02304 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Tuesday, March 1, 2005 14 Sheraton Hotel, 161 Donald Street 15 Oakbank, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 Volume 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02305 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 02306 1 Participants: (continued) 2 3 Mr. Jake Buhler - Cooks Creek Conservation Mr. Lloyd Crooks - Cooks Creek Conservation 4 Mr. Jon Stefanson - Cooks Creek Conservation Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02307 1 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS 2 Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway, (Peter Hayes, Gary Palmateer) 3 Cross-examination by Floodway Authority 2311 Questions by Panel 2342 4 Presentation by Ms. Eileen Wazny 2412 5 Presentation by Ms. Valerie Rutherford 2414 6 Presentation by 768 Association 2423 Cross-examination by Floodway Authority 2464 7 Questions by Panel 2474 8 Presentation by The City of Winnipeg 2494 9 Presentation by Mr. James Stinson to the CEC 2526 10 Presentation by Mr. Kenneth Praznuik 2546 11 Presentation by Mr. Jack Penner, 12 MLA Emerson 2559 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02308 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 84 Presentation of Ms. Wazny to CEC 2414 4 85 Presentation: Valerie Rutherford, 2525 5 resident Ritchot Municipality 6 86 Presentation: Presentation of the 2526 7 768 Association, Slide presentation by: Rob Loudfoot, Yaroslav Shumuk 8 and Rob Duerksen 9 87 Submission: Submission to the Clean 2526 10 Environment Commission Public hearing on the Red River Floodway 11 Expansion Proposal. The 768 Association 12 13 88 Presentation to the CEC on the Red 2526 River Floodway Expansion Project. 14 The City of Winnipeg. Presented by: Barry MacBride, Director of Water 15 and Waste Water 16 89 Presentation: Clean Environment 2573 17 Commission, Floodway Expansion Project. Presented by James Stinson 18 19 90 Presentation: Clean Environment 2573 Commission Public Hearings, March 20 1, 2005. Presented by Kenneth Praznuik 21 22 91 Presentation: Jack Penner, MLA 2574 Emerson 23 24 25 02309 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 3 No undertakings given 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02310 1 TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005 2 Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies 5 and gentlemen. Welcome back to day number 10. My 6 colleague, Mr. Motheral, just asked me whether 7 today was a lamb so let's hope that our 8 proceedings in this hall will come in like a lamb 9 as well. 10 We are starting off today with a 11 return of the expert consultants who were advising 12 the Coalition for Flood Protection North of the 13 Floodway, Mr. Peter Hayes and Mr. Gary Palmateer. 14 As you will recall when they were last 15 here last Tuesday, was it, we weren't able to 16 conclude the cross-examination and they had to 17 leave to catch planes. So, we invited them to 18 come back. They are here today. 19 The Floodway Authority will continue 20 with cross-examination. They assured us at the 21 end of Tuesday that it wouldn't be long. That 22 will be followed by cross-examination by members 23 of this panel and then any of the other 24 participant groups who may have questions. And 25 then following that, Mr. Currie may have a 02311 1 redirect or re-examination. 2 I don't believe we have any other 3 items of business to take care of before we 4 proceed, so I'll turn the proceedings over to 5 Mr. Handlon. 6 MR. HANDLON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 Mr. Hayes, are you able to put the slides from 8 your presentation up on the screen? 9 MR. HAYES: Yes, we will try. 10 MR. HANDLON: I wonder if you could 11 put the latest slides that you had. I believe 12 there was three or four concept diagrams that you 13 had prepared regarding a clayey barrier/underdrain 14 concept. And that was numbers 64 through 67. 15 MR. HAYES: Yes. 16 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Hayes perhaps we can 17 just get going while that's setting up unless you 18 have to do some work at the computer to get it up 19 on the screen. Just for the record, now that I 20 had been able to review your slides that you 21 presented, am I correct that this presentation, 22 this slide presentation was prepared on 23 February 18, 2005? 24 MR. HAYES: Yes. 25 MR. HANDLON: Okay. 02312 1 MR. HAYES: It was very close to that. 2 MR. HANDLON: Well, the date on it is 3 February 18, 2005. So it was a number of days 4 before the hearing when you testified? 5 MR. HAYES: That's fair. 6 MR. HANDLON: If we could just go to 7 the concept, you were talking about the concept of 8 lining some areas of the floodway. I'll wait 9 until it comes on the screen otherwise it's too 10 distracting. 11 MR. HAYES: We found it. 12 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. 13 MR. HAYES: Is that the slide? 14 MR. HANDLON: Slide 64. Now just 15 getting back to where we were last week. I had 16 asked you the question as to lining of the 17 floodway. And you had said this was just a 18 conceptual drawing. You hadn't done feasibility 19 studies on it from a technical perspective or from 20 an economic perspective. 21 MR. HAYES: Or from a risk management 22 perspective, yes. 23 MR. HANDLON: And risk management, you 24 are referring to the issue of the risk of water 25 intrusion in certain areas? 02313 1 MR. HAYES: Yes. It's a health-based 2 risk assessment. 3 MR. HANDLON: Right. So you are not 4 suggesting that an entire length be lined or even 5 considered. It's certain areas of sensitivity. 6 MR. HAYES: Those four areas, there's 7 the area before about halfway through the 8 floodway. There's three other sensitive areas. 9 Each one of those areas may have a different 10 solution. 11 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And just you 12 acknowledge that in order to line the floodway, 13 either in the manner that you have conceptualized 14 or in some other manner, that in order to maintain 15 the grade, you'd have to deepen. And so that 16 consideration would have to be made as to that 17 risk itself? 18 MR. HAYES: If that was a requirement, 19 I'm not certain you would have to deepen. 20 MR. HANDLON: But my understanding in 21 order to maintain the grade, that there would have 22 to be deepening of close to two metres in order to 23 incorporate the concepts that you have shown. 24 MR. HAYES: I wouldn't be surprised if 25 there is some deepening. 02314 1 MR. HANDLON: And in your answer, and 2 I just want to follow from it, you had said, and 3 this is at page 1492, and this will just be the, 4 base, 5 "If it is validated to be necessary, 6 those improvements, the lining of the 7 floodway, whether it is a composite 8 line or a variation of the concepts 9 that I put forward and if a risk 10 assessment determined that to be 11 necessary..." 12 And again, just stopping there. The 13 risk assessment is the risk of water intrusion? 14 MR. HAYES: As it relates to health 15 concerns, yes. 16 MR. HANDLON: 17 "Yes, you are correct. There may be a 18 requirement to deepen it temporarily 19 as part of the construction of it is 20 something for the engineers to figure 21 out." 22 MR. HAYES: Yes. 23 MR. HANDLON: When you said for the 24 engineers to figure out, you are referring to the 25 fact there would have to be detailed engineering 02315 1 calculations as to the actual design of a liner? 2 MR. HAYES: That's correct. And you 3 wouldn't embark upon that exercise unless there 4 was a need to do so. And that's what the 5 health-based risk assessment would tell us. 6 MR. HANDLON: All right. And in your 7 diagram or your conceptual diagrams, you have at 8 the top clayey barrier/underdrain concept. Is 9 there any drain shown in that slide, slide 64? 10 MR. HAYES: Yes, there is, in what's 11 on the screen. 12 MR. HANDLON: Perhaps if you could go 13 back to number 64. 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: And this is entitled 16 Clayey barrier/underdrain concept where the 17 floodway is excavated into till or clay. And in 18 this area, is there any drain shown? 19 MR. HAYES: No, there isn't. 20 MR. HANDLON: And was that part of 21 your concept, that there would be a liner without 22 any drain in this type of area? 23 MR. HAYES: In this area, the 24 rationale here was unlike the sand aquifer around 25 Birds Hill where there is known to be significant 02316 1 spring discharges, there is known to be 2 significant underflow and upwelling. It's my 3 opinion and experience that it's best to convey 4 that water rather than block it, is to convey it 5 to allow it to travel away. So that's the 6 rationale behind the underdrain system in that 7 locality. 8 Here where we have the floodway is 9 either excavated into the sandy till or silt till 10 or very near the bedrock aquifer. If there's no 11 upwelling, the concept here is to preclude 12 groundwater/surface water interaction in areas 13 where till is thin or there is demonstrations that 14 the floodway does leak into the bedrock aquifer. 15 MR. HANDLON: So going back to slide 16 67 then, that is the area that you have coarse 17 gravel. That's the underdrain area that you are 18 referring to? 19 MR. HAYES: Yes. 20 MR. HANDLON: And have you considered 21 the pressure gradients on slide 64, the upper 22 pressure gradients in the areas where the floodway 23 is into till and clay? 24 MR. HAYES: No, I didn't. It was a 25 general concept. 02317 1 MR. HANDLON: Okay. 2 MR. HAYES: If there was significant 3 pressures, again, that would be incorporated into 4 the design. 5 MR. HANDLON: And I understand from 6 your curriculum vitae, that you have described 7 yourself as a hydrogeologist. You are not an 8 engineer though? 9 MR. HAYES: No, I'm not an engineer. 10 MR. HANDLON: And so I understand that 11 hydrogeologists can come from a science degree in 12 geology or from engineering. 13 MR. HAYES: That's correct. I guess 14 just to speak a little bit further. It is my role 15 or typically as a hydrogeologist to identify 16 pathways, receptors of concern and convey that 17 information to the engineering design team. They 18 take that information and incorporate those into 19 the design. 20 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And that's how 21 your company works? 22 MR. HAYES: That's how I think most 23 companies work, yes. 24 MR. HANDLON: And if you could turn to 25 your slide number 62. And slide 62, we didn't 02318 1 refer to it the other day. And I'm just going to 2 point you to the third bullet point there. We did 3 discuss it the other day in respect to page 31 of 4 your report. And the statement in this bullet 5 point, and I just want to be clear, is this 6 similar type of statement that was made on page 31 7 of your report. And just to clarify the record 8 then. On that third bullet point, that statement 9 was not taken from the KGS report. 10 MR. HAYES: That's correct. If 11 anything, the record shows that there was 12 insufficient baseline data collected, but you are 13 correct. 14 MR. HANDLON: Yes. And you 15 acknowledged the other day that because there was 16 a dearth of information, that it is difficult to 17 draw a conclusion on that point? 18 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 19 MR. HANDLON: And just following on 20 the same page or the same slide, bullet point 21 number 2, you refer to: 22 "GUDI studies recommended for all 23 wells in the region where water table 24 response was observed to 1997 floodway 25 operation." 02319 1 And reading the GUDI protocol which 2 was attached to your report, my understanding is 3 that it's a protocol for municipal wells? 4 MR. HAYES: Yes. It can have 5 application to individual wells but that's the 6 concept. It was derived for the protection and 7 assessment of municipal water supplies. 8 MR. HANDLON: Right. And as I 9 understand, the protocol is to study if 10 groundwater is potentially under the direct 11 influence of surface water? 12 MR. HAYES: Yes. 13 MR. HANDLON: And the GUDI study is a 14 study which looks at all potential sources of 15 surface water that may come into contact with 16 groundwater. 17 MR. HAYES: Yes. 18 MR. HANDLON: So that a GUDI study 19 would not only look at one potential interaction 20 or cause for surface water coming into contact 21 with the groundwater but would look at all 22 potential influences of surface water on 23 groundwater. 24 MR. HAYES: That's correct, at 25 different times of the year. In our case, not 02320 1 only seasonal influences but during floodway 2 operation and non-operation. 3 MR. HANDLON: And I suggest a GUDI 4 study would also look at the influences on 5 municipal wells of other influences such as sewage 6 lagoons, gravel pits or any construction in the 7 area? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes. All those potential 9 sources of interference would be evaluated. 10 MR. HANDLON: Right. And we have 11 focused here on the modeling that you have seen 12 was done or reflected in the EIS was modeling on 13 the mod flow model which looked at the potential 14 influence of the surface water from the floodway, 15 correct? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes, but that's only one 17 aspect. It's not a complete GUDI analysis. 18 MR. HANDLON: No. GUDI analysis would 19 look at the municipal wells and look at all of the 20 potential influences, whether it be from septic 21 fields or sewage lagoons or construction 22 activities. 23 MR. HAYES: That's correct. In 24 respect to this undertaking, the modeling itself 25 was insufficient because there is not a water 02321 1 quality component. And the GUDI assessment, the 2 MPA analysis, would be -- during the periods of 3 flood and non-flood floodway operation would be a 4 critical component of that risk assessment as it 5 would relate to the floodway. 6 MR. HANDLON: But certainly the 7 modeling looked at the potential intrusion. 8 MR. HAYES: It did not address 9 contaminant fate and transport. It talked only 10 about the hydraulics. And it didn't agree -- the 11 model itself, it said a couple of things which 12 supported the need for the GUDI analysis; i.e. it 13 did demonstrate that there was surface water 14 intrusion into the overburden and bedrock 15 sequences. The modeling itself indicated that. 16 What it didn't address was the potential for 17 contaminant fate and transport and the indicators 18 and the risk assessment, the health-based risk 19 assessment as it relates to impacts on municipal 20 supplies. 21 MR. HANDLON: And it didn't look at 22 the other potential influences of surface water 23 from the other activities that I talked about 24 either. 25 MR. HAYES: No, it didn't. 02322 1 MR. HANDLON: Right. That would 2 certainly be a municipal responsibility to look at 3 all of those considerations. 4 MR. HAYES: As far as responsibility, 5 you would have to look at all sources, you are 6 correct. Similarly, I think even the work that 7 was undertaken didn't really address the 8 individual well owner or resident in their supply. 9 MR. HANDLON: If you can turn to slide 10 number 12. If we can just have a second. 11 MR. HAYES: Certainly. 12 MR. HANDLON: And just on the third 13 bullet point, calcareous silt and sandy till 14 underlies the clay. 15 MR. HAYES: Yes. 16 MR. HANDLON: It's my understanding 17 and I believe it's shown in the engineering 18 reports that, and perhaps this is a matter simply 19 of description, that the typical till is a silty 20 clay till or a clay till, typical. 21 MR. HAYES: Typically, there are a 22 variability to it, yes. 23 MR. HANDLON: But the typical till is 24 a clay till to a silty clay till. And there are 25 areas of sandy till. But typically, in the 02323 1 floodway, that characterization is a clay till to 2 a silty clay till. 3 MR. HAYES: I guess in contrast, the 4 upper unit here definitely is what I have 5 described as clay. The underlying silt till that 6 is depicted here is silt and clay. Definitely 7 clay is a significant component of it. 8 MR. HANDLON: And one of the factors 9 is the permeability of the till. 10 MR. HAYES: I was just going to say 11 that. There is definitely a permeability 12 contrast. The upper unit, the unweathered grey 13 lacustrine clay is definitely not as -- is very 14 impermeable as compared to the underlying silt and 15 clay basal till unit which is more permeable, 16 especially with the discontinuities associated 17 with it. 18 MR. HANDLON: And I think if you turn 19 to your slide 29, it may help us in that regard. 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. 21 MR. HANDLON: And the till itself is 22 shown in that slide, you've got till K equal 10 to 23 the minus 7 to 10 to the minus 9 ms, metres per 24 second? 25 MR. HAYES: Yes. 02324 1 MR. HANDLON: And that would be 2 considered low permeability till? 3 MR. HAYES: Moderately. But it is on 4 a relative basis not as permeable as sand. But I 5 often think in centimetres per second. And 10 to 6 minus 7, I don't want to confuse it, but water 7 will move through that more readily than the 8 unweathered clay above it. 9 MR. HANDLON: Yes. But as to sand, 10 it's a hundred times less permeable. 11 MR. HAYES: Pardon? 12 MR. HANDLON: As compared to sand, it 13 would be a hundred times less permeable. 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. That's if it is 15 unfractured or unweathered and there's been no 16 breaches in it. And the thickness of the unit has 17 a definite controlling effect on 18 groundwater/surface water flow and interaction. 19 And areas of thin till, that's the other. There's 20 two concepts. There's the permeability and the 21 thickness and then would determine how easily 22 water would move through it. 23 MR. HANDLON: And the gradient as 24 well. 25 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 02325 1 MR. HANDLON: Now, the one issue that 2 I don't believe we dealt with the other day, and 3 that was an issue relating to the some anecdotal 4 evidence or suggestion that there might be bedrock 5 in the floodway channel. 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. 7 MR. HANDLON: And we know that there's 8 some bedrock right at the outlet. And that's been 9 confirmed by KGS and they have dealt with that. 10 But your report, and I believe it's slide 15, 11 refers to bedrock outcrops south of Spring Hill. 12 MR. HAYES: Yes. 13 MR. HANDLON: Slide 15. 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. Is that the slide? 15 MR. HANDLON: Yes. And it's bullet 16 point number 4. 17 MR. HAYES: Yes. 18 MR. HANDLON: Sorry. 19 MR. HAYES: Fourth from the top? 20 MR. HANDLON: It's the last bullet 21 point. And that was based on information that was 22 provided to you by Wayne Clifton? 23 MR. HAYES: Yes. 24 MR. HANDLON: You didn't study the 25 source of that information? 02326 1 MR. HAYES: No. 2 MR. HANDLON: My advice is from the 3 studies that were done by KGS, which not only 4 included surveying on a 40 metre grid throughout 5 the floodway and as also, their investigation 6 speaking to the original contractors and engineers 7 that there was no bedrock outcrops, so you are not 8 able to challenge that? 9 MR. HAYES: No. I'd only say that 10 it's shown here in slide 13 where we have a till 11 and rubble exposed along the floodway near the 12 outlet in Lockport. That in itself shows to me 13 that bedrock is at or near surface. 14 MR. HANDLON: That's showing a 15 different location. Are you aware of that? 16 MR. HAYES: I'm sorry? 17 MR. HANDLON: Do you know the location 18 of that? That is a different location from the 19 location that you referred to in slide 15. 20 MR. HAYES: I'll check. Yes, it is. 21 MR. HANDLON: Yes. So going back to 22 my question then. You haven't studied this 23 particular piece of anecdotal evidence that was 24 given to you? 25 MR. HAYES: No, I haven't, excepting 02327 1 that picture I just showed you. 2 MR. HANDLON: Pardon me? 3 MR. HAYES: Excepting that picture I 4 just showed you which indicated the bedrock at or 5 near surface. 