind. Have you a 25 suggestion that you would like -- 01976 1 MR. MOIR: It would be much more 2 efficient for me to sit down with Mr. Carson 3 directly, and hash this out. 4 MR. WEBSTER: And give us some 5 feedback? 6 MR. MOIR: And give you the feedback 7 in writing. 8 MR. WEBSTER: I appreciate that. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Moir. I 10 think that concludes our cross-examination of you. 11 Thank you, Mr. Jonasson. 12 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, while we 13 are switching gears here, could I enter Mr. Moir's 14 presentation, review of the Red River Floodway 15 Expansion Environmental Impact Study as exhibit 16 71, and Mr. Jonasson's Coalition for Flood 17 Protection North of the Floodway presentation as 18 72. 19 20 (EXHIBIT 71: Mr. Moir's presentation 21 review of the Red River Floodway 22 Expansion Environmental Impact Study) 23 24 (EXHIBIT 72: Mr. Jonasson's Coalition 25 for Flood Protection North of the 01977 1 Floodway presentation) 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holland, Reeve 3 Holland, I hope that's not the Blarney stone you 4 have in front of you. 5 Okay, I will have the Commission 6 secretary swear each of you in please. 7 MR. STRANG: My name is Steve Strang, 8 I'm the Reeve of the RM of St. Clements. 9 MR. GERA: My name is Dave Gera, I am 10 Deputy Reeve of the RM of St. Paul. 11 MR. HOLLAND: John Holland, I am the 12 Reeve of the RM of Springfield. 13 (MR. STEVE STRANG, MR. DAVE GERA, 14 MR. JOHN HOLLAND: SWORN) 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed in whatever 16 order you prefer. 17 MR. GERA: I think I will go first 18 because I have got the smaller presentation, if I 19 could. And I say good afternoon to everybody. 20 I have my presentation changed a few 21 times from morning, afternoon, so now we can start 22 and I'm happy that we can. 23 My name is Dave Gera. I'm the Deputy 24 Reeve of the Rural Municipality of East St. Paul. 25 I will be making this presentation on behalf of 01978 1 Reeve Phil Rebeck, and I'm here to represent the 2 council and citizens of East St. Paul. 3 I would like to begin by expressing my 4 appreciation on behalf of the RM of East St. Paul 5 council to the members of the Clean Environment 6 Commission for giving us this opportunity to 7 express our thoughts regarding the proposed 8 project to expand the Red River Floodway. 9 As we all know, the proposed project 10 is a massive undertaking and is an extremely 11 important project to the citizens of Manitoba. It 12 is expected that this project will have a major 13 impact on the protection of many people living in 14 the Red River Valley. It will also have a 15 positive effect on our economy, especially during 16 the construction period. 17 Due to the positive nature of this 18 project, the RM of East St. Paul would like to go 19 on record as saying that we do support in general 20 terms the proposal for the expansion of the Red 21 River Floodway. Having said that, we also 22 recognize that there are some huge issues that 23 must be dealt with prior to undertaking 24 construction in order to ensure that the project 25 does not have a negative impact on the residents 01979 1 in the area near the floodway. 2 The municipalities through which the 3 Red River Floodway flows represents the citizens 4 that could gain tremendously by this project. 5 However, in the event certain matters are not 6 given serious consideration, there are also the 7 people who could stand to be the most negatively 8 impacted. 9 As East St. Paul is one of these 10 municipalities, we feel it is incumbent on us to 11 outline the concerns that have been raised by our 12 residents. And I will likely give you a little 13 overview of our municipality. The RM of East St. 14 Paul is the smallest of the three municipalities 15 that are participating in this joint presentation. 16 We presently have a population in excess of 8,000 17 people, and we cover approximately, an area of 18 approximately 42 square kilometres. 19 Due to the fact that we are the 20 smallest of the three, and for that matter one of 21 the smallest rural municipalities in the province, 22 a project of this nature has a significant impact 23 on us. We have experienced tremendous growth in 24 East St. Paul in the past several years, and we 25 expect this growth will continue over the next 01980 1 number of years. 2 Although we are considered a rural 3 municipality, a significant portion of this area 4 is well developed. Some of our residential areas, 5 especially the Birds Hill community, abut on to 6 the floodway. We also have a park area, Silver 7 Springs park, which is adjacent to the floodway. 8 We have specific concerns. There are 9 several areas of concerns that are brought to our 10 attention by our residents and that we have 11 discussed with the Manitoba Floodway Authority 12 over the past several months. These concerns 13 mainly revolve around the issues of groundwater 14 quality and quantity and changes to the 15 infrastructure and drainage. 16 Our major concern to the RM of East 17 St. Paul is the groundwater supply. We presently 18 have approximately 3,000 homes in the 19 municipality. Of those, about 700 homes are on a 20 municipal water supply system with the remainder 21 having private well systems. The municipal system 22 presently obtain its water from a series of five 23 wells, four of which are located within the Birds 24 Hill sand and gravel aquifer, which is on the 25 floodway right-of-way along the east bank of the 01981 1 floodway and a short distance south of highway 59. 2 The fifth well, which is our newest well, is 3 located a short distance west of the floodway 4 along Wenzel Street, again just south of highway 5 59. 6 One of the conditions in order to 7 obtain a temporary licence for our fifth well was 8 that we had to implement a detailed emergency plan 9 to compensate residents impacted by the drawdown 10 on their wells. Obviously, the impact of any 11 changes to the floodway may have an impact on the 12 quality and quantity of the groundwater that is 13 produced by these wells. Therefore, we feel the 14 Floodway Authority should have an emergency plan 15 in place too -- what we were required to provide. 16 As I have noted, the majority of our 17 residents obtain their water from private wells. 18 Many of these private wells could be impacted by 19 the proposed changes that are contemplated for the 20 floodway. 21 We are pleased that the intent is not 22 to lower the floodway. We feel that any widening 23 of the floodway may create a situation where our 24 wells, our municipal wells, as well as many 25 private wells, could be negatively impacted. 01982 1 We recommend the Floodway Authority be 2 required to correct any problems that are 3 encountered with water quality or quantity during 4 or after construction. 5 One final matter that we would like to 6 address regarding the groundwater issue is with 7 regards to the amount of water being lost to the 8 floodway. At present our wells are located in 9 areas so as to try to capture some of the water 10 that would otherwise be lost. In previous 11 construction projects along the floodway, a plug 12 or bentonite curtain was installed to assist in 13 preventing water from escaping into the floodway. 14 This should also assist in preventing any 15 contaminants from entering into the groundwater 16 supply in times of heavy usage of the floodway. 17 We feel that similar steps should be taken to 18 prevent the loss of water when designing this 19 project. 20 We are aware that a mitigation fund 21 will be established to deal with concerns of this 22 nature. We need to be assured that this fund will 23 be sufficient to take care of any problems that 24 are encountered with the groundwater quality and 25 quantity. Also, we need assurance that we will be 01983 1 able to access the fund without having to go 2 through unnecessary red tape. The process should 3 be established in such a manner as to avoid any 4 stress to the municipalities or their residents. 5 I would like to move on to our 6 concerns regarding changes that will be required 7 to the existing infrastructure when completing the 8 floodway expansion. As some of our wells on the 9 east side of the floodway, with our water 10 treatment plant being on the west side, we 11 presently have two water lines that run beneath 12 the floodway. We have been advised that due to 13 the widening of the floodway at this location, it 14 will be necessary to lower the water lines on 15 either side of the floodway. The estimated cost 16 to complete this work is $300,000. Initially we 17 were advised that the cost of lowering the water 18 lines would be borne by the Manitoba Floodway 19 Authority as part of the construction. We are now 20 of the understanding that we are to be required to 21 pay one half the costs, or approximately $150,000, 22 to lower the lines. 