6 MR. HANDLON: And the picture was at 7 the outlet? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes, very near the outlet. 9 We didn't validate Mr. Clifton's statement. 10 MR. HANDLON: Yeah. And have you 11 studied the reports from KGS that there is a test 12 pit that was dug 180 metres before the outlet and 13 what was located in that area? 14 MR. HAYES: I don't recall that 15 specifically. 16 MR. HANDLON: The information from the 17 engineering report showed that there was three 18 metres of clay at that particular test pit -- of 19 till, sorry, at least three metres of till. 20 MR. HAYES: I accept your word. 21 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And just for the 22 record, that was in Appendix K2. 23 MR. HAYES: The other thing I relied 24 upon was the cross-section in the KGS report which 25 showed certain localities coincident with some 02328 1 springs that bedrock was very at or near the 2 channel base and I'll point one out to you right 3 now. This locality here in this first sensitive 4 area, we have documentation of a spring being 5 present. And this is bedrock surface and it's at 6 or near the base of the channel. That, in part, 7 is what I relied upon for my assessment of bedrock 8 at or near the floodway base. 9 MR. HANDLON: My understanding is that 10 there were test holes that were drilled along the 11 floodway and you haven't looked and studied that 12 part of the engineering reports? 13 MR. HAYES: No. I assumed it was 14 utilized in the preparation of this cross-section. 15 So that's what I reviewed. I assumed it was an 16 outcome of that. 17 MR. HANDLON: And my advice is there 18 was no bedrock shown in any of those test holes. 19 MR. HAYES: Perhaps. But this 20 cross-section shows bedrock at or near the -- 21 MR. HANDLON: Or even in the section 22 that you've shown? 23 MR. HAYES: It's the section that was 24 in the report. And where we had the spring, we 25 also have a coincident bedrock high. 02329 1 MR. HANDLON: Bedrock high but not 2 exposed. 3 MR. HAYES: True. It's somewhat 4 semantics. It's at or near the floodway base. I 5 would agree it may not be exposed but it's very 6 near the surface. 7 MR. HANDLON: When you talked the 8 other day about monitoring and you had a critique 9 on the monitoring, were you aware of the drilling 10 of wells that was done as part of the modeling and 11 also other analyses by KGS in order to prepare 12 their pre-engineering reports? 13 MR. HAYES: I was aware in general 14 terms the work that was undertaken. I relied upon 15 the baseline monitoring. I think it was 23 16 locations of several hundred that were sampled, 17 domestic wells. 18 MR. HANDLON: No, but that they were 19 wells that were drilled at six locations of the 20 floodway that were deemed to be areas of potential 21 sensitivity. 22 MR. HAYES: Is that the November 23 report? 24 MR. HANDLON: No, it's in Appendix O. 25 MR. HAYES: November 23, 2004? 02330 1 MR. HANDLON: Sorry? 2 MR. HAYES: Is that the November 23, 3 2004 report? 4 MR. HANDLON: No. 5 MR. SMITH: If I can just clarify. 6 The program that we undertook right at the outset 7 is we selected six points that were deemed to be 8 potentially sensitive and we did detailed drilling 9 in a perpendicular cross-section across the 10 floodway and installed wells in the till and in 11 the bedrock and in the clay. And then, you know, 12 spaced them back from the channel bottom to the 13 channel shoulder and beyond the limits of the 14 channel in some cases. So there's a set of six 15 sections that were selected. Those are presented 16 in Appendix O with all of the drilling 17 information. 18 Now, those sections were carried on 19 throughout the study. So in the model studies, 20 for example, the surface water intrusion, those 21 sections were then used to model the potential in 22 surface water infiltration. So we had a detailed 23 database of the soil profiles and the piezometric 24 levels with distance at those sections. We just 25 wondered if you were aware of the detail? 02331 1 MR. HAYES: Yes, I do. In retrospect, 2 a very good description. I do recall that. 3 MR. SMITH: Just to clarify for the 4 record. In Appendix O that was originally issued 5 in July 2004 as part of the base preliminary 6 engineering reports. 7 MR. HAYES: Yes. 8 MR. HANDLON: Did you review those 9 before preparing your report? 10 MR. HAYES: Yes. 11 MR. HANDLON: I thought you had 12 indicated the other day that you didn't look at 13 the engineering reports in any detail. You mainly 14 took on the modeling issue that you had basically 15 taken the summary from the EIS. 16 MR. HAYES: Well, I should be 17 corrected then. I didn't look and evaluate them. 18 My focus was not on the modeling per se. I looked 19 at the outcome of the modeling. I didn't try and 20 test or validate the model itself. That was left 21 to my associate, Mr. Clifton. 22 MR. HANDLON: Your associate 23 Mr. Clifton? He is in a different company, 24 correct? 25 MR. HAYES: That's correct. Project 02332 1 associate or project team. 2 MR. HANDLON: If I could just have a 3 minute, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith has a few more 4 questions just on some earlier testimony this 5 morning. 6 MR. HAYES: Certainly. 7 MR. SMITH: Mr. Hayes, could we have 8 the slide 64 back up, that schematic of the liner? 9 MR. HAYES: Yes. 10 MR. SMITH: Thank you. I just wanted 11 to clarify. If we were to construct that liner 12 and you've got that HDPE, that's a high density 13 polyethylene liner overlain by clay cover and then 14 rock riprap to hold it down and protect from 15 scouring. That's a fairly conventional liner 16 detail for a landfill site that's quite often 17 used. But my point is, if you look at the 18 piezometric pressure level to the right of the 19 channel and the left of the channel -- that's a 20 schematic of course but it is up there -- and if 21 you put that liner in the bottom, and I understand 22 the intent is to prevent any interconnection or 23 discharge of water into the channel, would that 24 not then result in pressure building up beneath 25 the liner, more or less approaching or reaching 02333 1 that level, essentially joining the dots right 2 across the channel? 3 MR. HAYES: Certainly, you are 4 correct, that would have to be part of the design. 5 If there is that hydrostatic pressure, that would 6 have to be relieved or conveyed to prevent uplift, 7 certainly. 8 MR. SMITH: Yes, or else you'd cause a 9 blowout and a total failure of the liner. 10 MR. HAYES: That's a design 11 consideration, yes. That would have to be part of 12 the design. If you needed to, if that was a 13 significant effect, you'd have to address that in 14 the design perhaps to relieve that pressure. 15 MR. SMITH: But in fact, that would be 16 a given with that detail, the pressure would 17 recover. It would be effectively as if there was 18 no -- 19 MR. HAYES: This is a concept, yes. 20 MR. SMITH: I guess then from that, 21 you would require presumably a fairly extensive 22 network of underdrain system and ongoing pumping 23 throughout the life of the floodway to ensure that 24 pressure was relieved? 25 MR. HAYES: That's premature. That's 02334 1 conjecture. We don't know that. That would be 2 part of the detail design. If this was indeed a 3 valid approach, if this was necessary and that was 4 a concern, that would have to be taken into 5 consideration. 6 The reason for the HDPE, again in this 7 concept, because I know from experience both 8 professionally and from what I've seen, clay, 9 whether it's recompacted clay till as part of a 10 clay barrier system, is subject to weathering. 11 And we need to protect the integrity of that clay 12 barrier. The reason it's there is to preclude 13 groundwater/surface water interaction. And the 14 HDPE is not subject to weathering. It won't 15 crack. There was no freeze/thaw activity. It's 16 put in there for that purpose because clay barrier 17 systems, if they aren't protected, the riprap, as 18 you indicated, was there as an erosion in concept, 19 as an erosion protection if necessary. The HDPE 20 is there. The geotextile underneath the riprap 21 was to prevent mixing of the overlying riprap into 22 the recompacted clay till. And the reason for the 23 geomembrane again is because it provides some 24 surety that the clay barriers won't weather and 25 crack over time and again cause -- we put it 02335 1 there. If we're going to go to this exercise, we 2 put it there to have a barrier. And the 3 geotextile will not be subject to weathering or 4 freeze/thaw activity and that's why it's there. 5 MR. SMITH: So if the water pressure 6 essentially on the bottom of that liner, let's 7 just say for simplistic purposes is twice the 8 height of the thickness of what you have built 9 above it, it will float that liner off. Basically 10 water is half the weight of soil. 11 MR. HAYES: That would have to be 12 considered, certainly. It's not -- I presented 13 these concepts. There's definitely some 14 engineering that would have to be worked out. But 15 it's not something that hasn't been done before. 16 It's something that can be done. It's done all 17 the time. 18 MR. SMITH: Two more points, 19 Mr. Hayes. On your conclusion, slide 58 and 20 conclusion 9, basically you say that this liner is 21 necessary in all areas where the clay is thin or 22 absent. And that would imply, you know, roughly 23 over half of the length of the channel as you 24 noted from your earlier sensitive areas. Would 25 that be correct? 02336 1 MR. HAYES: In concept, those are the 2 sensitive areas I showed on that slide 14. Those 3 are the areas of concern, all of which needs to be 4 validated. If we're going to go to this length to 5 upgrade or improve the barrier system in the 6 floodway channel, we need to do that health-based 7 risk assessment. That will tell us if there needs 8 to be improvements to the channel construction and 9 design such that we preclude that 10 groundwater/surface water interaction because it's 11 a significant health-based concern. It's not 12 about protecting property, it's about protecting 13 human health. 14 MR. SMITH: Just another question 15 then. We had earlier discussed the till 16 parameters and the fact that it's 10 to the minus 17 7 metres a second as a hydraulic conductivity. 18 That means it's a relatively slow ability for 19 water to seep through it, as you noted, other than 20 if there's local fractures or springs. And I 21 guess that's a representative material along the 22 channel. The silt clay content ranges up from 23 anywhere up to 60 per cent in that material. So 24 it's a relatively low permeability material as you 25 have indicated. And so I am wondering why we 02337 1 would want to line the entire length of the 2 channel as indicated here? 3 MR. HAYES: I'm not suggesting the 4 entire length of the channel be lined. Again, we 5 have enough evidence in those sensitive areas. We 6 have pathways, we have breaches, we have conduits. 7 The underlying till unit where it's thin and sandy 8 does not offer protection from a contaminant fate 9 and transport. There is a real potential for 10 these contaminants to move into the bedrock 11 sequence underlying. 12 MR. SMITH: In local areas. So your 13 conclusion 9, in fact it says it is necessary to 14 line the entire channel, actually we'd want to 15 modify that thought. 16 One last comment just for your 17 benefit. Your colleague, Mr. Clifton, in fact in 18 his earlier testimony, his opinion was that in 19 fact, it's impractical to line the entire channel 20 in that section, that the underdrain system would 21 be prohibitively expensive and that you would in 22 fact need that underdrain all along because 23 clearly, the pressure will build up. 24 MR. HAYES: I would say that 25 conclusion, if it was his conclusion, I don't 02338 1 think it was in its entirety, we don't -- we have 2 enough evidence now for those sensitive areas that 3 something needs to be done, a health-based risk 4 assessment needs to be conducted which would 5 validate the needs for any improvements. Expense 6 is part of the equation but when you are talking 7 about human health, again this isn't a property 8 protection cost benefit analysis, this is human 9 health. These are the concerns. 10 The dollar cost to do it doesn't enter 11 into the same magnitude as it would for a property 12 protection program. You need to do this 13 health-based risk assessment. And it's something 14 that there is procedures and protocols out there. 15 There is the GUDI analysis. There is the MPA 16 assessment. It's relatively inexpensive to do it 17 and you'll be able to determine with certainty if 18 you need to go to the expense and effort to 19 upgrade the floodway to preclude this 20 groundwater/surface water interaction. 21 MR. SMITH: I'll just maybe comment. 22 In that regard, you had earlier indicated that 23 monitoring is certainly important at these 24 location sensitive areas. 25 MR. HAYES: Yes. 02339 1 MR. SMITH: And I would fully agree 2 with that. And I'm wondering, we can go on 3 modeling various cases, whether it's risk 4 assessment or health or contaminant transport, the 5 reality is with the assumptions that you'd have to 6 put into those models, I'm not sure that you're 7 going to be any further ahead as opposed to 8 identifying the sensitive areas and putting in a 9 good monitoring network and a mitigation and a 10 reactive or proactive approach. 11 I would agree wholeheartedly. That's 12 what I'm saying. The modeling aside, you need a 13 sufficiently robust monitoring network, you need 14 to monitor for all sorts of parameters, general 15 chemistry, metal, microbial pathogens. You need 16 to do this MPA analysis. These are physical 17 parameters, and these are physical exercises, not 18 a modeling exercise. We will see with certainty 19 during periods of pre-flood, during a flood and 20 post-flood, what are the effects. And it's 21 relatively inexpensive to do this type of work. 22 It's definitely not, it's that check and balance 23 we need to do because we're dealing with human 24 health concerns. It's not a property protection 25 issue, it's human health. And it's not something 02340 1 that's pie in the sky, it's definitely achievable 2 and doable. We can start it tomorrow, and then 3 this spring we could do another at the time. I 4 agree with you wholeheartedly about upgrading the 5 monitoring network. I am a firm believer in real 6 data. The first tenet is, have a sufficiently 7 robust monitoring network, get the baseline data, 8 all of which will support us in the future, if 9 there is a problem, we've got the baseline. And 10 it's all part of that proactive approach, and I am 11 glad you're saying that because we need to be 12 proactive here. 13 If we leave it to a reactive response, 14 again, it's not a property protection issue, it's 15 human health, and that's after the fact and 16 that's -- we shouldn't be there. We have enough 17 evidence now to prevent that, or do due diligence. 18 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 19 MR. HANDLON: Just to finish off, and 20 it goes back to a question I had earlier, and 21 Mr. Smith had spoken about the six sensitive areas 22 that cross-sections had been done. And specific 23 monitoring wells were put in place at those 24 locations. And from your evidence, you haven't 25 looked at those areas where monitoring wells had 02341 1 been put in, to critique the type and extent of 2 the monitoring wells? 3 MR. HAYES: We did look at them. I 4 don't believe there's been water quality analysis 5 done. 6 MR. HANDLON: I'm talking about, we're 7 talking about monitoring wells and putting 8 monitoring wells in place. And I'm suggesting 9 that you haven't looked at that to determine the 10 extent of the monitoring wells that were put in 11 place. You haven't analyzed that and critiqued 12 those areas where monitoring wells have been put 13 in place? 14 MR. HAYES: I've only looked at the 15 outcome of the modeling and the hydraulics 16 associated with that in the modeling, not the 17 water quality, not as it would relate to how it 18 behaves during -- pre and post and during flood 19 events. 20 MR. HANDLON: No, but first of all in 21 order to get the water quality, you need wells, 22 right? 23 MR. HAYES: That's very true. 24 MR. HANDLON: And we are advised, and 25 the engineering reports show that in six areas 02342 1 deemed to be sensitive areas, ones that you have 2 spoken to, that there have been a series of 3 monitoring wells that have been put in place. And 4 my point is, you haven't looked and studied those 5 areas where monitoring wells were put in place to 6 determine the adequacy of physically having the 7 monitoring wells in their location? 8 MR. HAYES: No, I haven't. 9 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. No further 10 questions. 11 MR. WEBSTER: Mr. Hayes, I would like 12 to carry on from where we have just been in terms 13 of monitoring wells. Could you tell us what kind 14 of a network of monitoring wells you would be 15 happy with -- and it may be something that we need 16 to talk to one of the other consultants when we 17 talk to them again -- but could you tell us the 18 kind of network of monitoring wells that you would 19 be happy with if you were to look at that aspect 20 of the project? 21 MR. HAYES: The number of wells, 22 definitely in the -- I see four different type 23 sections along the floodway. There is that, I'll 24 go to slide 14. This first section here is 25 basically half, the first half of the floodway. 02343 1 And as we have seen from some of my earlier slides 2 where we showed a significant response in 1997, 3 even though this part of the floodway is completed 4 in that clay, the lacustrine clay. Simply put, 5 I'm doing a similar project where we have 6 groundwater dewatering or drain systems of similar 7 length, the case I'm working on is 10 kilometres 8 long. We have a monitoring well network basically 9 on two kilometre centres, a monitoring well nest 10 on either side of the floodway; for example, to 11 collect that baseline data there would be wells 12 completed in the lacustrine clay, the underlying 13 till, and the third would be the upper bedrock. 14 That's a type of -- and I was pleased when I 15 initially looked at the file that there were 16 historical records from way back. It's 17 invaluable. Real data beats modeling any day, and 18 modeling only mimics real data. 19 I was concerned in my review that the 20 monitoring well network has not been maintained. 21 Baseline data pre-construction, in this case 22 pre-expansion, is very important because then we 23 can determine incremental effects, and also we can 24 predict and proactively mitigate any of those 25 sensitive areas before there is a problem. 02344 1 So to answer your question directly, 2 it's my experience in a project of this size, a 3 monitoring well nest on at least two kilometre 4 centres in a grid pattern on either side of the 5 floodway would be sufficient. As to how far out 6 from the floodway, we are seeing effects, there 7 are pressure gradient effects, 10, 11 kilometres 8 away, but I would say six kilometres to the east, 9 and then those lands in between the floodway and 10 the Red River. 11 MR. WEBSTER: And? 12 MR. HAYES: And the Red River, that 13 intervening piece of land between the floodway and 14 the Red River. 15 MR. WEBSTER: You said six to the east 16 and how far to the west? 17 MR. HAYES: Whatever that distance is. 18 MR. WEBSTER: The whole area, I see. 19 MR. HAYES: I think it is less than 20 six kilometres. 21 MR. HANDLON: I just wonder, were you 22 confusing east and west? If we look at the Red 23 River, it is to the west of the floodway. 24 MR. HAYES: That's right, yes. 25 MR. HANDLON: So in your answer, were 02345 1 you referring to the east or the west? 2 MR. HAYES: I meant to refer to both 3 locations. I'm just trying to get a slide here. 4 To the east, it would be six kilometres to the 5 east. 6 MR. WEBSTER: Sort of southeast of 7 that first section? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes, and then all the way 9 up to the floodway. 10 MR. WEBSTER: Let's go back. You 11 talked about two kilometre centres for the first 12 section. You said there were four sections in 13 your concept of the floodway. What would you 14 recommend for the other sections? And can you go 15 back to that slide, please? It's still pretty 16 small when you put it up there, but at least we 17 can get an idea. 18 MR. HAYES: In this area here, like 19 the -- 20 MR. WEBSTER: The first green box. 21 MR. HAYES: -- the first green box it 22 would be a similar network, and it would also 23 incorporate private wells where access was 24 permitted. Because the key to all of this is 25 protection of individual wells, whether they be 02346 1 municipal or private wells. 2 In this section here around Birds 3 Hill, the monitoring well network would be, you 4 wouldn't go out as far to the east because there 5 is protection afforded by the Birds Hill Kame 6 deposit. It would be very much -- it would be 7 within one or two kilometres of the floodway. But 8 it would still be that intervening piece of land 9 between the floodway and Red River that you need 10 monitors, because there is effects from the Red 11 River itself that need to be understood in 12 relation to the floodway. 13 MR. WEBSTER: And would two kilometre 14 centres be good enough in that area to look at 15 contamination, or background? 16 MR. HAYES: In which area? 17 MR. WEBSTER: The Red box? 18 MR. HAYES: I think so. 19 MR. WEBSTER: And again that applies 20 to the green box further down? 21 MR. HAYES: Yes. 22 MR. WEBSTER: And you're talking about 23 wells that would extend to bedrock? 24 MR. HAYES: Yes, there would be a well 25 nest of three, the lacustrine clay, the underlying 02347 1 till and the shallow bedrock. 2 MR. WEBSTER: Is that a suite of three 3 wells to do that, or can you do that from one? 4 MR. HAYES: Three wells. 5 MR. WEBSTER: Three wells, okay. 6 MR. HAYES: The reason you have three 7 separate wells is you are not confident of sealing 8 between the different locations, you need three 9 separate bore holes. 10 MR. WEBSTER: And at those two 11 kilometre centres, does that give you sufficient 12 replication to be able to get a picture, or do you 13 need replicates at each location? 14 MR. HAYES: I'm not sure what you mean 15 by replicates? 16 MR. WEBSTER: Well, you have one well 17 at a two kilometre centre to each level. Is one 18 well at each position good enough or do you want 19 three or four at each centre to get a 20 representative sample? 21 MR. HAYES: It would be sufficient. 22 MR. WEBSTER: One is sufficient? 23 MR. HAYES: Yes, at each location. 24 Now, that's just a general grid. There would be 25 modified for each area here, there may be -- 02348 1 that's just like a baseline, those two kilometre 2 centres. We would improve it, especially in the 3 Birds Hill area, you may have a well, another well 4 nest in -- there are wells around the municipal 5 water supply as it is. You would incorporate 6 those. And key domestic wells, you'd fill in the 7 gaps where you'd have data gaps or you're trying 8 to determine effect. It's fill in where you don't 9 have the information. 10 MR. WEBSTER: And are domestic wells 11 suitable for sampling for all purposes? 12 Basically, is the quality sufficient for all 13 purposes? 14 MR. HAYES: No, it isn't. If you're 15 going to use a domestic well for monitoring 16 purposes, you would do a water well inventory. 17 You'd determine the integrity of the well, the 18 well seal, if there's other mitigating influences 19 that could affect water quality or water level 20 measurement. But they can be successfully 21 incorporated into the program, and after all, 22 those are the wells we're trying to protect. So 23 it makes good sense. 24 MR. WEBSTER: Now, going back to the 25 floodway channel itself, we have essentially two 02349 1 different conditions to look at, if I'm 2 understanding you correctly. One is with the 3 floodway in what I've called its resting state, in 4 its state without flood waters in it. 5 MR. HAYES: Yes. 6 MR. WEBSTER: And the other one is in 7 a state with flood waters in. It is actually to 8 capacity, although that's an extreme. 9 MR. HAYES: Yes. 10 MR. WEBSTER: And we have had 11 descriptions of difficulties with the floodway 12 under both conditions. And so let's first of all 13 tackle the question of potential contamination 14 with the floodway empty. 15 MR. HAYES: Yes. 16 MR. WEBSTER: Under conditions of the 17 floodway being empty, there is infiltration of 18 water into the channel from the Birds Hill 19 aquifer, the unconfined aquifer? 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. 21 MR. WEBSTER: And there's infiltration 22 into the channel at several places, as illustrated 23 by your blue arrows which don't show up in that 24 picture very well but are there in the figure I 25 have. 02350 1 MR. HAYES: Yes. 2 MR. WEBSTER: And that covers much of 3 the floodway in terms of its flow from there down, 4 correct? 5 MR. HAYES: Yes. 6 MR. WEBSTER: And just before we go 7 further, your graph, your figure that shows 8 infiltration into groundwater in the first section 9 of the floodway, the part that's not got a box 10 around it there, you told us last time you were 11 here, I think, that you had only two monitoring 12 wells that you were taking that data from. One 13 was at the gates and one was at highway 1, I think 14 it was, if I'm not mistaken. 15 MR. HAYES: Those two wells showed the 16 area where we had the greatest response during the 17 1997 flood, and I will turn to that figure. 18 MR. WEBSTER: Please, please do. 19 Again, that figure relates to the condition under 20 which the floodway is under load, that is, it is 21 full of water. But the point we were making I 22 think last time you were here was that that long 23 cigar shaped area there at the beginning of the 24 floodway connects two wells, one at each end of 25 that cigar shaped area. 02351 1 MR. HAYES: That's correct, and I 2 guess it speaks to the lack of data between those 3 two points. 4 MR. WEBSTER: So it's an imaginary 5 cigar to some extent. You could show spots around 6 each well at this point, but the actual likelihood 7 of infiltration in between is at this point 8 undefined? 9 MR. HAYES: That's correct. It would 10 be better and more proper to have other monitors 11 to provide surety as to that response. 12 MR. WEBSTER: So from our other 13 knowledge, that area is low risk in terms of 14 infiltration? 15 MR. HAYES: It should be, and I guess 16 my concern is that we are seeing, ignoring the 17 pink, there is other evidence and other monitors 18 around here that are showing a significant 19 response, and that was a surprise. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Again, I want to 21 go back to the condition of the floodway in its 22 resting state. 23 MR. HAYES: Yes. 24 MR. WEBSTER: And in its resting state 25 that area will not be experiencing inflow of water 02352 1 from the aquifer underneath, I would expect -- 2 MR. HAYES: That's true. 3 MR. WEBSTER: -- from what you've told 4 us and other evidence we've seen. So the area 5 that has inflow of water, or where there is a 6 connection, pardon me, between the bedrock aquifer 7 and the floodway is from essentially the end of 8 that cigar shaped area, down all the way to the 9 other end of the floodway, roughly speaking? 10 There are defined places along there where there 11 is connection. 12 MR. HAYES: Yes, the proponent -- I 13 think where significant flow was measured, those 14 are those arrows, those six areas or five areas. 15 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Now, so long as 16 the floodway is in its resting state, if there is 17 contaminated water in the channel, is there a 18 likelihood of contamination of the groundwater 19 from contaminated water being in the channel? 20 MR. HAYES: It's not as likely as it 21 would be during the flood. 22 MR. WEBSTER: Can it happen at all, if 23 there is outflowing from those springs? 24 MR. HAYES: In areas where there is 25 outflowing, I believe it cannot happen. 02353 1 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. And what would 2 you say beyond that then, because it was those 3 areas I was focusing on, but you are indicating 4 that possibly something else was there that we 5 haven't considered? 6 MR. HAYES: Well, I guess this is 7 during the '97 flood, there definitely is some 8 sort of effect on water levels, and this clay 9 channel here, where you don't expect it to be -- 10 we expect it to be tight. We expect it to be 11 isolated. 12 MR. WEBSTER: But I'm talking about no 13 flood right now, I'm talking about empty channel. 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. 15 MR. WEBSTER: Because the empty 16 channel itself is something we need to know about, 17 first of all, before we put a load on. 18 MR. HAYES: Certainly, yes. 19 MR. WEBSTER: So during the stage that 20 this channel is empty, we have outflow of water, 21 we are losing water essentially from the aquifer. 22 MR. HAYES: It's a drain, we are 23 losing water. 24 MR. WEBSTER: But if there is 25 contaminated water in the channel, we have had 02354 1 some evidence that there's been a small amount of 2 contaminated water in the channel that has caused 3 a good deal of community concern. And I want to 4 establish, first of all, if in fact that concern 5 is well-founded. 6 MR. HAYES: It's a very good question, 7 it's a valid concern. My own opinion is it's not 8 likely, but it needs to be validated with respect 9 to that MPA analysis during periods of non-flood. 10 So that's my opinion, but I wouldn't -- I don't 11 want to rely upon it. During periods of 12 non-flood, we need to do that testing just to be 13 sure. 14 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. What would 15 determine the entry of water in the low flow 16 channel into the groundwater to create 17 contamination? What would control that 18 infiltration? 19 MR. HAYES: Well, if we're talking 20 about periods -- there's two things. It's the 21 continuity of the pathways, whether they are 22 artificially produced, whether through 23 insufficiently sealed bore holes or areas of 24 springs during periods of drought. Even in the 25 period of non-flood event -- if there is a period 02355 1 of drought in which that upwelling is subdued 2 because of that drought, then if there is that 3 ongoing release that we have seen or measured, 4 then there is a potential there for these 5 gradients to reverse. And even the slightly 6 impacted, the impacted water during a non-flood 7 event could infiltrate. So that's conceivable and 8 needs to be addressed. 9 And that's why we need to do that sort 10 of risk assessment, the health-based risk 11 assessment during periods of non-flood. And one 12 of the factors would be during a drought 13 condition. Because we have this ongoing release 14 from that combined storm sanitary outfall. If 15 that's not taken care of, there is a potential, 16 even during periods of non-flood, if there is a 17 drought. And that's not inconceivable, it 18 happens, it's not unheard of, there is regular 19 drought cycles. So that would be a concern. 20 MR. WEBSTER: So a drought would 21 control the amount of water in the channel itself? 22 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 23 MR. WEBSTER: It would long-term 24 control the amount of water in the aquifer, but it 25 wouldn't affect it instantaneously, it would 02356 1 affect it over a period of years? 2 MR. HAYES: Years or months, say even 3 during the summer period. If, for example, 4 because it's a long feature, it's 50 kilometres, 5 you could have wet weather to the south and dry to 6 the north, so. 7 MR. WEBSTER: So we are reduced to 8 talking about probabilities. 9 MR. HAYES: That's where you need to 10 do the health-based risk assessment, that's 11 paramount. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Exactly. So that the 13 probability of infiltration during non-use of the 14 floodway is low, but it could happen if the spring 15 outflow is reduced, if it's -- 16 MR. HAYES: Yes. 17 MR. WEBSTER: -- if it's reduced to 18 such a level that it no longer keeps the, prevents 19 the inflow of material? 20 MR. HAYES: That's conceivable. And 21 if there is other users, whether existing or that 22 which is imminently planned, that depress the 23 water table, then that changes things 24 significantly. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. And a drought 02357 1 situation, I suppose, could cause some kind of 2 cracking in the clay lined area. But as long as 3 it's wet, I would imagine that the cracking would 4 not occur? 5 MR. HAYES: That's generally correct. 6 Clay cracks desiccates very quickly and it doesn't 7 repair itself, it doesn't remold and glue itself 8 back together. 9 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. We come then to 10 the situation where there is flood water in the 11 channel, and that's what your diagram shows here, 12 except for the fact that it's limited by the 13 number of bore holes that you have put in? 14 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 15 MR. WEBSTER: So now what determines 16 the infiltration of that water into the underlying 17 area? 18 MR. HAYES: It depends on which 19 sensitive area. But largely speaking, it's those 20 areas where you have -- because it's largely the 21 bedrock aquifer we are concerned about, that's the 22 principal aquifer of concern -- it's those areas 23 where you have thin till or bedrock at or near the 24 floodway base, where you have sand and bedrock in 25 direct connection, where you have artificial -- 02358 1 whether it's artificial conduits or natural 2 conduits. Since floodway construction, in those 3 areas of spring discharge, that is where you're 4 going to have these conduits or pathways. Because 5 in any -- we have got the three elements. We've 6 got a source during flood. We know there is 7 impacts, microbial impacts associated with the 8 water in the floodway, so we have a source. We 9 have a pathway. We have a receptor. All of those 10 three elements are required. They raise flags. 11 So if I didn't have a source, I 12 wouldn't be as concerned. If I didn't have a 13 pathway, I wouldn't be concerned. If I didn't 14 have a receptor -- but I had those three elements 15 coming together. That's where we need that 16 health-based risk assessment. 17 MR. WEBSTER: But even given those 18 three components, there's sill another important 19 component that has to be present, is there not, 20 and that is, if I am understanding the situation 21 correctly, you have to have sufficient pressure 22 from the flood waters to be able to overcome the 23 pressure of the outflowing water from the aquifer? 24 MR. HAYES: Yes. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Otherwise you don't have 02359 1 any infiltration? 2 MR. HAYES: That's correct. And we 3 have evidence, both in the proponent's own model, 4 and more importantly direct observation, that 5 there is that groundwater/surface water intrusion. 6 To me, it's compelling. It's not conjecture. 7 It's not my opinion. It's reality. 8 MR. WEBSTER: I understand what you're 9 saying, and I think the next question then is, is 10 it a reality of concern largely during flooding, 11 and is it a reality of concern otherwise? And I 12 want to go into both aspects of that. 13 MR. HAYES: It's reality in both 14 situations. I have a greater concern during 15 periods of flood because there is a greater 16 potential to overcome or reverse the gradients as 17 we see them today. But there is a concern in the 18 dormant phase or the inactive operation of the 19 floodway, there is a concern. And it's not an 20 unrealistic concern. We can all conceive of 21 situations and circumstances where it can happen. 22 It needs to be addressed. 23 MR. WEBSTER: That brings us around to 24 your concept of a health-based risk assessment you 25 talked about earlier. Is that health-based risk 02360 1 assessment something that would start from an 2 estimate of how serious those risks would be? 3 MR. HAYES: The rationale, why would 4 we even embark upon this protocol? 5 MR. WEBSTER: I'm getting at what it 6 actually is, first of all, before we embark on -- 7 MR. HAYES: What is it, I guess in 8 summary we have those three main elements, we have 9 a source, we have a pathway, we have a receptor. 10 And we are all in agreement, the proponent and 11 reviewer and everybody understands that this is 12 real. So knowing that, we have the pathway and we 13 have the receptor, we have the source. And it's 14 not -- again, I'm trying to differentiate, because 15 I guess in review of the documentation, there's 16 considerable work. It's all about -- the floodway 17 is about, in large measure, a property protection 18 strategy. You are protecting certain areas from 19 flooding. And certainly it has done that and will 20 do that in the future. 21 But this is a different animal. It's 22 health-based because we have this potential of 23 contaminants in the flood waters and even during 24 non-flooding conditions, and they could affect -- 25 Mr. Palmateer can speak to the fate and transport 02361 1 of these pathogens in groundwater systems. They 2 can survive weeks and months, and only a small 3 number can cause health concerns. And we're 4 talking about people getting sick and worse. 5 There is potentially catastrophic effects. So 6 that is what it's all about. 7 MR. WEBSTER: That's the other 8 extreme, but what I'm talking about is the 9 health-based risk assessment, something that 10 starts with the probability of infiltration of the 11 water into the underground area? 12 MR. HAYES: Yes. 13 MR. WEBSTER: And it takes into 14 account what would happen during the flood and 15 after, and during the large part of the time when 16 the floodway is essentially in the resting state, 17 it's almost empty? 18 MR. HAYES: Yes. 19 MR. WEBSTER: But it's not being used, 20 and it would cover all those circumstances? 21 MR. HAYES: Yes, it would. 22 MR. WEBSTER: And if it's a 23 health-based risk assessment, what's it going to 24 look at? Would it look at the likelihood of the 25 water contaminating wells, or is it going to look 02362 1 at the probability of kids getting sick from 2 playing in the water? 3 MR. HAYES: There's two aspects. A 4 key element is getting that baseline. In this 5 instance, we have our the floodway as it sits. We 6 need to get a good baseline condition. And that 7 hasn't been done. But it relates to then taking 8 the contaminants of concern, like taking your 9 source, what is in the water, and determining its 10 fate and transport in the groundwater system. And 11 then it's different from a microbial standpoint, 12 it doesn't take a lot of contaminant to cause a 13 health concern. So it's measured. As compared to 14 an inorganic contaminant, which it potentially 15 takes a lot of it over a longer period of time to 16 cause a health concern, when you're talking about 17 microbial pathogens, it's very unforgiving. And a 18 small amount over a relatively short duration of 19 exposure can cause significant health concerns. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. I'd like to 21 follow up on that a little bit by talking to 22 Mr. Palmateer. 23 We have the possibility, and I want to 24 go back and talk about that mechanism of 25 contamination of the floodway that is associated 02363 1 with the possibility of sewage getting in by 2 accident, accident and possibly design that's not 3 appropriate. If water containing pathogenic 4 organisms gets into the groundwater, how long 5 lived are those organisms under those 6 circumstances? 