23 In previous construction projects for 24 the floodway, municipalities were not compensated 25 impacts such as loss of tax base, inconvenience to 01984 1 our residents, and additional costs that we 2 incurred as a result of the projects. We believe 3 that will again be the case with this project. We 4 feel that the Manitoba Floodway Authority must be 5 liable for picking up the cost of lowering the 6 water lines. 7 I also indicated that we have some 8 concerns regarding drainage matters. The majority 9 of our drainage flows to the west towards the Red 10 River, and the majority of our drainage has been 11 established to deal with our surface water in that 12 manner. There are a few situations, however, 13 where the natural drain is towards the floodway. 14 We presently do not -- we do have one outfall near 15 Garven on the west side of the floodway that 16 allows for drainage into the floodway. It would 17 be of considerable assistance if we could work 18 with the Manitoba Floodway Authority to establish 19 one or two additional outfalls that would 20 accommodate our drainage system. One of the sites 21 that we would like a drop structure located is on 22 the west side of the floodway at the east end of 23 the Hazelridge Road. This would benefit land 24 range for both the municipalities of Springfield 25 and East St. Paul. 01985 1 I have a couple of general comments, 2 and you will hear several presentations from other 3 parties to our group regarding various issues of 4 concern. We would very much support the points 5 that were raised in these presentations. I would 6 like to specially mention a few of points. 7 The first is with regard to the 8 Dunning Road crossing that's located in the RM of 9 St. Clements, a short distance from our boundary. 10 Although this is a low level crossing, it is a 11 vital link for emergency vehicles and residents in 12 the area to access both sides of the floodway. We 13 strongly support the proposal to improve this 14 crossing, as it is likely to be washed out each 15 time the water flows down the floodway. 16 The second point that we emphasize is 17 with regards to the matter of the cumulative 18 effect of the impact of the floodway on our 19 municipalities. We strongly support the position 20 that has been taken, that it is possible to 21 consider the cumulative effect of the changes that 22 have impacted our area due to the floodway, rather 23 than to establish a new baseline at this time. 24 Third, East St. Paul supports the 25 recreation groups with their requests to the 01986 1 Manitoba Floodway Authority proposed recreational 2 uses of the floodway right-of-way. Also shown, we 3 support the Coalition for Flood Protection North 4 of the Floodway and their presentation. 5 In conclusion, in summary there are 6 several concerns that need to be dealt with prior 7 to seeing this project proceed. Our concerns, as 8 I have already outlined, mainly deal with the 9 matter of groundwater quantity and quality, the 10 infrastructure changes and drainage. We feel it 11 is incumbent on the Commission to include 12 recommendations in your report that adequately 13 address our concerns. We understand that the 14 Commission has a difficult task ahead in 15 determining how this project is to proceed. We 16 would ask that you keep in mind the concerns that 17 we have raised today, as we believe these concerns 18 are those that impact the residents of our 19 province that are most specifically impacted by 20 this project. 21 I would once again like to express my 22 appreciation to the Commission for allowing me to 23 bring forward our thoughts regarding this 24 important matter. And I thank you for your time, 25 and I'm open for questions -- or do you want to do 01987 1 all three first? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: We will have the three 3 presentations first, and if there are any 4 questions, we will proceed from there. Thank you, 5 Deputy Reeve Gera. 6 MR. STRANG: Well, first of all, I 7 want to say that I come here today as the Reeve of 8 a municipality, not as an engineer or a 9 hydrologist. I don't want to argue the points of 10 ice jamming and stuff like that, I think they do 11 that very well. And it seems like every time I 12 come here in the last few days, I go home and I 13 have to change my notes anyhow, so it is getting a 14 bit much. 15 I'm here as Reeve of a municipality 16 and I have passion for that job. I was elected a 17 short time ago to represent the people of the RM 18 of St. Clements, and I take pride in that. 19 In my view of the floodway, we seem to 20 give up so much and get very little back in 21 return. It is like the city or certain people get 22 the candy and we have to go to the dentist, that's 23 kind of my view of it. And I don't view it as a 24 fair system, but I do believe -- and I have good 25 faith in this committee, because I do believe that 01988 1 you gentleman have taken an interest in it and I'm 2 thankful for that. 3 My name, as I said earlier, is Steve 4 Strang and I'm the Reeve of RM of St. Clements. 5 The RM of St. Clements has a population of 6 approximately 12,000 people and it is growing. We 7 have a strong northern area, a strong cottage 8 area, we have strong residential areas throughout. 9 But I want to say that almost half of our 10 population lives within the two miles of the 11 floodway, and that the floodway takes up about -- 12 90 per cent of it at least belongs in the three 13 municipalities. And 100 per cent of the people 14 who live in our municipalities get their water 15 from well water, from the aquifer. And this is 16 why we have put on such a fight here in the last 17 while to have this concern recognized. 18 Water is important to life. We all 19 know that. We have to have water to survive, and 20 we have to have clean, safe, drinking water. 21 So what do we get back from the 22 floodway? The floodway has cut through our 23 municipalities, as I said. We have given up the 24 ability to collect taxes. We have had our 25 municipality cut into not half, but a portion of. 01989 1 We have given up the ability to interlink with a 2 portion of our municipality, which we find very 3 troublesome. 4 And I think for the most part some of 5 us are protected, and actually I'm one of them 6 because I live within the west boundry of the 7 floodway, but I want you to know that I would 8 gladly give up that protection for the ability to 9 have safe, clean drinking water. 10 I want to say that I'm very respectful 11 of the work that the Floodway Expansion Authority 12 has done. I have got a lot of respect for Doug. 13 I have talked to Doug a number of times. I 14 believe that -- I don't fault them for the 15 position that they are -- I kind of look at the 16 system a little bit differently, and I kind of 17 look back where it started from. And my view of 18 it is, the PAT committee itself had started off 19 wrong, because due to the fact that if the 20 municipalities have 90 per cent of the floodway 21 within their boundaries, perhaps they should have 22 come out and talked to us first, that's my belief. 23 And today we wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be 24 spending tens of thousands of dollars of my 25 taxpayers' money fighting issues that are 01990 1 important -- I could have been sticking it into 2 roads and dust control and stuff like that. 3 I will move on. Now, this is the 4 introduction and I just kind of went through that. 5 And you have seen these pictures. I think we have 6 all seen them a couple of times. So I'm going to 7 review this on my summary, and basically I'm going 8 to talk about ice jamming and ice induced 9 flooding, very quickly. I think it was talked 10 enough today. 11 Erosion, I want to talk about the low 12 lying crossing. There is other concerns, some of 13 which I haven't had the opportunity to bring up, 14 and they are very small and I just want to point 15 them out, and I trust the committee will take note 16 of it and maybe give that consideration -- the 17 compensation and the groundwater, and that 18 basically summarizes everything that we want to 19 talk about. 