7 MR. PALMATEER: It depends on the 8 organism. As I mentioned last week, there are 9 viruses, for example, that may survive in the 10 order of months, whereas e. coli bacteria may 11 survive for only a matter of days. The low 12 nutrient environment in groundwater is certainly 13 not where e. coli normally reside. As a result, 14 they are not going to survive that long. 15 However, there are a few bacteria that 16 haven't read that book, and Campylobacter is one 17 of them. And this is one of the two organisms 18 that affected the folks in Walkerton. They show 19 an ability to go in groundwater into a viable but 20 non-culturable state. So a microbiologist doing a 21 test for the organism in groundwater, they are 22 very difficult to pick up. Whereas studies have 23 shown with human volunteers ingesting these viable 24 but non-culturable bacteria, will come down with 25 diarrhea, will come down with infection, because 02364 1 the organisms resuscitates once it's back in you. 2 And the confounding factor for me as a 3 microbiologist, there are times when I can't tell 4 you for sure that it's there. I'll have to rely 5 on some other indicator that this fecal waste may 6 be present. 7 In the case of this example with 8 Campylobacter, it's beef cattle. Beef and dairy 9 are most commonly carrying the organisms, 10 especially young calves. 11 The two protozoans, Cryptosporidium 12 and Giardia, that are famous now for causing 13 water-borne infections and outbreaks, they are a 14 parasite that both form a cyst or oocyst once they 15 get out in the environment. And the oocysts and 16 cysts of Crypto and Giardia respectfully are able 17 to survive for lengthy periods, in the order of 18 months. 19 Now, in actual water column of high 20 nutrient water, you are unlikely to have them 21 survive. You will find literature to suggest they 22 don't survive that long. But as they get caught 23 up in something like a limestone bedrock, they can 24 survive for months and months. And in the case of 25 both these organisms, the Campylobacter, Giardia 02365 1 Cryptosporidium is their very low infectivity that 2 they possess. That is, they can cause disease 3 when ingesting relatively low numbers, and I think 4 I mentioned before at approximately, in the case 5 of e. coli 0157, the number ranges from 30 to 130 6 cells. And you may come down with hemorrhagic 7 colitis, bloody diarrhea. 8 On the other hand, in the case of 9 Cryptosporidium you may ingest -- sorry, 10 Campylobacter, you may ingest somewhere in the 11 order of 500 cells. But this relative to 12 something like salmonella, what which most people 13 have heard about, where you require 100,000 cells 14 to become infected, we call that, or classify the 15 organisms as low variance. 16 Our biggest concern in the 17 environmental microbiology business and drinking 18 water is to try and ensure that these newer 19 pathogens are just eliminated at the source, if 20 possible. And in this case, right at the farm. 21 Now, it's not to say they are not 22 found in sewage, they are, but not to the same 23 levels of frequency as they are in agriculture 24 sources. 25 MR. WEBSTER: So the question then is, 02366 1 supposing some do get into the groundwater, what 2 kind of a monitoring system is required to be able 3 to track where they had gone? 4 MR. PALMATEER: Well, firstly, Peter 5 has mentioned this microscopic particle analysis 6 or particulate analysis, and it is a method of 7 getting an indication whether there is any surface 8 water intruding in the groundwater. And it's a 9 test that involves sampling at the site a thousand 10 gallons of water and filtering it through a 11 filter. The filter is returned to the laboratory, 12 and painstakingly, the material, the residue 13 trapped on the filter is eluted off and counted 14 and categorized and identified. 15 There are five characteristics that 16 are looked for. All of these characteristics are 17 associated with surface water. 18 And if you are finding them in this 19 groundwater, depending on the types found and the 20 levels found, the actual results are presented in 21 a risk format: low risk, moderate risk and high 22 risk. 23 Now, that's the beginning. If you can 24 show, performing this analysis, that there is a 25 very low risk or no risk, then you are safe to 02367 1 consider this likely a spot where we are not 2 seeing the groundwater intrusion of surface water. 3 On the other hand, the test isn't just 4 done once, it's done over a course of a period of 5 time, where in this case, the relevant time might 6 be now, during the spring runoff events and then 7 in the summer months. 8 Having said that, it's the beginning 9 of the process. And then if you have some areas 10 that are showing up as problematic and you're 11 going to look at the hydrology and monitoring, the 12 modeling that has been done, and see how this fits 13 to the modeling data. But the next thing is to 14 introduce a tracer, a biological tracer. It's not 15 expensive. It's very quick to perform. And the 16 biological tracer will give you the kind of 17 quantitative data that both modelers and people 18 like myself are interested in, in really assessing 19 is there a health risk if at some point pathogens 20 were to get in through surface water intruding on 21 groundwater. What does that reach? Whether those 22 pathogens are able to reach a level that could 23 cause infection. But there are a lot of factors 24 to take into consideration. For example, we may 25 see Cryptosporidium or Giardia in groundwater. 02368 1 But detecting it isn't sufficient, we have to know 2 whether it's infectious or not. And if there are 3 any health official around, I'm sure they'd be 4 telling you that immediately. There are factors 5 that -- some pathogens, including e. coli 0157 may 6 be identified in our laboratory, but without 7 confirming that the organism is a toxin producer, 8 I can't honestly say to you for sure that there is 9 a serious health risk. But these kinds of things, 10 and there are a number more, they are taken into 11 consideration when one would do a microbial risk 12 assessment. 13 Now, I'm a microbiologist so I'm 14 dealing with these bugs, if you like. But you 15 know that there can be chemicals that can get into 16 surface water and ultimately find their way into 17 groundwater. Some of those are agriculture 18 related, other cases they are related to urban 19 activities. And the assessment can take these 20 into consideration as well. 21 None of these things are terribly 22 expensive nor take a long time to perform. 23 MR. WEBSTER: Contamination of 24 groundwater with microbiological, with organisms 25 of that nature, otherwise would occur at recharge 02369 1 areas or perhaps at abandoned wells? 2 MR. PALMATEER: They could. And you 3 brought up abandoned wells. They are, certainly 4 in Ontario they are a real problem. There are 5 many of them that have not been properly 6 decommissioned. They are literally walked away 7 from. They can be a source. But I might mention, 8 just with regards to getting back to a time when 9 this groundwater intrusion might occur. 10 In the summer period in Southern 11 Manitoba, there is about four months that the 12 province receives most of its rainfall. And in 13 June, July, August, September, these are the 14 periods when you may, in some we'd call perhaps an 15 extra wet year, have an event occur where the 16 floodway may be activated. It's not something 17 that would even happen necessarily on a routine 18 basis, but on occasion. 19 I'm more concerned, from my 20 standpoint, that there may be some organisms 21 washed into the waters of the Red River, well 22 upstream of the city, and with a slug or bolus of 23 manure entering the river ultimately getting into 24 the floodway. And this is a period when the 25 municipalities -- and again, I'm not a hydrologist 02370 1 and don't want to suggest I am, but there is a 2 period when of course water usage increases 3 significantly in the summer months. Lawn watering 4 is often, car washing and things like that go on 5 at a higher frequency. And that may result in 6 some reducing of the pressures that the 7 hydrologists are referring to, and may increase 8 some vulnerability to surface water intrusion. 9 And I guess it is something that, 10 again, we can't exactly predict. It would be 11 likely a circumstance where perhaps a failure of a 12 manure storage in the head waters happens to occur 13 at a period where there is one of these unusually 14 rainy periods. 15 MR. WEBSTER: I'd just like to go back 16 to the question of contaminated groundwater. How 17 would you seek to remediate contamination of 18 groundwater from microbiological point of view? 19 How would you fix that problem? 20 MR. PALMATEER: Well, part of the 21 solution of course is back at the source and 22 trying to ensure that the farming practices are 23 being met, best possible type practices are being 24 met. But in the event they may be and still 25 things occur, unfortunately due to climatic 02371 1 conditions that are unmanageable, the only way you 2 would protect yourself is probably trying to 3 eliminate the connection between the surface and 4 groundwater. 5 MR. WEBSTER: So can you essentially 6 recover a contaminated well is really one of the 7 things I'm wondering about? 8 MR. PALMATEER: Yes. Well, I'll let 9 the hydrogeologist speak to that, but they can. 10 And the survival time of some of the pathogens are 11 such that they will not be there indefinitely, 12 even though you stop -- assuming you stopped the 13 source, I should say. However, I mean, the worst 14 case scenario, you have this event that has 15 occurred and you haven't been able to prevent it. 16 If that risk was high enough, the logical thing is 17 to improve treatment. Say if we were looking at a 18 municipality, but it could be on an individual 19 homeowner basis, there may be people that should 20 look into the possibility of treatment, certainly 21 if the GUDI analysis comes back saying that 22 regardless of what's been modelled, this can 23 occur. 24 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you. I 25 wanted to come back to the specific examples of 02372 1 the, what looks like either accidental or poor 2 design caused infiltration of sewage through the 3 storm sewers from part of the city into the 4 floodway. And I wondered in fact if Mr. Hayes 5 could address whether in fact that's something 6 that is a one time, likely to be a one time 7 occurrence, or is it something that we should be 8 looking into correcting, that in fact it is a long 9 term thing that could happen again? 10 MR. HAYES: Unfortunately, it appears 11 that it wasn't a one time occurrence. Our mandate 12 was rather limited in what we could do and the 13 time frame. And without too much trouble, we were 14 able to find a point source of concern in our 15 investigations, the Transcona outfall at Kildare 16 Avenue. And even reports later on from the health 17 unit and from the City of Winnipeg indicate that 18 there is still an ongoing release, even though 19 they have cleared the blockages that apparently 20 caused this to occur. It's a concern in that 21 there didn't appear to be any recognition of this. 22 It caught everybody by surprise. And so even 23 after this problem was identified, as far as I 24 know, and my last report from the city indicated 25 that there was still an ongoing release. 02373 1 MR. WEBSTER: Is that likely to be an 2 ongoing release caused by the original problem, or 3 is it one that might be related to residual 4 material that simply hasn't been rinsed out of the 5 system yet? 6 MR. HAYES: It could be that, yes. I 7 guess fundamentally I was very surprised -- now I 8 don't know why this occurred, there probably was a 9 rationale or reason -- but for the storm, the 10 outfall to basically go to an open ditch to the 11 floodway itself rather than a larger receiving 12 water body where it could afford some dilution. 13 That is a sensitive area in itself, the way it's 14 designed, the way it's set up. If there is an 15 ongoing problem, it needs to be monitored 16 regularly, and there may be other outfalls I am 17 not aware of. It's the kind of thing, because it 18 discharges to an open ditch, and the public is 19 exposed to it, that's an ongoing concern. And the 20 fact that even after they have cleared the 21 blockages there is this residual, and you are 22 correct, it could be because there is residual 23 sediments or impacts within the sewer system that 24 needs to be flushed out and cleared. There seems 25 to be some influences on a storm water pond that 02374 1 the city identified, that they were emptying, was 2 a source as well of concern. So there appears to 3 be an ongoing issue there, and it needs to be 4 addressed I think, so -- 5 MR. PALMATEER: Excuse me. Could I 6 perhaps add to that? In all municipalities, 7 regardless of really how small or large they are, 8 I suppose it's more of a significant factor in 9 large cities, and that is combined sewers were the 10 way of putting in, or collecting and transporting 11 sewage and storm water for many years. Today 12 that's not normally done. Sewers are separated 13 into storm and sanitary. 14 In the case of the downtown areas, in 15 central core areas of cities, there are many 16 connections of sanitary waste accidentally 17 connected into the storm side of the sewer. It's 18 not everywhere, but the frequency of it in this 19 city and Ottawa, London, Toronto, is such that 20 over time, cities slowly work away at picking off 21 these misconnections. But they are a continuous 22 source of some fecal waste from humans into the 23 storm sewer, and most storm sewers are -- the 24 storm water is not captured or treated. In some 25 cases that is changing a bit. 02375 1 But I just want to mention that storm 2 water in any major city and Winnipeg included will 3 not be free of any human contaminants, and it's 4 because of this reason. It's not a complicated 5 job but it's a very laborious job going street by 6 street, investigating to see if you have a fecal 7 source in the storm side of the combined sewer. 8 Now this also occurs in separate 9 sewers where people have inadvertently put the 10 sanitary waste right into the storm. So you don't 11 get away from the problem just because you have 12 separate sewers. 13 Because of this, I mean it is a 14 consideration that this kind of waste where CSO is 15 located discharging into the floodway, it's a fact 16 and that is some human source, the extent of which 17 has to be assessed. 18 But we looked at this one storm sewer 19 outfall, it was not all that different than other 20 cities. The sediment material contains pathogenic 21 organisms. I testified before they survive for a 22 long time, relatively speaking, to the water that 23 they are in. And as such, when we sampled the 24 sediments, had they been relatively clean, this 25 would have been perhaps unusual. But finding 02376 1 organisms there and surviving that long at the 2 levels we saw them at is potentially problematic 3 when you are considering what we are talking about 4 today. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: We are not quite 6 finished with our questions of both of you but I 7 think we should take a break now and come back in 8 15 minutes, at ten to, and we will continue at 9 that time. 10 11 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 10:34 A.M. AND 12 RECONVENED AT 10:50 A.M.) 13 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Order please, we will 15 continue with -- order, in the room, please. 16 Continue with questioning of Mr. Palmateer and Mr. 17 Hayes. Wayne? 18 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you, Mr. 19 Chairman. We all know that there is pollutants in 20 the floodway. We all know there are pollutants up 21 here. Our concern is the aquifer here and what is 22 the vulnerability of polluting the aquifer. 23 MR. HAYES: Yes. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: Has there been any 25 instances anywhere that you can recall in 02377 1 Manitoba, Canada, or anywhere in the world -- 2 there has to be aquifers that are like this with 3 the same similarity of till between that and the 4 flood waters -- is there any incidences of any 5 pollution that you can recall? 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. And I guess two 7 examples, I put forward in my presentation, and 8 Mr. Palmateer I'm sure knows of others, the two 9 examples were, in broad terms, Walkerton, Ontario 10 and Orangeville, Ontario. In both instances there 11 was a level of protection where you had a till or 12 some sort of an intermediate layer between the 13 surface and the aquifer of concern. And in both 14 instances that natural barrier did not afford the 15 protection. In the long term there was an 16 incident, whether it was exacerbated through a 17 storm event or some other natural cause, it didn't 18 offer the protection and people did get sick. So 19 there are other examples. Gary, do you have any 20 others? 21 MR. PALMATEER: I might mention that 22 there is recently published data by the U.S. EPA, 23 and Canada periodically has similar statistics, 24 but the most current being published from the U.S. 25 EPA where groundwater is by far the most common 02378 1 source of microbial contamination resulting in 2 illness. Of these -- they are in the hundreds 3 over maybe a period of ten years. In quite a 4 number of these cases, it is interesting to note 5 the similarity between these contamination sites, 6 and very often a limited overburden of soil, which 7 has some degree of permeability, in some cases 8 there may be clay till, but unfortunately there 9 may be a sand, small sand lens undetected, that 10 was the conduit to limestone bedrock, fractured 11 limestone bedrock. 12 Actually, there are literally hundreds 13 of examples. These are documented, and it could 14 be provided to you. And many of them are written 15 up in scientific journals that have been peer 16 reviewed and so forth. The result has been 17 anything from a mild diarrhea symptomology, or 18 something resulting in fatalities. It certainly 19 does happen, and we are not talking here about 20 something that is extremely remote, by any means. 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. Going to 22 the clay liner; as a former municipal politician, 23 I have been very familiar with clay liners, of 24 course, with intensive livestock operations and 25 some of the lagoons that are being built. Is this 02379 1 liner a feasible option, considering the possible 2 blowouts, and I'm talking about a health risk 3 here, is it feasible with the width of the 4 floodway, the length, and forgetting about the 5 cost, I don't care if it cost 2 billion dollars, I 6 don't care about that right now, is it feasible as 7 far as the possibility of blowouts? 8 MR. HAYES: The technical feasibility 9 would have to be determined through engineering 10 studies and assessment. I put forward those 11 concepts as a point of discussion to indicate the 12 rationale behind those concepts is one of if it is 13 proven through the health based risk assessment 14 that there is a need to prevent the 15 groundwater/surface water interaction, there are 16 procedures, methods that this separation could be 17 affected. And when I put those concepts forward, 18 these were ideas to do such, to maintain that 19 separation. 20 The concept of blowouts and 21 hydrostatic pressures, yes, would have to be 22 considered in the final design and construction of 23 those facilities, if it was determined to be 24 necessary. That in part was in the one concept 25 where I had that underdrain system, that gravel 02380 1 beneath the clay barrier composite liner system. 2 The purpose of that gravel drain or its derivative 3 would be to convey that water to lessen that 4 hydrostatic pressure to allow the water to move 5 off so you didn't afford a blowout or that didn't 6 occur. But there would need to be detailed 7 engineering studies to determine if that was 8 feasible. If it wasn't practical or wasn't 9 feasible, then there has to be another management 10 approach to deal with this, if it is validated 11 through the health base risk assessment, to deal 12 with that groundwater/surface water interaction. 