20 This is another picture that we have 21 seen many times, and I want to thank Karl for 22 letting me use this one because I think it shows a 23 big impact of what we are looking at here. And 24 the arguments that were put forward today by 25 Mr. Moir I felt were very strong, and I do believe 01991 1 that the municipalities do have a concern when it 2 comes to ice jamming. 3 Now, the question is, does the 4 floodway expansion create ice jamming? I would 5 say it doesn't, no, it doesn't. But what the 6 concern is, the volume of water -- and this is my 7 eyes, remember I'm speaking as a reeve -- the 8 volume of water that's coming down the pike, and 9 at the point of the water hitting the ice jam, and 10 depending on how strong the ice jam is, what 11 happens. We know that flooding occurs, it takes 12 minutes to flood somebody's basement. It could 13 take hours or days to clear the ice jam. 14 Now, I had basically a page and a half 15 to go on this portion, but I'm going to skip that 16 because of today. But I want to recognize, and if 17 I can find this portion, there was comments made 18 that we received a letter from Minister Ashton, 19 and we were sent over to the Water Stewardship 20 board, and myself and Don Forfar and Mayor Bell 21 are sitting on a committee, and we hope to be 22 working on this issue. What has come out of this 23 is there hasn't been a lot of work done on this. 24 There hasn't. To me it has mostly been guess 25 work. When you talk about ice boring, well they 01992 1 did it once, and they don't even know if it was 2 effective, because of the time of the year and the 3 amount of water I think it was -- Don, I think 4 that's what it was. 5 My feeling of this, no doubt there is 6 a connection somehow where the MFA, or the 7 floodway itself I should say, could create some 8 problems regarding flooding. What my 9 recommendation would be, when we are going as the 10 reeves and mayor and sitting down at this 11 committee, perhaps somebody from MFA should be 12 sitting at that table too and working alongside of 13 us trying to resolve the problem instead of trying 14 to create a problem. And that is just a 15 suggestion. I think we are far better to work 16 together than work apart. 17 My next topic is erosion. I'm not an 18 expert on this. I mean, you can pretty well read 19 the outline here. I think our concern is based 20 heavily along the area immediately below the 21 floodway outflow, out to the point heading towards 22 Selkirk. It is the view of my council that 23 perhaps not enough work has been done to study 24 this process. We personally feel that because of 25 the increase of the volume of water, or the 01993 1 possibility of an increase in the volume of water, 2 it needs to be studied more. 3 We are well aware of the computer 4 analysis done by MFA. And quite frankly we do not 5 have the technology nor the money to compete with 6 MFA on these concerns. However, we feel these 7 concerns are real and they need to be looked at. 8 They affect a lot of people along the river bank, 9 and there has been major portions of the river 10 bank which have slid out. Not to say it was 11 caused by the floodway, but I think it is caused 12 by basic erosion and the movement of water. This 13 is something else where I think we should be 14 working side-by-side instead of working apart on. 15 I would like to see that done, I would like to see 16 some type of committee done. The thing about 17 committees -- committees are great, but they are 18 only good at the end of the day if they have some 19 type of power behind them. It is similar to when 20 we talk about studies and so on and so forth. How 21 many studies are sitting in how many file cabinets 22 around this province or this country? We could 23 probably build a few new forests from all that. A 24 study is a study, but it needs some teeth, there 25 is no doubt about it. 01994 1 I will move on. Dunning Road 2 crossing, this is something that has been the 3 topic of many conversations. And I'm going to 4 read this portion because it is quite a bit in 5 here. 6 7 This crossing is a vital link to our 8 community. It is important to residents of East 9 St. Paul, portions of residents of Springfield. 10 The crossing is vital for emergency vehicle 11 traffic such as fire, ambulance and police 12 service, and also the crossing is important for 13 large volumes of commuter traffic now. It is 14 getting to be a major crossing and people are 15 using it on a regular basis. There is no other 16 crossing between highway 59 and 44. 17 If one of these crossings are closed, 18 which happened recently due to a motor vehicle 19 accident on the bridge of highway 59, the traffic 20 had to be re-routed. That re-routing of traffic 21 can add anywhere between 30 minutes to an hour on 22 the traffic, depending on what is open and what is 23 closed. And this really concerns us. Also when 24 the floodway is being utilized and people aren't 25 able to get through, depending on where you are 01995 1 going, it could add another 20 or 30 minutes 2 again. Again, we don't feel this is acceptable. 3 A long time ago, and I haven't 4 researched this, but we have heard many times 5 about these one mile road crossings. You know, 6 when they built the floodway in the 60's this was 7 something that was promised out to the residents 8 of the area and never came about. 9 Now due to the summer operations 10 brought forward recently by the floodway 11 operation, and the floodway operates more, the 12 crossing washes out more and further restricts our 13 ability to protect our residents. All of these 14 concerns at a major expense to the operations of 15 our fire protection and to our public works group. 16 During the course of the MFA working 17 with public concerns, we have seen things which we 18 feel fall outside that of MFA's mandate. And 19 things like the twinning of bridge 15, I want to 20 say that we support this, we think it is positive, 21 it is something like you are looking into the 22 future and you realize there is a need for this, 23 so let's get it done. Also when we talk about the 24 upgrades of the drop structures. Something else, 25 MFA is working along side Cooks Creek and giving 01996 1 consideration to doing these upgrades, but when it 2 falls back to the crossing, we are being told it 3 is not in our mandate. We don't think that's 4 right. We feel it is a double edged sword. How 5 come it is good for some and not for others? We 6 are real people too. We deserve the same respect 7 and consideration as everybody else. 8 I have heard through this presentation 9 that we are looking at giving dollars for 10 recreational use. I have to question that. In my 11 mind I think what is more important, the 12 recreational use or the possibility to save 13 somebody's life from the fire? Over the last few 14 months we have had two fires at the Pine Ridge 15 Village Trailer Park. Now, the gentlemen were 16 able to attend those fires and they were able to 17 put them out, but what if? It is all the "what 18 if?" 19 So why is it again that a vital link 20 that's needed to join the RMs is being left at an 21 "as is" status? And the upgrading of bridge 15 is 22 being done, and it is being done on a two-way 23 road, or two-way highway, even though we know that 24 the Minister supposedly is going to turn it to 25 four sometime. That's building for the future. 01997 1 And again, I want to say that I support that, 2 John. 3 But what I'm saying is, the RM of St. 4 Clements, the RM of East St. Paul and the RM of 5 Springfield has a future too, and we want the same 6 respect. So when it comes down for 7 recommendations, I am asking the committee to 8 realize that these considerations have been given 9 to others, and they should be given to us too. We 10 have 2,000 people who live just around the east 11 side of the crossing, right around the Pine Ridge 12 Village and all through there, which is East Paul 13 and some of Springfield. We have close to 4,000 14 plus residents, not even including East St. 15 Paul's, who live on the west side between the 16 floodway and the river. This is a vital link. 17 I want to say that our future counts 18 too, and I'm really hoping that that consideration 19 is given. 20 Now, there are other concerns that 21 have come up. And we have concerns for the system 22 in place for mitigation. And I have heard a lot 23 of changes, and sometimes when I'm talking about 24 this I may have written down, it was yesterday -- 25 as you know we have been waiting three days to get 01998 1 up here and yesterday was two days ago, so please 2 understand that as I'm reading this. 3 Knowing MFA will mitigate concerns, we 4 feel this could be very much a conflict, 5 especially since MFA is the project builder here. 6 We feel that this is something that needs to be 7 kept at arm's length. If I was putting all of my 8 effort into something -- and I am going to tell 9 you that these gentlemen are very proud of what 10 they're doing, and I understand that. But I 11 personally would have a problem saying, oh, maybe 12 I made a mistake and I have to give you money to 13 fix it. So I think that having an outside body to 14 look at that would be respectful to everybody, 15 including it would take the MFA off the hook for 16 any future, you know, possible concerns that are 17 coming down, if I can say it that way. 18 We feel the mitigation process should 19 be one of being proactive and not reactive. An 20 example of such -- and I put an example because I 21 think it is important to put a face on this, talk 22 about who this really affects. I want you to know 23 that in our communities there is a lot of new 24 families that are moving out here, these new 25 families are husband and wife, they have a couple 01999 1 of kids, they have a mortgage payment they can 2 barely afford, God knows, I have one. And I think 3 the thing is, if you suddenly are in the floodway 4 and you are working on something, whether it is 5 the dewatering of a pile, if something happened, 6 what happens to these people? Where do they go? 7 To me, if there is something in place, a 24 hour 8 hot line, call MFA, or whatever the committee or 9 institution that is set up to deal with this, it 10 would be a great thing. Because if those people 11 have to come back and pump a new well in the 12 ground at 5 or 6,000 bucks, that's a lot of 13 anxiety, it is a lot of stress, and it shouldn't 14 be happening, because, again, this represents a 15 protection which is good for everybody, I agree, 16 you know, we support the floodway, but it protects 17 the city, and I think that if we are giving so 18 much up, again, it is just a little bit to ask for 19 to have that done that way. 20 I also would like to make a comment on 21 the million dollar mitigation fund to which I was 22 told recently that it is about 3.5 million a year 23 over four years, and I understand now it is not 24 going to run out, it is going to continue, and if 25 there are concerns, they are going to address it. 02000 1 And I'm very grateful for that. But I would 2 certainly like to see the ink dry on the paper. I 3 would like to see some substance there to make 4 sure that that is the case. I have only been in 5 the idea of a politician now for a few years, and 6 I'm starting to realize that we can talk about 7 doing a lot of things, but we don't necessarily 8 always do them. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Surely no. 10 MR. STRANG: No. And a good example, 11 we heard comments about that $140,000 a year that 12 was put up to address the ice jamming situations, 13 well, we never seen it, but I know it is coming, I 14 have faith. 15 But anyhow, I fell back to the part 16 because 90 per cent of this floodway falls in our 17 municipalities, that if we came into a situation 18 where we had a contaminated aquifer and we had to 19 go in and run water through our systems, and I 20 look at the area between the floodway and the 21 river as the areas that are the highest prone to 22 contamination, $11 million would not even scratch 23 the top of the surface to put a water situation in 24 there. It wouldn't come close. So what happens? 25 This is very concerning for us. We realize this 02001 1 because we sit in East Selkirk with a water boil 2 advisory. And under that water boil advisory, our 3 good neighbors, the City of Selkirk are looking at 4 allowing us to hook our water and sewer into them. 5 For such a small community, $11 million, we would 6 eat that up. It is a good example. And if you 7 had to give consideration to my neighbour here in 8 East St. Paul, and for the south end of St. 9 Clements -- I think I'm driving the point, 11 10 million bucks isn't going to do it. 11 Besides that point, I want to move on. 12 There is a couple of things that I have thought in 13 the last while, just comments that I have heard 14 from different people presenting. And I'm not 15 asking for the answer, but I'm asking you to give 16 consideration to the answer. It is the trees 17 along the east banks of the floodway. What 18 becomes of them? We have a lot of wildlife in the 19 area, they depend on that for hiding, for 20 coverage. There was talk about a soil pit being 21 built where maybe you are going to bury these 22 trees in it. So I am wondering if that's been 23 given consideration. 24 The other question is the soil that's 25 going to be moved, and if you take the soil out 02002 1 from the inner bank and you place it on the top or 2 back, there is portions on the highway on 202 and 3 59 which run so close to the floodway, I wonder if 4 that would create problems when it comes to major 5 snow storms and stuff like that, and would we 6 create a major drifting problem? And if you have 7 to put it on the outside wall, is the grade of 8 that going to be so severe that maybe you are 9 going to have erosion problems on that side? I 10 don't have the answers, but these are things that 11 have popped up in the last while. 12 The other consideration which I would 13 hope that MFA would give us is the fact that as 14 municipalities, I mean, this soil thing came up so 15 many times. We have a lot of lands -- so a lot of 16 soil could be used for the municipalities. So I 17 hope when that comes out, and I don't recall 18 reading that, I hope consideration is given to the 19 municipalities regarding that soil, because we 20 would certainly like to talk about it. 21 And I guess the last portion, of 22 course, let us not forget monitoring, because 23 monitoring has to be done now. 24 I wrote a comment here, how do you 25 know what you have got or what you are getting 02003 1 unless you have a good monitoring system in place? 2 It is like an early warning signal. If there is a 3 problem coming, perhaps you have time to react and 4 deal with it. I think that's part of the 5 mitigation process and how you put something in 6 there to protect. We have some solutions to offer 7 and we have some recommendations, but I'm going to 8 leave that to our legal counsel to submit that 9 later on. 10 Compensation -- I wrote down the 11 baseline being presented by the authority to me is 12 not acceptable. It is our opinion that if you are 13 re-building the floodway, then the licensing 14 process, licence everything, not part of it. So 15 the baseline should represent all of it, the past, 16 the present, and the future. And I know you 17 gentlemen have heard that like -- probably you're 18 dreaming it right about now. I know that. But it 19 is important to remember that. Because once this 20 licensing is done, it is done. And I know we 21 talked about public input, and we talked about the 22 door always being open there, and we can put 23 information. 24 The last bit of communications that I 25 have been getting with MFA and with Doug and Ernie 02004 1 have been good. But prior to that, I have to say 2 we butted heads quite a few times. So what would 3 concern me as a reeve, if this process is done and 4 licensed, and I have to go back and they have to 5 do their job, and I have to do my job, and we go 6 back to the head butting, where is the public 7 input? If I hear it is not in the mandate or it 8 is not the baseline, that's not going to do us any 9 good. That has to be considered, because we are 10 licensing the floodway as a whole, and that 11 consideration has to be given. 12 I talked before about the $11 million, 13 how I felt it would not be enough if we had 14 problems. If the aquifer does get contaminated, 15 that it wouldn't even come close. 16 Secondly, we talked about the length, 17 and as Mr. McNeil said, it will pass that. That's 18 something else we would like clarified. When you 19 say pass, how long, is it two years, three years? 20 Because once this process is done, whatever it is, 21 it is. And I think Mr. McNeil and MFA is very 22 honourable, and if Doug told me today it would be 23 ten years, I would believe you. But three years 24 from now maybe somebody else is sitting in the 25 chair, and they don't have the same integrity as 02005 1 this gentleman, it could be a different story. It 2 falls back to my idea, let's make sure the ink is 3 on the paper and it is dry before we move on at 4 this point. 