13 There are other forms of mitigation, proactive 14 mitigation, that could be undertaken that would in 15 essence protect against this groundwater/surface 16 water interaction. 17 The barrier system, the beauty of it 18 is that it is a passive system. Once it is 19 constructed and it is constructed correctly, it 20 doesn't need to be -- the maintenance is minimal, 21 i.e., if you see erosion, you can see it and 22 repair it, and it is not relying on pumps and 23 switches and all that sort of thing that would 24 need to be maintained. The barrier system, as I 25 said, is a passive system. It will operate all of 02381 1 the time, night or day, 24/7. That's in concept 2 more of an ideal situation, because there isn't 3 these operational considerations and maintenance 4 is readily seen through visual inspection. 5 Again, you do the health base risk 6 assessment. If it is determined to be necessary 7 that, one, there is a real concern to human health 8 based on this groundwater/surface water 9 interaction, let's look at barrier systems, and 10 that's where the cost benefit comes into play. Do 11 you go forward with a composite liner system or is 12 there other methods of protection that would 13 achieve the same ends, i.e., we are protecting 14 human health. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. Mr. 16 Palmateer, you did mention the possibility of 17 during the summer operation of the floodway and 18 the possible extra rain that we have from June, 19 July, August, et cetera, and the possibility of 20 greater risks if there is a high usage of water at 21 that time, and does that mean by possibly lowering 22 the aquifer? 23 MR. PALMATEER: Yes. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: And possibly being less 25 pressure then? 02382 1 MR. PALMATEER: Yes. 2 MR. MOTHERAL: Can this be monitored 3 and tested? Is there a way to test and monitor 4 this just by the actual pressure that -- 5 MR. PALMATEER: I would rather defer 6 that to Peter to answer. I don't want to step in 7 to the engineering or hydrogeology fields at all, 8 but it would be my understanding that it can. 9 MR. HAYES: Yes, Gary is correct. For 10 this example, or this real potential, this 11 concern, as part of the risk assessment there 12 would be a trigger level or some sort of 13 threshold, there would be a monitoring program put 14 in place, an upgrade to the existing monitoring 15 network in which I discussed for Dr. Webster, a 16 well nest of three wells every two kilometres or 17 incorporation of domestic wells, so that baseline 18 system, there would be trigger levels such that 19 during the summer months if through increased 20 usage or climatic conditions there was a 21 threshold, if it does exist, in which there is a 22 potential then for groundwater, even during the 23 non-floodway use, to reverse that gradient, there 24 would be a threshold established, there is a 25 regular monitoring program, and once that 02383 1 threshold is reached, a flag would go up and say, 2 hey, look, we are encroaching upon a time during 3 the base condition or this quiescence period 4 between flood events, there would be this trigger 5 level in which it would be established and 6 determined to be once that threshold is reached, 7 then certain procedures and protocols need to be 8 put in place. If there is no effective barrier, 9 that an alert would go out or there would be a 10 monitoring or some other contingency put into 11 place that would need to be defined and that would 12 be part of an outcome of the risk assessment. So 13 establishment of trigger levels for that 14 occurrence. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: A lot of the comments 16 that we hear, and we hear this risk assessment and 17 I know there is going to be more questions and I 18 believe I will leave it up to you. That's all for 19 now. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to 21 follow-up on this health based risk assessment. I 22 guess if we were to accept this, what is it? I 23 mean, you gave some response to Mr. Webster 24 earlier in this regard, are there defined 25 parameters for such a thing, and have you done 02384 1 one? If we were to accept this as perhaps a 2 recommendation, how would it be set out? What 3 would it look like? 4 MR. HAYES: That's a good question. 5 There is a number of elements, there would be 6 identification of the source, the pathway and 7 receptor. Those are the basic elements to 8 indicate that risk assessment is necessary. There 9 would be development of a baseline monitoring 10 program. There would be a source 11 characterization, what are the contaminants of 12 concern, and we would also touch on inorganic 13 contaminants, pesticides, herbicides, soils, that 14 sort of thing. We would look at microbial impacts 15 or potential source impacts. And then for each 16 one of those contaminants there is something 17 called fate and transport, i.e., what happens to 18 these contaminants and what are their contaminant 19 characteristics. For inorganic contaminants it is 20 more typical for them to be a longer term exposure 21 scenario. The health risk is based on long term 22 exposure. If you are ingesting those type of 23 inorganic contaminants over a long period of time 24 in trace amounts, obviously at higher amounts 25 there could be more acute effects or short term 02385 1 effects would show. But as it relates to 2 microbial pathogens, and Gary spoke to this 3 earlier, the risk is short term. It is relatively 4 rapid, and it is a smaller amount or quantity of 5 these organisms. So it is a baseline monitoring 6 program, it is source or characterization, it is 7 contaminants of concern identification. It is a 8 pathway determination, i.e., what happens during 9 periods of flood and non-flood, and you are 10 talking about receptors, so you are identifying 11 not only municipal but private well owners. It is 12 talking about, as the proponent appropriately 13 said, there is other sources of concern, whether 14 it be from other ambient land uses around the 15 area, those need to be factored into this health 16 based risk assessment. But it needs -- what has 17 been done to date is more -- there has been no 18 health based risk assessment for the municipal 19 wells or private wells. Is that sufficient? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Palmateer? 21 MR. PALMATEER: Might I add from the 22 microbial side, although some of the chemical 23 contaminants can also be a factor, but the 24 immunity of the receptor, whether it is human, 25 other livestock or even wildlife, the immunity of 02386 1 the individual is a factor. And that's judged, 2 firstly, and I realized that the very young are 3 most vulnerable, and young people less than five 4 years of age are taken into consideration. The 5 elderly, people over 75 years of age, are taken 6 into consideration. And then the immuno 7 compromised population of which now health 8 officials and epidemiologists have now percentages 9 that are applied to any population. And when the 10 assessment is done, it may be qualitative health 11 risk assessment or may be quantitative, and most 12 often today people are hoping health managers, 13 health risk managers, public officials, city 14 engineers, but it may be in the area of livestock, 15 certainly farmers, veterinarians, anybody involved 16 in animal husbandry today, are looking for 17 quantitative risk assessment. 18 There are specific models, analogous 19 to models that are used in assessing groundwater 20 contamination by surface water. These models take 21 into consideration aspects like this. Some are so 22 detailed they will look at -- they will look at 23 the fate and transport as Peter mentioned. But 24 also the impact, for example, you or I consuming 25 some water that is contaminated with two or three 02387 1 pathogens, the reality is when people are infected 2 they are rarely infected with just one organism, 3 it may be two or three. And what happens is we 4 may initially become ill because of the most 5 virulent organism in that group that we have 6 ingested or in some cases inhaled, and then a 7 second or third organism that's in this water, 8 you've taken in, then may cause other infections 9 that otherwise it wouldn't have, but because your 10 immunity has been seriously challenged by the 11 primary infecting agent. 12 So, today there is a formal framework 13 to conduct a microbial risk assessment. And they 14 have actually started, or were originally designed 15 around food and food borne illness, which occurs 16 far more often than illnesses from contaminated 17 drinking water. But they are there today. The 18 formal processes are there, and a number of people 19 in governments and in the private sector know how 20 to perform these. 21 MR. HAYES: Just as a supplementary, 22 the other thing that would factor into this health 23 based risk assessment is determination of 24 scenarios; the summer scenario, the non-flood 25 operation and during the operation period, so 02388 1 there is three scenarios. The other example, 2 physically we do that MPA testing which would 3 validate this groundwater/surface water 4 interaction. It is an EPA method. It gives you a 5 quantitative assessment. So you do these tests, 6 they are relatively inexpensive. We can go out 7 tomorrow and start it for the three scenarios that 8 I talked about, and for the different times of 9 year, pre-flood, during flood and post flood. It 10 is something that can be done and it is relatively 11 inexpensive to do it. And it can be done within 12 the context of the approval or the construction. 13 This undertaking, this civil works, will take 14 several years. We have an opportunity every 15 spring, or this spring and subsequent springs, 16 there is a time that we can do it, and it is not 17 prohibitively expensive, but it is a type of check 18 that can be done to provide surety that the public 19 health is protected. It is not something that 20 can't be done. We have the time. It is 21 definitely not an expensive undertaking, but I 22 think it is necessary to protect the public 23 health. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Just remind me, and I 25 know you mentioned it last week, because I made a 02389 1 brief note of it, but MPA test, can you explain 2 what that is? 3 MR. PALMATEER: Microscopic 4 particulate analysis, and it involves sampling a 5 large volume of water, usually a thousand gallons. 6 It is sampled on site. The water is pumped 7 through a filter, a specific filter. The filter 8 is then, once the water filtration is complete, 9 our company provides kits that are sent out to 10 individuals who are trained to perform the 11 sampling, which is quite simple. The filter is 12 returned to the laboratory, and trained 13 microbiologists basically elute the particulate, 14 or remove the particulate material, the residue 15 trapped on the filter. And there is a protocol 16 for examining that material. 17 There are a set of components that are 18 focused on. We don't count every last particle 19 that's in this elute, but rather look for things 20 like insect parts, filamentous bacteria, even 21 algae, diatoms, none of which of course should be 22 in groundwater. Based on the levels that you 23 find, the concentration, if you like, because 24 there is a concentration actually calculated for 25 the five different criteria, or five different 02390 1 groups of particulates that you are examining. 2 And that's put on a scale rated against a huge 3 database that was originally developed by the U.S 4 EPA, and you are able to kind of rate your sample 5 results using this database as a low, medium or 6 high risk of surface contamination of the 7 groundwater. 8 Once trained, it is quite a straight 9 forward analysis, and it is something that I might 10 say is relied upon stringently in the U.S. with 11 regards to surface contamination. I think I 12 mentioned prior that municipalities have been told 13 once it has been shown that this surface 14 contamination occurs, they will have to put in 15 treatment process, and the minimal of which will 16 be filtration and disinfection. In some cases, 17 municipalities have tried to fight this and 18 brought in hydrogeological companies of some 19 renown, and have some data to suggest this 20 contamination is maybe minimal. However, the 21 government is uncompromising and relies very 22 firmly on the results of this kind of a test. 23 The protocol for doing it, I can 24 provide you with. We are trained in this area, 25 and the test is quite straightforward and is not 02391 1 expensive. 2 MR. HAYES: If I could add briefly, 3 just in summary then, we need this baseline 4 monitoring network, we need to do the source 5 characterization and health based risk assessment. 6 Once we have determine the contaminants of 7 concern, we need to take those contaminants and 8 determine their fate and transport. We need to do 9 physical testing, that MPA testing. We need to 10 evaluate the receptors of concern. In this case 11 there is the individual homeowner and the 12 municipal supply. We have various scenarios, we 13 have non-floodway operation, floodway operation, 14 and the summertime, so those three scenarios. And 15 we have the four sensitive areas -- well, the 16 three sensitive areas and the first part of the 17 floodway. So for each one of these areas, the 18 first half of the floodway, we need to do the 19 environmental risk assessment, the next sensitive 20 area, the Birds Hill aquifer, and this remaining 21 portion of the floodway. So that's sort of what 22 is folded into the risk assessment. 23 MR. PALMATEER: I might add, in 24 preparing to do one, it is essential that the 25 actual process is laid out and that all parties 02392 1 understand it. And I think the most comment that 2 comes up about risk assessment is that many people 3 may not understand what the process is about. And 4 what is absolutely key, if you are going to do 5 something like this, is the process is designed to 6 be very transparent, so people like yourselves, 7 and the Floodway Authorities, the public, all 8 understand exactly how it is done, what the 9 results will mean at the end, and there is no risk 10 of coming up with some result that is so complex 11 in coming to that result that you are leaving half 12 the people concerned in the dark. It can be and 13 should be set up in a very transparent manner, and 14 the protocols for doing this are available. So 15 that everybody understands what you are going to 16 come up with at the end, and when you do come up 17 with it, whether there is a low risk or high risk, 18 there is no argument, you get acceptance by 19 everyone. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have two 21 or three questions which are a bit scattered all 22 over the place. One of them was actually brought 23 to my attention by one of the participants last 24 week, and you mentioned it, Mr. Palmateer, in one 25 of your answers a few moments ago, the issue of 02393 1 animal husbandry. And this person was asking 2 me -- I obviously couldn't answer -- whether there 3 is any evidence of or concern about animal 4 pharmaceutical residues as coming out of these 5 large livestock operations? 6 MR. PALMATEER: Sorry, somebody just 7 coughed, I didn't hear that? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Any evidence of or 9 concern about animal pharmaceutical residue coming 10 out of these large livestock operations -- you 11 mentioned other things, e. coli and fecal matter. 12 MR. PALMATEER: Antibiotic resistance 13 is something that bacteria may develop when -- for 14 example, in the swine and beef industry, in order 15 to protect the young animals from infection, young 16 pigs are particularly vulnerable to low levels of 17 contamination, and their water supply has to be 18 just as good as ours as humans. And to help 19 eliminate or reduce the risk of losing a large 20 number of young animals, the feed of the animal 21 has what we call subtherapeutic levels of 22 antibiotic or antimicrobials. Those are chemicals 23 that are manmade -- antibiotic being a naturally 24 made chemical -- but both with the same function, 25 to eliminate the growth or infection of any 02394 1 pathogenic microorganisms. That's put in the 2 feed. It is put in the feed at what we call a 3 subtherapeutic level, that's a level that will not 4 necessarily be satisfactory if you had already an 5 infection in the animal. You would have to put a 6 higher concentration of the antibiotic into the 7 animal to correct the infection. But this is to 8 prevent infection, so it is put in at a low 9 dosage. 10 The down side, although this works 11 very well for its purpose, the down side is that 12 bacteria can mutate, and actually you end up 13 killing off bacteria that can't form a resistance 14 to that subtherapeutic level of the drug, with the 15 result that the young animal matures and now has, 16 we can say e. coli, for example, will have a 17 harmless e. coli develop a resistance to that 18 antimicrobial. 19 That itself isn't a problem, unless 20 there is going to be a chance for that e. coli to 21 get into an environment that other animals may 22 contact, and that includes humans. So what may 23 happen in one scenario is that an e. coli that's 24 harmless transfers that resistance, and this is 25 done through a process where some small amount of 02395 1 DNA that is responsible for the resistance in the 2 e. coli gets transferred to a salmonella that's 3 pathogenic, and this happens all of the time in 4 the gut of animals. Now, we have a pathogenic 5 organism that has now enhanced resistance. It has 6 added to the resistance that the harmless e. coli 7 had. If the salmonella in future causes 8 infection, it will not respond to that antibiotic. 9 I apologize for the long-winded 10 answer, but it is really important that the 11 microbes that are impacting the environment are 12 not allowed to get into the environment, if 13 possible, or reduce the rate of them getting in. 14 To give you an example of how 15 important it is, the Scandinavian countries, 16 Sweden, Finland, Norway, have banned the use of 17 antibiotics now, or antimicrobials in feed because 18 of the risk of transferring this resistance to 19 more pathogenic organisms. But it is a concern. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have a 21 couple of questions about a couple of your 22 recommendations in the report. Recommendation 14, 23 you talk about a third party responsible quality 24 assurance/quality control program. Could you 25 elaborate a bit on that, please? 02396 1 MR. HAYES: I think it is in keeping, 2 and the proponent has put forward that the 3 monitoring, and environmental monitoring after the 4 floodway is constructed would be subject to an 5 environmental management system. And there is, a 6 key component as part of this, whether it is ISO 7 certified or other environmental management 8 systems, where you have a third party audit of 9 that program and there is regular reporting. 10 In this case there is two 11 environmental monitoring periods, there is during 12 the construction period and post construction. 13 During the construction period, and during the 14 construction of bridges and other infrastructure, 15 there may be significant localized dewatering. So 16 there needs to be a proactive program and it needs 17 to be -- typically in that situation, and I have 18 been involved in a number of files where there is 19 a community liaison committee, and I think the 20 proponent has indicated that the community will be 21 consulted, but it needs to be formalized, and 22 there would be a set procedure and protocol as it 23 would relate to proactive mitigation and reactive 24 response. 