5 And groundwater, groundwater is 6 definitely our biggest concern. There is no doubt 7 about it. It is all about quantity and quality. 8 And I gave you a handout earlier, and I'm not 9 going to speak on this because no one had the time 10 to look at it, but this was a presentation that I 11 received at a planning conference in Brandon, and 12 it was about Bill 22, and it was given out by 13 Laurie Thompson. And it talks about water in 14 Manitoba, and there is quotation marks, 15 "We can no longer take quantity or 16 quality of our water for granted." 17 This is provincial policy that we are talking 18 about, and you gentlemen know where this is at 19 right now. On page 3, if you pop over to the 20 purpose, the first portion says, 21 "Clean abundant water is a 22 prerequisite to economic and social 23 prosperity, well-being and food 24 production." 25 Drop two lines down, it says, 02006 1 "Clean drinking water requires source 2 protection." 3 And that's what we are talking about here. Now 4 this comes from the province and this is the 5 province's policy. I would say, please, live up 6 to what you are talking about. 7 "The recent discovery of massive 8 sewage contamination coming from the 9 City of Winnipeg storm sewers 10 highlights this problem." 11 We have heard this many times. I have to wonder, 12 if we wouldn't have caught this, would it be still 13 going on? I think so. It would. And I find that 14 concerning as hell, because personally that -- if 15 I may be so direct to say, that crap, it is 16 running down the floodway and it mixes with our 17 aquifer waters. Again, I'm not a hydrologist, but 18 we heard the stories, we know what Walkerton is 19 all about. I mean, as a Reeve and my council -- 20 and most of them are here, quite a few of them -- 21 our job is to protect our citizens. We feel this 22 is very concerning when you have sewage 23 intermixing with water which is used by our 24 residents. And I know the hydraulics of it, the 25 outflow, the inflow, and I will leave that for you 02007 1 guys to figure out. I am sorry, it is concerning 2 I don't think it should be allowed, it is not 3 acceptable, and I hope it is dealt with. 4 Mitigation and monitoring must prevent this now 5 and into the future. 6 Our drinking water is important, and 7 the more I read about the Winnipeg Water 8 Stewardship Board, and they recently presented 9 something to the Minister and how the minister is 10 going to be taking these recommendations forward, 11 this is beginning -- this is not even the 12 beginning. It is part way into it, but it is 13 going to be more and more of a major concern into 14 the future. The Wardrop report itself said we 15 could have a water shortage by 2023. Yet when we 16 look at the floodway, the MFA is the biggest user 17 of fresh water in our area. They are not 18 licensed. It is going out the drain. You know 19 what, that's my water, our water, it is our 20 municipality's water, and we want it and we want 21 it now. 22 Why I say that, it troubles me, 23 because just a short while ago we were having 24 discussions with the City about doing service 25 sharing, water and sewer, and there was a comment 02008 1 in the paper, and I'm not going to name the 2 councillor, but the comment was that East St. Paul 3 should go dig its own wells. You know what, maybe 4 East St. Paul would dig its own wells if they were 5 able to tap into all of that water. Give that 6 consideration. It falls back to the point of how 7 much do we give and what do we get back. We need 8 to be good neighbors. We support the idea of the 9 floodway, but as a good neighbour, give us 10 considerations too. Don't make us, like, swallow 11 the Buckley's, you know what I'm saying? It 12 smells like hell, and I don't think it tastes that 13 good either. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: It is supposed to be 15 good for you. 16 MR. STRANG: Yes, it was like the A 17 channel thing where John slid that glass of water 18 over to that girl, I don't know if you had seen 19 it, but she certainly didn't want to drink it. 20 Ground water is a vital interest to 21 our health and community now and into the future. 22 This Government's policies, as I said earlier, 23 clearly state this. We feel it has to be given 24 consideration. And I just want you to consider 25 something. At the point of Lockport where we are 02009 1 in the south end of St. Clements, there is 2 1500 feet from one bridge to another. But within 3 that small community there is a heck of a lot of 4 stuff. We have a hotel, a restaurant and bar, we 5 have a 300 condominium development going on, we 6 have three small restaurants, a grocer, a 7 retailer, a museum, an appliance store, a church, 8 one other larger restaurant and a number of homes 9 in this small area. Again, the bridge is 10 1500 feet apart approximately. Now, this is not 11 an area that I don't believe there is any open 12 aquifers or leaking springs or whatever, but the 13 idea of hydraulics, the idea of the contamination 14 going into the aquifer within 1500 feet, it scares 15 our council. What do we do as a council if 16 suddenly our water is contaminated in that small 17 area, with all of those people and businesses and 18 stores? Even if in fact we had a process in 19 place, just to bring that upon that small area to 20 resolve all of those issues so quickly would be 21 just devastating. It falls back to the idea of 22 the anxiety and what stress those people would 23 have to go through. That's not fair. Because 24 again we are giving so much up. And yes, I'm 25 going to stop talking soon. 02010 1 And in my closing remarks is this; we 2 have received a lot of support in the last while. 3 I'm so very proud to be the Reeve. We have 4 received resolutions of support from our 5 surrounding municipality neighbors, we have 6 received support from a resolution from the RM. 7 We have received support from some of our MLAs and 8 MPs. And we have a petition, probably about 700 9 signatures, I haven't counted it, but support the 10 idea of our concerns and the fact that we want a 11 permanent crossing going across the low level 12 crossing on Dunning Road. 13 Over the last period of the last few 14 weeks I came into this not sure where we stood. 15 But I know that we are not alone. We have each 16 other. And since I became the Reeve, and I have 17 said to many of my partners, if we stay together 18 and stand together, we are stronger. As 19 communities, if we can do the same, we will be 20 much stronger and we can get this job done right 21 and we can protect the City of Winnipeg and we can 22 protect our concerns. And I think that's what 23 good neighbors are all about. 24 Now, during the course of the 25 communications and taking the Reeves and the Mayor 02011 1 with us, I want this audience to know that we made 2 every attempt on a political level to resolve this 3 issue. We have seen Minister Alcock, we have seen 4 the Premier, we have seen Greg, we have seen 5 Mr. Ashton, we have seen Steve Topping from the 6 Water Stewardship Board, I think we have probably 7 seen anybody who will listen to us. It is my view 8 as a politician we are so further ahead to resolve 9 this issue politician to politician, because at 10 the end of the day MFA is part of the province. 11 And I'm going to fall back to give 12 these gentlemen a compliment -- not a compliment, 13 but a thing to say that they are doing their job. 14 Their job is given to them under a mandate. Their 15 job is given to them with a baseline. They didn't 16 pick it. It was given to them. And I understand 17 that, but I certainly don't like it. So I 18 understand why they are doing their job, but I 19 want to you understand why I'm doing mine. And I 20 think I see the fault within the political level 21 here more than I see it in any other level. When 22 we are elected, we are elected to represent the 23 people. And I think that we should all remember 24 that. Thank you. And, John, I'm finally done. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Reeve Holland. 02012 1 MR. HOLLAND: I think I will be more 2 brief, Mr. Chairman. 3 Mr. Chairman, members of the 4 Commission, members of your staff and members of 5 the MFA and other participant groups, it is 6 certainly my very great pleasure to welcome you 7 here to the Municipality of Springfield. I might 8 say to you, Mr. Chairman and your Commission, that 9 we particularly appreciate the fact that you chose 10 to hold four days of the hearings here in 11 Springfield. We think that's particularly 12 appropriate, and that it shows a great deal of 13 respect for the residents of those communities 14 that host the floodway and are potentially most 15 affected by any adverse impacts that may arise 16 from the project. I would like to thank you 17 particularly myself personally for allowing us to 18 make our presentation here in our communities and 19 before our residents today. And I want to just 20 say a brief word of thanks to Springfield's 21 partners, in particular the RM of East St. Paul 22 and the RM of St. Clements, for their commitment 23 to this process. I would like to mention as well, 24 the Coalition, and their permitting us to be in a 25 limited partnership relationship with them with 02013 1 respect to groundwater issues. 2 I guess I should mention the rock. 3 I'm getting some questions about the rock, as I 4 have been carrying it around through the hearings. 5 You will recall last evening that Mr. Myron Gavaga 6 addressed the Commission, and he mentioned that he 7 leases an area of the floodway on a hay lease and 8 that there is a significant amount of broken rock 9 on top of that area, probably hundreds of tons of 10 rocks, very similar to this one. This one I 11 picked up from Mr. Gavaga's hay lease. There is 12 also a lot of smaller rocks which he has been able 13 to basically work into the surface of the ground 14 there. But this, and accounts of people that 15 still live in the community that operated heavy 16 equipment at the time of the construction of the 17 original floodway, people who repaired that 18 equipment, is a very, very vivid reminder to the 19 people of our community that we very much believe 20 that in that original construction the underlying 21 carbonate aquifer was in fact excavated. That 22 portions of it lie exposed to the waters in the 23 flood channel. It is not covered by any layer of 24 clay or till. 25 Now I know that the Floodway 02014 1 Authority's various slides do not depict a 2 condition like that, but I can assure you it 3 exists, and I think given time and resources, we 4 could prove that to everyone's satisfaction. 5 Part of the reason I was carrying this 6 around was to make the secretary a little 7 concerned that I might want to enter it as an 8 exhibit, and she could carry it around, but I 9 don't know that that's necessarily the case. I 10 just wanted to bring it along to show you that 11 there is pretty clear evidence on the ground of 12 some very unfortunate things that happened back in 13 the 1960s. 14 I guess I have come to appreciate the 15 discipline of the Commission's rules, because 16 several weeks ago I had to file an outline of my 17 presentations, and that certainly allowed me to 18 get some sleep this week, because if I hadn't 19 filed that outline I would have been making a 20 number of changes. I sort of like to follow a 21 written presentation fairly closely, so I hope you 22 appreciate that. I like to be prepared. I don't 23 like unpleasant surprises, especially when they 24 come out of my own mouth. 25 So I will turn to that formal outline, 02015 1 and it starts out with an introduction to 2 Springfield. And in order to do that, I want to 3 go back quite a way, and refer to an article in 4 the Manitoba Free Press, November 30, 1872, which 5 reads as follows: 6 "Our ride to Springfield across the 7 prairie from the Seine was one of 8 continual aggravation on account of 9 the innumerable chickens and grouse 10 which tempted us to dismount and bag 11 them. We however secured enough from 12 the wagon seat for a bouillon without 13 losing much time. At Springfield, 14 unlike the previously visited 15 localities, we found the settlers 16 scattered over a park-like valley with 17 no stream or trail to marshal them 18 into a thin line of distance, 19 inconvenient for neighborhood 20 purposes. This locality is well 21 sheltered from the north by a range of 22 hills or mountains, as they may be 23 called in this prairie country, and on 24 the east and south partially by an 25 irregular spur of the same. And it is 02016 1 considered by its occupants, not 2 without reason, as the garden of 3 Manitoba. A very profitable garden it 4 is likely to be, only 10 miles from 5 Winnipeg and lacking no single 6 advantage. Water, pure and clear, is 7 obtained near the surface, with 8 hayland and wood in sufficiency, and 9 the soil so rich and easily worked 10 that as an intelligent settler 11 remarked, his farm seemed all ready 12 except for the buildings." 13 So I guess I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, 14 that's the baseline and I rest my case, and I'm 15 sure in a short while you will wish that I had 16 done that as well. 17 Today an industrial type canal 18 replaces approximately 5,000 acres of that 19 pristine environment. And I know there is a 20 different number indicated in my outline, and I'm 21 not really quite sure how that number was 22 developed. Knowing that I've undertaken to tell 23 you the truth, I can tell you that the area 24 occupied by the Red River floodway is 25 4,637.2 acres, and does unfortunately have the 02017 1 effect of marshalling portions of our community 2 into thin lines of distance inconvenient for 3 neighborhood purposes for some 23 kilometres. 4 This new environment is largely devoid 5 of trees, and is sparsely vegetated after almost 6 40 years. Mr. Gilroy constantly reminded us that 7 we can't go back to 1960. We are not so naive to 8 believe that we can. But we did not expect that 9 in 2005 we would be reduced to begging to defend 10 one of the most fundamental pillars of the 11 sustainability of our community, namely the 12 groundwater, upon which we rely for our sole 13 source of drinking water. We did not believe we 14 would be left to defend ourselves against the 15 threat of dire health consequences caused by 16 allowing surface water to mix with the groundwater 17 aquifer. 18 We remind you that the MFA has been 19 charged with the responsibility to apply 20 principles of sustainable development to this 21 project, and the MFA have themselves adopted 22 protection of human health as their highest 23 priority. Government of all levels are 24 increasingly concerned with the environment, and 25 in particular the quality of drinking water. 02018 1 The floodway channel severs the 2 municipality of Springfield completely, running 3 south to north across the west end of the 4 municipality, resulting in significant 5 interruption of traffic flow. And in that regard, 6 I applaud the authority and the Manitoba 7 Government for their respective parts and the 8 decision to build a four lane bridge at highway 15 9 as part of the proposed project. In my view, this 10 is an example of how the effects of the existing 11 floodway can be dealt with in a responsible manner 12 in 2005, cognizant of the changing environment 13 since 1960. 14 And, Steve, I think that it is a model 15 that should probably be applied in your community 16 as well, and I certainly support your community's 17 concerns. 18 The severing has an onerous impact on 19 the RM's ability to provide services across the 20 floodway. Emergency services are a special 21 challenge as lives and property are at stake. 22 Most of our population relies on hospitals of the 23 City of Winnipeg. And extremely busy highways and 24 intensive industrial operations are located in our 25 RM west of the floodway, while our emergency 02019 1 response resources are located here in Oakbank. 2 On top of that, there is a constant need to 3 respond to emergency situations occurring on or 4 originating from the floodway property itself. 5 Property occupied by the floodway has 6 paid no taxes, not even when the Provincial 7 government has rented space to businesses such as 8 Spring Hill ski facility. Accordingly, we have 9 experienced reduced tax but increased expenditure. 10 And such mundane issues of who will maintain 11 construction roads, who will repair roads to haul 12 away excess material, and who will pay to have 13 emergency response backup during construction 14 delays are all relevant to us. 15 Scope of the project: Regarding the 16 significance of the proposed project, I refer to 17 an April 8, 2004, release of the then Manitoba 18 Floodway Expansion Authority. I quote, 19 "We want to invite Manitobans to have 20 their say on one of the largest 21 infrastructure projects in Manitoba's 22 history, and help shape the future of 23 their own communities for generations 24 to come." 25 This generational focus should be contrasted with 02020 1 the EIS, which seems largely to have a focus 2 ending with construction of this project. 