25 And I have been involved in other 02397 1 circumstances where there is -- so that's a 2 communications phase, where there is a call 3 centre, where a number of people can call if their 4 well goes dry or there is water quality concerns, 5 but there is a set procedure and protocol that the 6 proponent would follow. So I'm not sure what else 7 I can say. Is there something -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine, thank you. 9 I have one last question, and you actually may 10 have covered it in responses earlier, in 11 particular to Mr. Webster, but I will ask it 12 anyway. It is recommendation 16, you talk about a 13 well head protection zone on municipal wells. Can 14 you just elaborate a little more on that? 15 MR. HAYES: Well, the well head 16 protection zone would be an outcome of any 17 environmental risk management assessment. Well 18 head protection, there is defined protocol, and I 19 have included that in our report. But it relates 20 to identification of contaminant sources and 21 travel times; i.e., if there is a contaminant, how 22 quickly would it reach the well head, what type -- 23 it is a management procedure which would -- there 24 is land use implications and planning 25 implications. You wouldn't want a site, a 02398 1 gasoline station within so many metres of the well 2 head, for example, because the risk of 3 contamination is great. But all of this gets 4 rolled into, whoever the owner is of -- the 5 municipal owner would take this information and 6 set a procedure of well head protection area, 7 validated with monitoring and things like that, 8 just to ensure security of the supply. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything 10 else? Yes, Mr. Motheral. 11 MR. MOTHERAL: Just a follow-up 12 question, Mr. Hayes, on my concern about recorded 13 incidences, and I apologize for not following up 14 with this when you did give me your answer on 15 Walkerton. And we all know the devastation that 16 happened there. And it was proven to be a source 17 in the groundwater that caused that problem. 18 MR. HAYES: Yes, surface water. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: Surface water, and you 20 said that there was some sort of barrier between 21 that and the aquifer; is that what you said? 22 MR. HAYES: Yes. 23 MR. MOTHERAL: My follow-up question 24 should have been, at the same extent that this, 25 you know, this ten to the minus seven, I'm not a 02399 1 hydrologist, I know don't -- I know it is the 2 permeability. Was it the similar type of 3 permeability at that particular incident? 4 MR. HAYES: I'm not certain. Suffice 5 to say there was a barrier, there was a natural 6 protection, and it wasn't sufficient. The areas 7 of thin till, the report itself cites experts 8 which indicate -- and this has been known since 9 the 1980s -- what is important is the nature of 10 the geologic material, i.e. clay material is more 11 of an effective barrier, and weathered clay is 12 more of a barrier than sand. And the other factor 13 is the thickness of that material. 14 And so the short answer to your 15 question, what we are seeing here is -- I have 16 seen it, we have seen it in other localities, 17 whether it is a till of this character or similar 18 character that afforded protection, and other 19 factors, while it afforded protection most of 20 time, there was a time when it did not. And this 21 is what I'm seeing here. There is a real 22 potential. 23 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Barrie. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, I have one final 02400 1 question as well. In earlier testimony we learned 2 that during the construction of some of the 3 bridges across the floodway, it will be necessary 4 to dewater the aquifer locally to enable that 5 construction to take place. 6 Now, you didn't talk about bridges, so 7 I'm not going to ask you about bridges, but I want 8 to ask you about this liner question again. Would 9 it be necessary to dewater the aquifer in the 10 local area if you are going to install a liner? 11 Would that be your understanding. 12 MR. HAYES: It might be necessary, 13 yes. 14 MR. WEBSTER: I realize you are not in 15 the business of installing liners, but you 16 presented the concept to us and it seems to me 17 that's an important question. 18 MR. HAYES: Yes, and it will need to 19 be answered. Again, the first step is to 20 determine if there is need for a barrier or 21 separation. And if there is, then we obviously 22 have to build it, it has to be practical. And if 23 it is impractical or it is not achievable, there 24 are other management approaches that could be 25 implemented that would effectively prevent the 02401 1 public from consuming water that is impacted by 2 surface water. If there is a real concern there 3 are ways, procedures, protocols, treatment, 4 supplies, alternative supplies during periods of 5 vulnerability, there is supplying potable water 6 from another source. There are many -- deepening 7 wells, there are other approaches. 8 MR. WEBSTER: You lead me to one more 9 question, and that is you talked about monitoring 10 on a two kilometre grid. 11 MR. HAYES: As a generalization, yes. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Does this mean that 13 those spaces along the floodway, or a matrix? 14 MR. HAYES: It would be a matrix. In 15 discussion, just looking at it, you would have a 16 line of wells on two kilometre centres adjacent on 17 both sides of the floodway and then you would step 18 out, so it would be a grid. At each location, in 19 general concept, you could incorporate in areas of 20 intensive use. Where you have a cluster of 17 21 homes, you would monitor those 17 homes. But as a 22 general concept to determine whether the existing 23 monitoring network is adequate, you would have 24 this grid, you would have a nest of three wells at 25 each location for the different geologic units 02402 1 encountered. 2 MR. WEBSTER: The reason for asking 3 the further question is, it seemed to me that it 4 was worth asking you whether in fact there should 5 also be a line of wells along the floodway on each 6 side of the right-of-way, in addition to the grid? 7 MR. HAYES: Yes, that would be your 8 first part of the grid, that would be your first 9 line of defence. 10 MR. WEBSTER: All right. Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any members 12 of register participants who have questions? 13 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair, before we get 14 to that, Mr. Smith has a question arising out of 15 some of the discussion from the Commission, if it 16 would be appropriate? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I will turn to you as 18 soon as I see if there is any registered 19 participants? Okay. Seeing none, does the 20 authority have any final or follow-up questions? 21 MR. SMITH: Bert Smith here. Mr. 22 Palmateer, I would like to clarify with the use of 23 that MPA test, and you are aware that we have used 24 that on some of our studies, for GUDI studies and 25 well head protection, and you have actually done 02403 1 the testing for us in the lab. And it is 2 typically done on a municipal well system where 3 you are pumping relatively large volumes of water 4 so you can get that thousand gallons. 5 In this case we are talking about 6 monitoring wells along the edge of the floodway, 7 which typically are two inch diameter, small 8 capacity, not practical to pump those volumes, or 9 on the domestic wells that are usually relatively 10 small capacity pumps. Have you done many tests of 11 that nature on domestic wells, or what would your 12 comment be there? 13 MR. PALMATEER: On domestic wells we 14 have used another protocol. We haven't used the 15 MPA analysis as per the way it is laid out. We 16 have looked at other kinds of indicators, where 17 one might be filtering as small as ten litres of 18 water, and the presence of certain organisms, 19 bacteria spores, the F specific coliphage, and 20 those are two that are used and have been used in 21 various studies. And I could provide you with 22 some information on it. 23 Obviously, if you are dealing with a 24 well that doesn't have the capacity to pump that 25 amount, a judgment would be made whether a reduced 02404 1 volume using the MPA protocol would be practical, 2 or one would use another technique, but it would 3 still involve large volume sampling and then 4 checking for these other indicators. 5 MR. SMITH: Thank you. If I may, just 6 add a response to an earlier question on the tills 7 at Walkerton. It is my understanding that they 8 are a sandy till there. And that's why we wanted 9 to make a clarification earlier that our tills are 10 more of a silt clay. But the other more important 11 issue there was that there was long term 12 monitoring that detected a problem, and the data 13 was falsified and ignored over a long period of 14 time. And that's an important consideration to 15 appreciate at Walkerton. 16 MR. PALMATEER: We could spend a 17 couple of days talking about all of the things 18 that were wrong about Walkerton. And it certainly 19 wasn't exclusively the soil type or anything like 20 that, of course, but it did play a factor. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions 22 from the proponent? 23 MR. HANDLON: No, Mr. Chairman. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Reeve 25 Strang. 02405 1 MR. STRANG: May I have a question? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: You are a registered 3 participant, so you may. 4 MR. STRANG: Thank you. My question, 5 gentlemen, the area between the floodway and the 6 river is the highest area of concern; would that 7 be correct? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes. 9 MR. STRANG: And we know that the 10 water flows through the aquifer on normal 11 conditions east to west going into the river? 12 MR. HAYES: Yes. 13 MR. STRANG: If the area under the 14 highest concern was blanketed with a water 15 treatment, sewage treatment facility, would that 16 eliminate the biggest part of concern, for health 17 risks? 18 MR. HAYES: That breaks the pathway. 19 It treats it, so, yes. 20 MR. STRANG: So the contaminants 21 within the aquifer, if they were travelling in the 22 aquifer to the portion of the floodway to the 23 river, and since we already know that there is 24 "dumpage" within the river say from the treatment 25 plants within that river system, would that 02406 1 initiate a further concern to those contaminants 2 that are already in there, or would it be the 3 level about similar? Did I ask that question 4 correctly? The contaminants -- there is the 5 possibility of contaminants within the floodway, 6 and if those contaminants were to transfer through 7 the aquifer to the river, would they be any higher 8 than the contaminants already within the river 9 system? 10 MR. HAYES: Well, we need to 11 determine. 12 MR. STRANG: You would have to test? 13 I guess what my point is, Peter, is that if there 14 was a blanket system, like a sewage water 15 treatment facility in the area, even if those 16 contaminants entered the aquifer and flushed 17 themselves into the river, would that add any 18 concern to what is already in the river? 19 MR. PALMATEER: I guess -- I mean, it 20 would have to -- to give you an answer, an 21 accurate answer without thinking about it further, 22 I couldn't say. I mean, the river is going to 23 undergo a certain degree of filtration, with the 24 result that water moving from the river into the 25 aquifer, if indeed that can occur, I mean, to a 02407 1 certain degree materials will be filtered out. 2 But if I understand, you are thinking of things 3 that have gotten into the aquifer and now could 4 enter into the river? 5 MR. STRANG: I guess the biggest part 6 of that would be, and I will simplify it, if that 7 area is blanketed with that type of treatment 8 facility, then there would be a non-health risk to 9 those people within that small portion of the 10 area? 11 MR. PALMATEER: Yes. 12 MR. STRANG: How would that further 13 reflect to the people located east? My question 14 would be, is a monitoring system, as you 15 explained, Peter, be sufficient? And the fact 16 that if there was a proactive type of thing put in 17 place, that perhaps that could be equally 18 regulated in a fair way which would represent the 19 concerns of the human health? 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. 21 MR. STRANG: That's all I want to 22 know. Thank you very much. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Currie, 24 do you have any questions of re-direct of your 25 witnesses? 02408 1 MR. CURRIE: Just one, Mr. Chairman. 2 Mr. Hayes, you indicated to Dr. 3 Webster that you had indicated a grid of wells 4 east, as I understand it, and along the floodway, 5 and there was going to be a matrix. And I'm 6 just -- I just wanted to clarify what your 7 intentions were with regards to -- as I understand 8 your evidence just in response to that, is that 9 you thought a well system going back six 10 kilometres east; is that my understanding? 11 MR. HAYES: It would be -- that was an 12 example -- I would rely upon the historical 13 evidence of effect during the 1997 flood to 14 determine the adequacy of the monitoring grid. 15 MR. CURRIE: With regards to that six 16 kilometres, or whatever distance you determine 17 needs to come back east, is it your intention that 18 there be a matrix of wells also coming back 19 towards the east, southeast, such that you have 20 three monitoring wells as we have discussed? 21 MR. HAYES: Yes. 22 MR. CURRIE: Thank you. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I would like 24 to thank you both for making yourselves -- 25 MR. BODNARUK: If I can, one question. 02409 1 Relating to variability of soil, I just wanted to 2 bring it up. My house is -- first off, Bob 3 Bodnaruk from the RM of Springfield. My house is 4 probably located 100 feet from the outside 5 right-of-way. When we dug the basement, we ran 6 into pockets of silt. My house wasn't that bad, 7 but two houses down they ran into a pocket of silt 8 that was in excess of seven feet deep. They had 9 to over excavate in order to make sure that the 10 footing didn't give way, and as a result they 11 still ended up with a jigsaw type of floor in the 12 basement, from cracking, from heaving. Is that 13 common? Can you have a test hole be three feet 14 away and end up with pockets of silt that you 15 haven't detected? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes, especially in fluvial 17 environments, glaciofluvial environments, I have 18 personally witnessed where I have drilled and 19 found 20 feet of clay, and you step over it and 20 you literally step across the sidewalk and you are 21 into sand or silt. Obviously, you have to at the 22 end of the day rely on your monitoring network, 23 and that's why it is important to have a 24 sufficiently robust monitoring grid. But you are 25 interpolating between known points. And as this 02410 1 gentleman has indicated, there is -- conceivably 2 you could have clay here and move over 50 metres 3 and have clay, but there could be a sand and silt 4 pocket. And again, that would be part of the 5 environmental risk management study would be to 6 determine if there was a pocket or more permeable 7 pathway, which we know occurs, that if it was 8 present and we just didn't know about it -- and I 9 have been involved most recently in a dewatering 10 project where we have bore holes on 200 metre 11 centres which indicated the presence of clay silt. 12 And certainly there was a lens, a sand lens that 13 was not known, but during the course of 14 construction it was encountered, and it had to be 15 dewatered and it had to be dealt with and that 16 sort of thing. So it is not inconceivable, it 17 happens regularly. Because you are relying on -- 18 you can only do so much work, there is that real 19 potential, it happens all of the time. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 21 MR. BODNARUK: My second question is 22 just dealing with the monitoring of wells again. 23 Again, because of the area of prime probability of 24 infiltration, would you not recommend that, with 25 the domestic wells, that there should have been 02411 1 probably a lot more testing on the west side of 2 the dykes? 3 MR. HAYES: Certainly. We are trying 4 to protect not only the municipal supply but 5 individual residential wells. There should be a 6 proper well inspection and inventory. There 7 should be baseline water quality, regular 8 monitoring. Because these people are using the 9 wells on a day-to-day basis, and the potential for 10 impacts and baseline water quality needs to be 11 known, with 100 per cent surety. Every homeowner, 12 every well needs to be approached, permission to 13 access obtained, and regular monitoring conducted. 14 MR. BODNARUK: Thank you. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would 16 like to thank both of you for having made 17 yourselves available to return to Winnipeg and 18 answer many questions this morning. So thank you 19 very much. 20 MR. HAYES: Thank you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: We have three 22 presenters, two of whom were on the list yesterday 23 and didn't make it on. We have about 15 minutes. 24 If one of them is able to make his or her 25 presentation within 15 minutes, I would entertain 02412 1 that now. If not, we will find a more suitable 2 time. 3 Okay, one has indicated -- 4 5 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION) 6 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you please 8 introduce yourself for the record. 9 MS. WAZNY: I'm Eileen Wazny, resident 10 of Springfield. 11 (EILEEN WAZNY: SWORN) 12 MS. WAZNY: My observations of these 13 proceedings have lead me to believe the following: 14 It is evident that further research has to be 15 done. Deadlines are usually unrealistic, 16 especially when we talk about research. The 17 engineers and scientists were not given the time 18 that it takes to utilize the techniques that was 19 required in these studies due to time constraints. 20 We, as Manitobans, have a common concern when it 21 comes to water quality and quantity. We cannot 22 draw borders within our own province when it comes 23 to a shared resource such as water. We have to 24 protect our most precious resource. 25 During the preparation of the floodway 02413 1 expansion report, I would imagine that various 2 methods were used to evaluate errors. On the next 3 page you will find a block quotation of the 4 treatment of errors from the Physics for Engineers 5 Lab Manual from the University of Manitoba. So if 6 you will turn to the next page. 7 The treatment of errors, definitions: 8 Errors can be divided into three classes, A, 9 blunders, B, systematic errors, and C, random 10 errors. 11 A) Blunders: The nature of a blunder 12 is obvious. It usually produces absurd results 13 when the measurements are compared with theory or 14 expected values. Blunders can only be eliminated 15 by taking sufficient care in the observation and 16 recording of data. If you find a major 17 discrepancy in your experimental results, 18 re-examine the original data and attempt to find 19 where the blunder occurred. For this reason, try 20 to analyze your data, at least in rough form, as 21 the experiment progresses. Blunders can sometimes 22 be corrected by careful reanalysis of the data. 23 B) Systematic Errors: As the name 24 implies, these errors arise directly from the 25 system of measurement. 02414 1 C) Random Errors: Random errors are 2 simply errors of observation and are unavoidable. 3 So if you go back to the first page, I 4 have a question. My question is, what class of 5 error and what margin of error has the Floodway 6 Authority taken into account when researching the 7 issue of water quality and quantity? And, John, 8 we spoke about this, so you should be prepared. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you 10 for your presentation. And we would hope that 11 when the Floodway Authority is back before us, 12 they might have a response for your question. 13 MS. WAZNY: Thank you. 14 MR. JONASSON: Mr. Chairman, could we 15 add Ms. Wazny's presentation as exhibit 84. 16 17 (EXHIBIT 84: Presentation of Ms. 18 Wazny to CEC) 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Rutherford is yours 20 of brief duration? 21 MS. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 22 23 (VALERIE RUTHERFORD: SWORN) 24 25 MS. RUTHERFORD: I'm sorry that I had 02415 1 applied for permission to speak personally. I had 2 normally -- I am normally away on vacation in the 3 south, but due to conditions that the flooding in 4 the area have caused my husband, we weren't able 5 to go this year. 6 You have heard of Black Lung, and it 7 can be caused by coal, and it can be caused by 8 farm dust. It can also be caused by residual 9 flood soils. And my husband has a condition much 10 similar to that -- in the process of cutting 11 firewood. And so consequently, he was having a 12 lot of testing done and we couldn't go. So I'm 13 here to make my presentation. And so I'm adding a 14 wee bit, because I had written my little 15 presentation two weeks ago, and I'm going to add a 16 little bit. 17 To start with, I would like to say 18 that the funding should be much bigger than it is 19 for this big project. We would like to see the 20 periphery benefit from the project. I think that 21 you can't just put your blinders on, and look at 22 what we are going to do, and the hell with 23 everybody else. We have to take into 24 consideration all of the little issues surrounding 25 it. 02416 1 I have noticed and I have been told 2 that there will be no excavation done in the 3 floodway between the Red River and highway 59. 4 And that's a distance of about four kilometres. 5 By not widening or deepening this portion, a 6 bottleneck is allowed to remain between the Red 7 and the proposed expanded floodway. With no 8 changes to this stretch, higher water levels at 9 the entrance would have to happen to utilize the 10 increased capacity of the expanded floodway. 11 Higher levels at the entrance would have a 12 dramatic damaging effect on the levels in the Red 13 River running through Ritchot. 14 Another suggestion that I have is the 15 lip at the entrance and some modifications. On 16 the Red River there are frequent nuisance floods, 17 which nobody seems to want to talk about. And 18 this is equivalent to the level of summer 19 flooding, much lower than '97, or the projected 20 700 year flood, but nevertheless it is a flood in 21 our area. 22 The lip or the plug, whichever way you 23 want to call it, at the entrance to the floodway, 24 prevents water from entering into the floodway 25 immediately. At the top of the lip -- the top of 02417 1 the lip is two metres higher than the bottom of 2 the floodway. In the illustration you will see 3 that I've drawn in the plug that doesn't allow the 4 water to enter the floodway. The water has to 5 rise two metres higher in the river before it can 6 drop two metres into the floodway. I suggest that 7 this solid earth lip be removed and replaced with 8 an engineered design that would allow the water to 9 run through and still keep the ice in the river 10 channel. This modification would allow water to 11 enter the floodway two metres sooner. 12 In a study by Intergroup Consulting 13 firm, and I have attached that, they suggest that 14 free flow would result in lowering the water in 15 the Red River by 14 inches. If the entrance was 16 widened from 250 to 300 metres, we could possibly 17 get another six or seven inches benefit. The 18 accumulation of these two modifications could give 19 us maybe a 20-inch drop in the Red River and 20 Winnipeg and Ritchot would both benefit. 21 Members of the Commission, 20 inches 22 in the Red River would mean that many residents in 23 Ritchot could remain in their homes because fewer 24 roads would be overtopped. If these modifications 25 aren't considered, then most residents would have 02418 1 to relocate and live in Winnipeg during those 2 levels. 3 Yes, it is going to cost money, and it 4 is Provincial and Federal dollars. Yes, it is 5 also going to cost money if we are going to have 6 to relocate these people into Winnipeg to live 7 there, and it is Federal and Provincial dollars. 8 So, I'm asking, would it be more economical to put 9 in a permanent modification at the entrance, or 10 relocating residents of Ritchot again and again 11 and again? 12 The Portage Diversion has a device 13 that prevents ice from entering the diversion, and 14 that's one design. But there are many designs. 15 With the suggested modifications to 16 the floodway entrance, summer operations will 17 become an action of the past. Just imagine the 18 walkway being exposed all summer long. Recreation 19 would flourish during prime tourist season, and 20 that's what should happen at the Forks. And we 21 would -- this would be a win-win situation for 22 Ritchot and for Winnipeg. 23 I just put in a little note here, 24 summer operations. Ritchot has never been invited 25 to participate in any discussions regarding summer 02419 1 operations, and I think we are missing something. 2 Doug McNeil called the upstream of the 3 flood controls a reservoir, and claims there is 4 insignificant damage during high levels. Well, 5 during summer operations our river banks are no 6 longer frozen, the light soils are washed away and 7 carried to the mouth of the river, and are 8 deposited there as the water slows down. But our 9 banks, our bank supporting soils are gone. And 10 the water level drops, our banks ooze and 11 collapse. And in some cases, 10 to 12-foot chunks 12 fall into the river. 13 When summer operations begin, our 14 trees, shrubs and grass along the river are almost 15 in full summer foliage. These plants are then 16 partially or fully inundated with water for up to 17 two months. We notice that the plants die when 18 under water for an abnormal length of time. 19 Because of this degradation of natural growth, our 20 riverbanks no longer have a sustaining roots 21 network to support the soils along the banks. 22 Eventually these trees and shrubs fall into the 23 river, taking valuable riverbank with them. 24 We've observed that spring flooding 25 isn't as damaging, but there is still noticeable 02420 1 tree and shrub growth stunting. Some of this 2 damage could be rectified by replanting of trees 3 and grass that can survive these abnormal 4 artificial conditions. There seems to be nowhere 5 to get plant recovery assistance. 6 I know that the RM of Ritchot has 7 asked for a 700 year flood proofing fund to 8 protect the Ritchot water treatment and pump 9 station located at Ste. Agathe on the east side of 10 the Red River. This request has been made by way 11 of resolution and sent to Manitoba Authority and 12 the Manitoba Government. To date we haven't 13 received a reply. This flood proofing must be a 14 cost associated with the expansion project. It 15 isn't fair to further burden the RM of Ritchot 16 residents with these costs. And this has to be in 17 place before the floodway can be put into -- the 18 new expanded floodway can be put into operation. 19 On Monday, February 14, Ernie Gilroy 20 made a presentation. And one of the, as close as 21 I could get in his quote, "Our children will never 22 have to tell their children how they lost their 23 homes in Winnipeg because of flooding." We, in 24 Ritchot would like to be able to say that to our 25 children too. But instead it appears we will be 02421 1 leaving a legacy of perpetual abuse of our 2 properties, abuse such as being inundated with 3 contaminated water, loss of enjoyment of our river 4 trails, loss of the trees, and added stress as to 5 how we will get to work or to school. 6 I'm asking that your decision be a 7 decision that will give us something better than 8 we have now. A landowners' agreement for storage 9 of water would be one suggestion. And that this 10 agreement be fair and thorough. 11 I don't think there is an authority in 12 this country that gives permission to flood our 13 neighbors. Mr. Motheral would be able to tell you 14 that when the municipalities are dealing with one 15 another concerning too much water, there is 16 usually a meeting called, there is usually a 17 consensus as to what is going to happen for the 18 benefit of all. And I don't see this happening 19 with this expansion. 20 We should have the same protection as 21 Winnipeg, or an agreement which each of us, and 22 then we will try to tolerate the abuse of our 23 rights to enjoy our properties. Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 25 Mrs. Rutherford. Any questions? 02422 1 We have no questions for you. Thank 2 you very much for your presentation this morning. 3 We will now take a break for lunch. Please be 4 back for 1:05 p.m. sharp. 5 6 (Proceedings recessed at 12:05 and 7 reconvened at 1:05 p.m.) 8 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we come to order, 10 please. Our first presentation this afternoon is 11 from the 768 Association. I would ask them to 12 please come up and take the hot seats. 13 Could you please introduce yourselves 14 for the record and I will have the Commission 15 Secretary swear each of you in. 16 MR. LOUDFOOT: My name is it Robert 17 Loudfoot. I am a member of the executive of the 18 768 Association. 19 MR. SHUMUK: My name is Yaroslav 20 Shumuk. I am a consultant to the 768 Association. 21 MR. DUERKSEN: Robert Duerksen. I am 22 past president of the 768 Association. 23 24 (MESSRS. LOUDFOOT, SHUMUK & DUERKSEN: Sworn) 25 02423 1 MR. CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 2 MR. LOUDFOOT: Mr. Chairman, members 3 of the Clean Environment Commission, members of 4 Floodway Authority and, I guess, members of the 5 general public and other organizations, the 768 6 Association would like to thank you for giving us 7 this opportunity to comment on the proposed 8 expansion of the Red River Floodway. 9 For some of you that may not know who 10 the 768 Association is, I am going to do a little 11 bit of an introduction of who we are. 12 We were formed after the 1979 flood. 13 Our membership is property owners in an area that 14 saw a need for permanent flood protection in their 15 neighbourhood, after the flood of 1979 where they 16 all had to construct temporary dykes. 17 They managed to get organized and 18 construct what is known as the Turnbull Drive Dyke 19 in the fall of 1979 and the crest elevation of the 20 dyke was 768 feet, hence the name "768 21 Association". 22 In the construction of that dyke, 23 assistance was received from the province, 24 provincial and federal governments, in the 25 construction of the dyke, both engineering 02424 1 assistance and financial assistance. 2 The area protected by the dyke is 3 upstream of the Floodway because we are not 4 protected by the Floodway dykes. 5 We are on the west side of the Red 6 River, between the Red River and Provincial 7 Highway 75 or Pembina Highway, and not many people 8 know where it is, but we are essentially south of 9 the TransCanada Pipeline. 10 If that didn't make any sense, this is 11 a picture of our area. This is the area, the 768 12 Association here, protected by the Turnbull Drive 13 Dyke during the flood of 1997. The Red River 14 being just above the protected area and the City 15 of Winnipeg being to the north at the top 16 left-hand portion of the screen. 17 The properties within the protected 18 area are both within the City of Winnipeg and the 19 RM of Ritchot. 20 In 1996, there was a flood and our 21 dyke did protect the properties from flooding. 22 That was essentially the design flood for our 23 dyke. We had to plug a few holes, but we did not 24 have to raise it at all. At that time, assistance 25 was received financially from the Province of 02425 1 Manitoba. 2 The flood of 1997 was a slightly 3 different matter. Significant dyke upgrading had 4 to be done and we did successfully protect the 5 area from flooding, although there was a few tense 6 moments. 7 After the flood of '97, the dyke was 8 reshaped and the crest elevation on the east and 9 south sides is now at 771 feet. 10 In that process, considerable 11 assistance was received from both the City of 12 Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba. 13 In general, the job of the 768 14 Association is to operate and maintain the 15 Turnbull Drive Dyke. That's why we exist, and we 16 will probably exist into the future. 17 Also, we deal with other related 18 issues that happen to arise from time to time, 19 such as dealing with our concerns on the expansion 20 of the Floodway. 21 Prior to the publication of the 22 Environmental Impact Statement, our executive 23 developed a list of eight concerns that we had and 24 that we wanted dealt with. 25 The first one being future 02426 1 compensation for major floods. We had no idea how 2 that was going to be dealt with. 3 Summer operation of a control 4 structure. We didn't know what that would be all 5 about. 6 Whatever the proposed Floodway 7 expansion was going to be, we were concerned about 8 water velocities in our area during operation of 9 the flood and the main concern being erosion from 10 high water velocities. 11 We were under the understanding at the 12 time that back-up gates were going to be part of 13 the proposal. So, we were concerned how those 14 would be built and operated in the future. 15 We were also under the understanding 16 there was going to be a recalculation of the 17 famous rating curve and a determination of what 18 natural levels would be during any particular 19 flood event. We were concerned that this might 20 have a negative impact on our group. 21 We were also concerned with the 22 Floodway Operating Rules, again, how they would 23 affect us in major flood events. 24 At the time, we didn't know what it 25 was all about, so we were concerned that water 02427 1 elevations during a flood might actually be higher 2 in our area. 3 And last, but not least, we were 4 concerned with overland flooding from the west, 5 given the changes that had taken place and were 6 proposed for what is known as the west dyke. 7 When the participant assistance 8 program came up, we applied for participant 9 assistance on all eight of our concerns. We 10 received approval for the assistance on five 11 items: The water level impacts, water velocity 12 and erosion, the overland flooding from the west, 13 the inlet gate backup, system, and we were also 14 asked to examine the natural rating curve and 15 comment on it. 16 We had applied for funding to help us 17 with the effects of these various issues on our 18 dyke, or our area. The CEC asked us to evaluate 19 the effects on the entire forebay area; the 20 Floodway forebay area. We interpreted the forebay 21 area to be the area between the Floodway inlet 22 structure going south or upstream as far as 23 St. Adolphe. So, that's what we interpreted our 24 area of concern to be for the purposes of our 25 presentation. 02428 1 Participant assistance was not 2 approved to review three particular items: The 3 summer operation of the control structure, future 4 compensation during major floods and the Floodway 5 Operating Rules. 6 Once the Environmental Impact 7 Statement was published, we had one additional 8 concern that came up based on our cursory review 9 of the Environmental Impact Statement. We were 10 concerned about the interpretation of the existing 11 Floodway for the purposes of these Clean 12 Environment Commission hearings. 13 Now, a little bit of detail on these 14 four issues. Summer operation of the Floodway. 15 It is our understanding that that is not being 16 reviewed as part of this process. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: One correction on that. 18 Summer non-emergency operation is not part of this 19 process. 20 MR. LOUDFOOT: Okay, that's fair. 21 Summer non-emergency operation is not part of this 22 process. We understand summer operation did occur 23 in 2002 and 2004 and I am not sure, off the top of 24 my head, if that was emergency or not? 25 MR. CHAIRMAN: That was emergency. 02429 1 MR. LOUDFOOT: That was emergency, 2 okay. 3 We also understand that summer 4 operation, of whatever sort, will happen in the 5 future or likely to happen in the future. 6 I guess our concerns are probably more 7 the non-emergency use of the Floodway. 8 The concerns of the forebay residents, 9 as we interpret them, include -- but are 10 definitely not limited to -- riverbank and dyke 11 stability upstream of the control structure, when 12 the water in the areas is held possibly above 13 natural levels for extended periods of time. We 14 are also concerned with compensation for 15 artificial flooding and I will get into that in a 16 little more detail later on. 17 We believe that there should be a 18 public review process similar to these hearings 19 for the non-emergency operation of the Floodway 20 during the summer. 21 Future compensation for major floods. 22 As I said, that was also a concern of ours. We 23 understand that the review of the compensation 24 legislations for artificial flooding is not part 25 of this process. 02430 1 There was an opportunity for various 2 individuals and groups to provide feedback to the 3 provincial government, but the Association and 4 some other groups feel that the feedback that was 5 given was not adequately addressed in the 6 legislation. 7 We are also concerned with how our 8 artificial flooding will be interpreted. Not so 9 much in the written legislation, but how it will 10 interpreted in use in the future. 11 Our review of the documentation on 12 this matter, indicates that the legislation 13 does -- as it is written -- does cover artificial 14 flooding during a spring flood only. We are 15 concerned that artificial flooding during summer 16 operation may not be covered. Now, we are not 17 lawyers. This is just a concern we have come up 18 with from our layman's review of the documentation 19 we had available. 20 We believe that there should be an 21 independent review of artificial flooding after 22 every flood where the Floodway is used, to 23 determine if artificial flooding has occurred, and 24 to review the level of compensation that is 25 provided by the provincial government. 02431 1 Floodway Operating Rules. It is also 2 our understanding that the normal spring time 3 Operating Rules are not part of this CEC hearing 4 process. We somewhat object to this. 5 It has been my experience as an 6 engineer that when I go forward with a proposal to 7 the Clean Environment Commission to build some 8 sort of infrastructure, whatever it may happen to 9 be, that the Operating Rules of that particular 10 piece of infrastructure are examined as part of 11 the environmental review process. 12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Loudfoot, I would 13 have -- that's not exactly accurate. We are 14 looking at the ongoing Operating Rules of the 15 Floodway. 16 You may have got that interpretation 17 from the June meeting last year when I mistakenly 18 said that they weren't part of the process. But, 19 subsequent to that at subsequent meetings, I had 20 made it clear that I had been mistaken in that 21 initial statement. 22 So, the operation of the Floodway is 23 part of our mandate. Our mandate is to review the 24 environmental, et cetera, effects of the 25 construction and operation of the Floodway. 02432 1 MR. DUERKSEN: Can I clarify our 2 position on that a little bit? 3 One of our concerns was that the 4 Operating Rules were changed since the 1997 flood. 5 We asked for assistance so that we could review 6 what those changes -- what the impact was. That's 7 the objection that we have. The change to the 8 Operating Rules and we were not given assistance 9 to investigate the impact of the Operating Rules. 