3 Unfortunately, as we attempted to grapple with 4 shaping the future of our communities around this 5 project, we became aware there was very little 6 detail, and much of what detail there was, was not 7 readily available to the public or local 8 politicians without significant technical 9 assistance. 10 I quote from the RM of Springfield's 11 response to the draft guidelines for preparation 12 of an EIS and project description from the 13 paragraph headed "project description." The 14 project description is addressed at item 5.5 of 15 the guidelines. Presumably the project 16 description should, to the extent they are 17 relevant, address all aspects of the environmental 18 impact statement, including those previously 19 addressed in this presentation. Specifically, the 20 project description is to address design capacity, 21 location of all of its components, and will 22 include topography, water courses and a 23 description of all elements of construction. 24 In this regard the project description 25 is disappointing and inadequate in the view of the 02021 1 municipality. The location must be described in 2 relation to the surrounding physical, social and 3 economic environment. The current project 4 description does not even mention the Municipality 5 or the fact that the project passes completely 6 through the municipality, severing it east from 7 west. It does not mention surrounding land use 8 which is predominantly agricultural. It does not 9 describe the prevailing drainage patterns from 10 southeast to northwest. It does not consider 11 populations, commuter patterns or trading areas in 12 the surrounding community. It does not identify 13 the sensitive recharge area known as the Birds 14 Hill kame deposit; the location of springs known 15 to be flowing into the channel or the location or 16 number of groundwater wells in proximity to the 17 floodway. It does not provide an adequate or any 18 description of mitigative measures, such as more 19 and larger drainage drop structures, more or 20 larger bridges, or protection of groundwater. It 21 does not provide specifics of how design capacity 22 will be achieved, and in particular whether the 23 channel will be deepened, at what locations it 24 will be deepened or how much it will be deepened. 25 All critical to a proper assessment of the impact 02022 1 of groundwater in the Municipality. 2 That was pretty early thinking on our 3 part. I would simply say that I would concur with 4 Mr. Stevenson's remarks to the Commission earlier 5 today, that really the project description just 6 looked at a footprint really of the project, 7 restricted to the floodway right-of-way itself. 8 It didn't look, in our view, at the surrounding 9 community or the environment within which the 10 project was going to be delivered. 11 Again, from our response, January 7, 12 2005, to the EIS supplement; as usual the 13 information provided by the Authority is 14 disappointing, and on the face of readily 15 available documents, most investigations are 16 apparently incomplete, tentative and subject to 17 field inspection which will take place after the 18 environmental licence is issued. The authority 19 even admits their analysis is incomplete in some 20 areas. The bottom line seems to be just give us 21 the licence and trust us. In that setting it 22 would be helpful if it were at least explained why 23 the investigations listed were being undertaken; 24 the extent to which such investigations have in 25 fact been performed, what the results are or might 02023 1 be, and what the appropriate mitigative response 2 might be in the face of possible results. 3 As we pointed out in our motions brief 4 on the first day of these hearings, decisions made 5 and mitigative measures designed at the final 6 design and construction phases of the project go 7 well beyond the purview of this hearing, and 8 consequently beyond any opportunity for meaningful 9 public input. 10 Factors of particular relevance to the 11 RM, such as municipal development and continued 12 growth, at least consistent with long term trends, 13 are not considered. And, in fact, those issues 14 are treated with some considerable disdain in the 15 information response 6A, under RM3. And I had 16 referred to that on the first day of the hearings, 17 but it is essentially a request regarding what 18 consideration had been given with respect to long 19 term development, and the response was to the 20 effect that development, hypothetical development 21 in unidentified municipalities was too 22 hypothetical for the Authority to address. 23 The heading expectations: Our 24 expectations include, number 1, specific 25 acknowledgment of the magnitude of the project and 02024 1 its effects on future generations in our 2 community. 3 Number 2, responsible recognition of 4 the socio-economic and environmental effects of 5 this project within the context of a 21st century 6 understanding of Government's responsibilities to 7 society. 8 Number 3, complete disclosure. 9 Number 4, we expected upon completion 10 of this project, it will help to ensure the long 11 term sustainability of the community. In 12 particular, that it will protect groundwater 13 resources, including a formal plan for ongoing 14 monitoring and a defined and meaningful response 15 when mitigation is indicated because of an impact 16 on groundwater quality or quantity. 17 Number 5, in a key person interview 18 April 28, 2004, I identified the -- it is 19 described as the overarching issue, I don't know 20 those would have been my words, but that was the 21 recorder's interpretation of what I said. A sense 22 of personal worth is needed for people who live in 23 the municipality. The way that the floodway is 24 being handled, it gives the feeling that they are 25 less valued than those who live in Winnipeg. That 02025 1 sense of worth, Mr. Chairman, is not achieved by 2 leaving our only drinking water source exposed to 3 loss and contamination. It is not achieved by 4 preferring recreation to agricultural use of the 5 floodway, and it is not achieved by a complete 6 lack of concern that raw sewage from Winnipeg is 7 running into the floodway channel on a fast track 8 to the aquifer. 9 Scope of review: I refer to a letter 10 from Ernie Gilroy dated April 8, 2004. 11 "We greatly appreciate the opportunity 12 to meet with you and council to 13 discuss improvements to the floodway." 14 This letter followed upon a March 12, 2004 release 15 from the then Manitoba Floodway Expansion 16 Authority as follows: 17 "We will provide excellence in project 18 management and go far beyond the 19 environmental protection standards 20 used to construct the original 21 floodway." 22 In spite of these early comments, we 23 discovered, and it is confirmed in these hearings, 24 that the MFA advocates an extremely narrow scope 25 of review, such that issues regarding groundwater 02026 1 security are virtually removed from the table. 2 This is most unfortunate given the current state 3 of realization concerning the importance of water 4 resources. Reference has been made to the 5 proposed Water Protection Act, which admonishes us 6 to no longer take the quantity or quality of water 7 for granted, and seeks to turn back the clock to 8 1971, in terms of the net result of poor water 9 management practices on Lake Winnipeg. 10 We still today have the opportunity to 11 protect the groundwater aquifer. The opportunity 12 which exists today could be lost. The commitment 13 contained in the March 12, 2004 release is 14 meaningless, if it is not applied to the existing 15 floodway. 16 I would remind the Commission, as I 17 need constantly to remind myself, that fortunately 18 it is the purview of the Commission and not the 19 MFA to determine the appropriate scope of review. 20 The heading concerns: To itemize 21 other concerns, we would first identify that the 22 general lay of the land and, therefore, the 23 direction of local drainage, is from southeast to 24 northwest. I would simply observe that the east 25 embankment of the floodway serves as a large dyke 02027 1 across the west end of our RM. Drainage cannot 2 take place except at the location of drop 3 structures established for that purpose. As 4 indicated in the Cooks Creek Conservation District 5 presentation, our farm community needs more and 6 better access for drainage. 7 Secondly, we are concerned about what 8 we perceive to be a complete absence of 9 management, if not mismanagement, of the floodway 10 property. There is no attempt to limit or control 11 access to the floodway property with the result 12 that the area is used for undesirable activities 13 such as abandonment of stolen vehicles. Crops are 14 damaged as a result of fire and vehicular 15 vandalism. There is absolutely no security 16 measures to prevent trespass and vandalism or to 17 respond when emergencies occur. The floodway 18 represents a ready conduit to carry these 19 activities to adjacent public and private 20 property, and I reference Councillor Bodnaruk's 21 comments to the Commission last evening, as he 22 lives in extremely close proximity to the floodway 23 right-of-way and has been subject to many of these 24 kinds of concerns. 25 Ambitious recreational use has been 02028 1 encouraged, when the simplest principles of 2 responsible property management are being ignored. 3 Noxious substances are flowing on the surface of 4 the property. Barricades are broken. There are 5 no warning signs, and on and on. 6 Further, the impact of recreational 7 use has apparently been evaluated solely as to its 8 impact on the ability of the expanded floodway to 9 accommodate the design flow and not with 10 consideration to economic and environmental 11 effects or quality of life issues for local 12 residents. However, I repeat, groundwater is our 13 overriding concern. 14 Cumulative effects: In that regard we 15 argue that cumulative effects of the existing 16 floodway must be considered. What is the project? 17 The end result of this hearing will be that the 18 entire floodway, including the existing floodway, 19 will be licensed. The existing floodway is being 20 replaced by the new expanded, and hopefully, more 21 environmentally responsible floodway. We would 22 submit that there is not sufficient data in the 23 EIS to separate out the effects of the existing 24 floodway. 25 We contend further that the true and 02029 1 constantly fluctuating baseline is not quantified. 2 There is uncontrolled flow of fresh groundwater 3 into the channel. Unquantified flows of flood 4 water infiltrate the aquifer dependent on the 5 vagaries of weather and erosion. We have minimal 6 analysis of what types of chemicals and biological 7 contaminants are present in the floodway at 8 different operational stages, and little control 9 over what might be introduced in areas outside of 10 our jurisdiction. 11 Potential health risks: Contamination 12 of groundwater is our major concern. Any 13 contamination of groundwater is not readily 14 reversible, and some types of contamination simply 15 cannot be reversed. The entire issue of microbial 16 contamination is evolving and is much more complex 17 than portrayed by the EIS. Current technology 18 indicates that certain types of microbial species 19 may infiltrate a great deal further and faster 20 into the aquifer than predicted by the MFA's 21 model. 22 We have seen devastating examples in 23 other areas of the country, and it is 24 inconceivable to the RM of Springfield that in 25 2005 we would license a project that brings 02030 1 sensitive groundwater areas into direct connection 2 with surface waters that have not even been fully 3 analyzed for their contaminant content. 4 A review process as advocated by the 5 MFA, which effectively removes existing 6 groundwater contamination and related health risks 7 from consideration, cannot possibly meet the 8 current standards of providing adequate health 9 protection to Canadians. We can not accept that 10 any amount of compensation is appropriate to 11 address human health issues, and these 12 consequences must be avoided. And I appreciate, 13 Mr. Chairman, I'm going a little longer than I 14 thought I might. I had wanted to read something 15 into the record but maybe I will leave that for 16 now. 17 Under the heading expert witnesses, 18 Mr. Chairman, I commend to you the evidence of 19 Mr. Wayne Clifton, Mr. Peter Hayes and Mr. Gary 20 Palmateer. We have done our best to seek out 21 experts particularly well qualified in issues 22 related to drinking water and associated health 23 concerns. We have asked them to provide full, 24 candid and independent advice to your process. 25 They have no vested interest in the project before 02031 1 you, and they are largely undistracted by the need 2 to flow 140,000 CFS through the channel, something 3 the MFA appears to have done in very fine fashion. 4 I would suggest that the experts that 5 we have presented raise very valid and serious 6 concerns about the extent to which the project 7 addresses groundwater security. Not only are 8 their risks of loss and contamination as a result 9 of the existing floodway, but there is a growing 10 concern as a result of the expansion project. 11 More to the point, our experts have 12 advanced specific recommendations for evaluation, 13 ongoing monitoring and mitigation processes, which 14 would reduce the risks to the aquifer and the 15 health of the community. We urge you to 16 consideration these recommendations carefully, and 17 to adopt them as conditions to approval of this 18 project. 19 In my view, these individuals have 20 demonstrated that they understand and appreciate 21 the day-to-day concerns of my community. 22 The MFA team may at some level have an 23 understanding of these concerns, and maybe even a 24 conscience. But these are well hidden under a 25 thick veneer of impatience, arrogance and 02032 1 condensation. I'm sorry to have to say that about 2 guests in our municipality, but after the last 3 several days, I believe I'm only stating the 4 obvious. 5 Mr. Chairman, you will recall at the 6 opening of the hearings, Tuesday last week, that 7 you had referred to a quote, I can't name a 8 source, but you referred to the protection of 9 the -- the responsibility that we have to protect 10 the environment. There are individuals on the MFA 11 team of consultants specifically charged with that 12 sacred trust of protecting the environment. The 13 MFA itself is charged with flowing 140,000 CFS 14 through the floodway on time and on budget. One 15 might assume that with these competing agendas, 16 there would have been battles of epic proportion. 17 With respect, that did not come across in the 18 evidence. Let me say to the MFA, the people of my 19 community don't care how much you know, they want 20 to know how much you care. 21 We submit that the experts the RM has 22 presented do care. Their brief answers, relaxed 23 demeanor and confidence in the face of 24 questioning, again speak for themselves. Thank 25 you, Mr. Chairman. 02033 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you 2 Reeve Holland. Unfortunately we have no time for 3 any cross-examination today, as one of my 4 colleagues has a commitment in Manitou, Manitoba, 5 at 7:30 this evening. He is going to be late, he 6 informs me. So I will canvass the proponent and 7 my colleagues, and if there is a desire or need to 8 cross-examine you, we will have to find a time 9 next week when all three of you are available. 10 Just before we adjourn for the day, I would just 11 like to thank the community of Oakbank for 12 welcoming us here this week. I would particularly 13 like to thank the many individuals from this 14 community and nearby communities who have sat 15 through many, if not all, of our proceedings here 16 this week. And many of them participated in our 17 proceedings. And on a particular note I would 18 like to thank the fine catering service that kept 19 us well fed for the four days we were here this 20 week. 21 We will reconvene Monday morning at 22 the Sheraton Hotel in Winnipeg, at 9:00 a.m. At 23 this time I'm not certain who will be up first on 24 the agenda, but we will try and inform everybody 25 sometime tomorrow. 02034 1 MS. JOHNSON: If we could add one last 2 exhibit, number 73, will be the Bill 22 Water 3 Protection handout that Mr. Strang provided. 4 5 (EXHIBIT 73: Bill 22 Water Protection 6 handout provided by Mr. Strang) 7 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We are 9 adjourned. 10 (ADJOURNED AT 5:10 P.M.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02035 1 OFFICIAL EXAMINER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 5 I, CECELIA REID, a duly appointed Official 6 Examiner in the Province of Manitoba, do hereby 7 certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct 8 transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken by me at 9 the time and place hereinbefore stated. 10 11 12 13 ---------------------------- 14 Cecelia Reid 15 Official Examiner, Q.B. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25