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, as you define 11 it a little bit more, the rules themselves, 12 whether or not we can make recommendations to 13 change the rules, I am not certain. But, the 14 effects of those operations is certainly within 15 our mandate. 16 So, maybe I am being -- clarify a 17 little more after your comments, Mr. Duerksen. 18 The effects of the operation are certainly within 19 our mandate. Whether the rules themselves are, 20 that remains to be argued. 21 MR. LOUDFOOT: Okay. It was our 22 belief that the rules themselves should be part of 23 the process. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fair enough. 25 You can make those arguments. Whether we will 02433 1 accept them, will remain to be seen. 2 MR. LOUDFOOT: Understood. There is 3 definitely an undeniable relationship between the 4 actual Floodway and its Operating Rules. I don't 5 think anybody can really deny that. The Operating 6 Rules, as we understand it, were established prior 7 to the proposal for the expanded Floodway. 8 As I said, we believe the operating 9 rules should be part of this Clean Environment 10 Commission hearing process. 11 This was our concern that came up 12 after we have had a chance to look at the 13 Environmental Impact Statement. It is our 14 understanding that the Manitoba Floodway Authority 15 has stated that the existing Floodway is the 16 baseline condition for the review process that we 17 are taking part in and, therefore, that the 18 existing -- or a review of the existing Floodway 19 is not covered in this review process. 20 The 768 Association has commented on 21 this in the past and does not necessarily agree 22 that this is the way we should proceed. 23 We believe that the Clean Environment 24 Commission hearing process should include a review 25 of the existing Floodway. We have no dreams that 02434 1 the existing Floodway will be decommissioned or 2 anything like that, but we feel that concerns with 3 the existence and operation of the existing 4 Floodway going forward should be addressed as part 5 of this process. 6 Further, we feel that the actual 7 physical existing Floodway is not that 8 well-defined in the Environmental Impact 9 Statement. So, for the purpose of our study and 10 presentation, we have interpreted the existing 11 Floodway to be anything that was in place prior to 12 preparation for the 1997 flood. 13 Because of this interpretation, we 14 have assumed that there was a couple of items that 15 are being reviewed as part of the process. These 16 being the modifications to the west dyke that were 17 carried out in preparation for the 1997 flood and 18 since the 1997 flood. 19 We have also interpreted -- or believe 20 that the gaps in the east embankment of the 21 Floodway are also part of this review process. We 22 believe that these were reasonable assumptions, as 23 these items have not been included in any other 24 sort of environmental review process that we are 25 aware of. 02435 1 The five items that were approved by 2 the CEC for participant assistance, we have 3 decided to hire a consultant to examine these five 4 concerns of the Association. 5 We have hired Mr. Yaroslav Shumuk of 6 Green Mountain Hydrotech Ltd. in Victoria, BC. 7 Mr. Shumuk has 28 years of experience 8 in areas of the hydraulic modelling, flood 9 management studies, flood protection design and 10 floodplain mapping. 11 A detailed list of Mr. Shumuk's 12 qualifications were included in our written 13 submission in the form of a C.V. 14 On that note, my introduction is over 15 and I would like to hand the microphone over to 16 Mr. Shumuk. 17 MR. SHUMUK: Good afternoon, 18 Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, members of the MFA, 19 and the public. Without any further ado, I would 20 like to get right into my presentation. 21 As Mr. Loudfoot mentioned, there are 22 five issues that form the scope of my review. 23 These five issues, in the order that I am going to 24 present them are, first, effects of the project on 25 water velocities; effects of operating a back-up 02436 1 gate at the inlet control structure; the 2 recomputed natural rating curves for the Floodway 3 inlet; the effects of the project on flood levels 4 and, finally, the effects of the west dyke on 5 overland flooding. 6 The geographic area that my review was 7 to cover focused on the area near the Turnbull 8 Drive 768 Association Dyke in this area, but 9 extended upstream, generally, from the Floodway 10 right up to Ste. Agathe and Avonlea Corner. So, 11 basically this area that is shown in the dark 12 ring. 13 Before I can get into some of the 14 discussion, I feel I should conduct a very quick 15 introduction here to some fundamental concepts and 16 definitions relating to hydraulic modelling. 17 Specifically, I want to differentiate between 18 one-dimensional and two-dimensional modelling. 19 So, this diagram shows a typical 20 channel dyked on both sides of the floodplain on 21 the far side of the dyke. 22 In a one-dimensional model set up to 23 represent this kind of a situation, the typical 24 approach would require establishing branches, 25 model branches, that follow the major flow paths. 02437 1 In this case, an obvious one would be the main 2 river channel. 3 The fundamental element of 4 one-dimensional models are these branches. It is 5 an important thing to remember. 6 Limitations of one-dimensional models 7 include the fact that these models can only 8 simulate flow along these branches only. The 9 branches can only have one alignment that are 10 preset by the modeler before the model is actually 11 run. So, modelers have to anticipate, fairly 12 accurately, where the water will flow before they 13 even start the model. 14 With obvious situations, that's not a 15 problem. With experienced modelers and 16 straightforward, well-defined flow paths, that's 17 typically a fairly simple exercise. On a complex 18 surface, it may be more challenging. 19 Another limitation of one-dimensional 20 modelling is that the water surface across the 21 width of the channel or the area represented by 22 each branch must be horizontal. There is no 23 capability in a one-dimensional model for the 24 water surface to tilt from side to side. Because 25 of this, there is a limitation in that a 02438 1 one-dimensional model can only simulate the effect 2 of wind if the wind is in the direction of the 3 branch alignment that was set by the modeler. 4 For example, in this case, if there 5 was a wind blowing upstream or downstream, that 6 effect, the friction of the air on the water, 7 tilting that water surface, can be simulated by 8 the model. If the wind was across the direction 9 of the channels, there is just no way that a 10 one-dimensional model can simulate that. 11 Now, sometimes one-dimensional models 12 are used to simulate -- well, a number of channels 13 that are parallel to one another, and you can make 14 cross-connections between these channels. So, you 15 get what is called a quasi 2D model. It is very 16 important to remember that this is not truly a 17 two-dimensional model. Even with these 18 cross-connections, the effect of wind still cannot 19 be simulated if it is in the direction that goes 20 across the branches. These cross-connections are 21 simplified elements. They are not true branches. 22 They cannot simulate the effect of friction and 23 flow as accurately as the flow that runs in the 24 direction -- in the alignment of the branches. 25 In a one-dimensional model, the shape 02439 1 of the channel and the topography is input into 2 the model by a series of cross-sections that must 3 be set perpendicular to the flow direction. 4 So, as you may be getting a sense, 5 these one-dimensional models are best suited for 6 simulating well-defined channels. 7 This picture is a schematic diagram 8 showing the layout of the branches for a MIKE 11 9 model, which is the one-dimensional model, for the 10 Floodway forebay area. 11 This branch on the west, for instance, 12 represents the Morris River and the surrounding 13 floodplain adjacent to the Morris River. 14 Another example of a branch is the Red 15 River, running through, along a route like this, 16 through the inlet control structure and into the 17 City of Winnipeg. This is the Floodway. These 18 other branches are overland flow routes that are 19 east of the Red River. 20 Now, the area between the branches is 21 split. There is divisions between these branches 22 that are formed by ridges or highways or railways, 23 topographic high points that the modeler chooses 24 to subdivide this whole area and some of these 25 areas are quite wide. 02440 1 Again, if we go back to the issue of 2 wind, if you have an east-west wind here, there is 3 no capability for a MIKE 11 model to simulate the 4 effect of that. 5 Going to a two-dimensional model with 6 the same example channel, the approach is quite 7 different. 8 To set up a two-dimensional model, the 9 modeler selects a layout of calculation points and 10 if you draw lines between adjacent calculation 11 points to create triangles, you get what is called 12 a grid or a mesh. 13 The model works by resolving forces 14 and satisfying the laws of fluid mechanics for all 15 the triangular elements that surround these 16 calculation points. 17 The model can simulate velocities in 18 any direction, at every calculation point. They 19 can simulate water surfaces that are sloping in 20 any direction throughout the model area; 21 therefore, it can handle wind from any direction. 22 Two-dimensional models are much better suited for 23 simulating flow over complex surfaces. 24 A drawback of two-dimensional models, 25 why they are not used for everything, they are 02441 1 more expensive to use. They require more 2 computing, resources, they generate a lot more 3 data, and take more data to set up and generally 4 take more time for experienced modelers to set 5 them up, simulate them, control them, review the 6 data and come up with answers. 7 One aspect of two-dimensional 8 modelling, which is important to remember, is 9 something called the grid density. It is 10 basically the spacing between the calculation 11 points. 12 The grid density determines how 13 detailed the answers -- the results from the model 14 can possibly be. If there is a short distance, 15 high velocity step in the water surface somewhere, 16 this can only be simulated if the calculation 17 points are set to be in the same magnitude as the 18 step or smaller. 19 If the points are spread too far 20 apart, the results will be averaged over a long 21 distance and the velocities will be 22 underestimated. 23 So, just because you run a 24 two-dimensional model and get some numbers and it 25 reports a maximum velocity to you, that may not 02442 1 actually be the maximum velocity if the grid 2 spacing is too large to capture that. 3 So, this is a representation of the 4 two-dimensional model, the Telemac 2D, that was 5 applied by the National Research Council for some 6 of the studies for the Floodway expansion project. 7 You can see the pattern here of the grid; the 8 calculation points. You can see how it is varied. 9 In some places, the grid density is very fine, 10 where detailed answers, short distance changes are 11 required and other places where they are quite 12 widely spaced. 13 So, if you just imagine this model at 14 every one of these little intersections can 15 provide velocity -- the magnitude of the velocity 16 and the direction over this whole area, if you 17 compare that back to the one-dimensional MIKE 11 18 model, where it is dealing in these broad 19 branches, where along each one of these branches, 20 the flow has to be all in the same direction that 21 was preset by the modeler, I think you will get a 22 sense of the sort of difference in the quality of 23 answer, the quality of information that you will 24 get from these two types of models. 25 So, that's it for the lesson. 02443 1 I would like to get into each one of 2 these issues now. The first issue, the 768 3 Association was concerned that the project may 4 alter flow patterns and create high velocities 5 that may cause erosion. 6 In my review, I could only work with 7 the information that was provided. The ideal 8 situation of having two sets of model results, one 9 pre-project and one post-project, was really not 10 available. There was a lot of modelling that 11 represented different steps in the whole process, 12 but nothing that went right from the beginning to 13 right to the end so that we could do a comparison 14 and see what is the full impact of the project on 15 velocity in any particular area. 16 Also, the results I had were basically 17 limited to graphic images like this, that you see 18 on the screen, from reports. Typically, these are 19 captured at one point in time. These models work 20 through a whole flood. They will simulate flows 21 and velocities during the rising stage, at the 22 peak and through the falling stage. But, through 23 that whole time, just a few snapshots are taken 24 and presented in the reports. 25 So, in order to be able to do 02444 1 anything, to provide any information back to my 2 client -- the 768 Association -- I had to review 3 what was available, draw inferences from that and 4 conclude what I could. 5 So, in some ways, my conclusions are 6 limited and qualified because I feel I don't have 7 access or didn't have access to all the 8 information. I did make some requests for 9 additional information and some of that never did 10 get delivered. 11 One interesting comparison which I 12 thought was very indicative of the impact of the 13 east embankment gaps, was this pair of figures 14 that came from the first study by the National 15 Research Council through Acres. It was presented 16 in the Acres report. It shows the effect of one 17 east embankment gap during the height of the 1997 18 flood. 19 This gap is only 500 feet wide, but it 20 shows a dramatic impact on the velocities in the 21 Red River. The velocities are colour-coded here. 22 The high velocities are coloured red and the low 23 velocities are blue. So, without the east 24 embankment gap, you can see the high velocity next 25 to the Turnbull Drive Dyke and in the entrance of 02445 1 the Floodway. 2 When the 500-foot wide opening was put 3 into the Floodway, the velocities in the river 4 drop off markedly and in the entrance to the 5 Floodway. And, instead, velocities pick up here 6 over the east floodplain and concentrating as they 7 approach this 500-foot gap. 8 Now, I just want to make it clear, 9 this is not what is proposed in the Floodway 10 expansion project. There is actually two 11 2400-foot gaps now already existing. They have 12 already been built in this area, one here and one 13 further to the east. There is a third one, that 14 is proposed, a 1300-foot, I believe, gap proposed 15 east of Grand Pointe. 16 So, the openings are existing and 17 planned openings are much larger than what is 18 represented here. But, you can see even with this 19 much smaller opening, the impacts on velocities in 20 the river is quite remarkable. 21 I concluded from reviewing these 22 figures in detail, that the impacts of the east 23 embankment gaps on the velocities on the west 24 floodplain are probably very minor. 25 On the east floodplain, there would be 02446 1 an increase and despite the fact there is a lot of 2 flow going over the east floodplain, the model 3 indicates a pretty low velocity. At this point, I 4 am going to jump ahead to another figure -- I will 5 come back to that. 6 Now, this is another Telemac 2D 7 simulation for the same area, but it's a different 8 flood. This is a 700 year flood. The last 9 figures we were looking at were the 1997 flood. I 10 compared this to see would, in general, putting a 11 larger flood through the area with the three 12 gaps -- this one has the two 2400-foot gaps and 13 the 1300-foot gap. Would this velocity be a lot 14 more than it was, say, in 1997 because in 1997, 15 erosion was not really bad over that area. 16 This run, which simulates the 700 year 17 flood, shows velocities that are generally less 18 than 0.2 metres per second, and that magnitude is 19 quite similar to what was shown in the last 20 figures and at the peak of the 1997 flood. 21 Manual calculations I have done, 22 confirm that this is realistic, provided the flow 23 is spread over that whole east floodplain in an 24 even fashion. If the flow concentrated into a 25 particular path for some reason, then there would 02447 1 be a faster band of flow through here and slower 2 flow elsewhere. But, if it does spread out, 3 because the floodplain is so wide and the 4 inundation at this level is so deep, the actual 5 velocity is actually quite low. 6 What the simulations don't show is the 7 possibility of higher velocities during the rising 8 and falling stages of the flood. It is quite 9 common that the highest velocities do not occur at 10 the highest water level in a flood. 11 Quite often during the rising stage, 12 there are certain places where the rising water 13 will cause faster flow in a certain part of 14 floodplain. And, again, during the falling 15 stages, when the Red River drops and the water is 16 perched up on the floodplain trying to return back 17 into the Red River, at certain constriction 18 points, the flow can speed up a lot more than it 19 ever did during the high part of the flood. 20 There are areas where it was also not 21 possible to conclude where higher velocities that 22 might cause erosion problems would occur because 23 the grid was so coarse, the calculation points 24 were spread 300 or 800 metres apart. There might 25 be the possibility that in some areas, such as 02448 1 Avonlea Corner, that the velocity could be higher. 2 It would be picked up if the modelling was done 3 with a finer grid spacing. 4 So, based on these model results, I 5 think it would be reasonable that erosion 6 protection be designed for a place like Avonlea 7 Corner and other locations, near critical 8 infrastructure at which future modelling may 9 indicate excessive velocities could occur. 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Where is Avonlea 11 Corner? 12 MR. SHUMUK: This big corner on the 13 west dyke near Ste. Agathe is known as Avonlea 14 Corner. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 16 MR. SHUMUK: If you imagine the whole 17 floodplain as a kind of a waterway, this would be 18 a real prominent projection into that Floodway, 19 and it is a natural place for a high velocity to 20 occur. 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Could I just ask one 22 question too, whether or not it is relevant. 23 The modelling process you are using, 24 is this assuming a widened Floodway? 25 MR. SHUMUK: The 1997 modelling -- 02449 1 these results, I believe, are for 1997 and the 2 existing Floodway. But, the other situation, this 3 one was for a widened Floodway. 4 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. 5 MR. SHUMUK: It is not ideal, but it 6 is all I had and I tried to draw some inferences 7 and conclusions from the information that was 8 there. 9 Moving on to the second issue, the 10 effects of operating a back-up gate at the inlet 11 control structure. As Rob mentioned, there were 12 concerns that the back-up gate system may have 13 some undesirable effects on the residential 14 properties near the inlet control structure. 15 But, since there has been no decision 16 on whether or not to even put in a future back-up 17 gate system, or if you will put it in, what design 18 it should take, no information is available. 19 Therefore, it is not possible to provide any sort 20 of technical comment. I have had to skip that 21 item. 22 The third issue is the recomputed 23 natural rating curves at the Floodway inlet. The 24 concern of the 768 Association was that 25 recalculated water levels may be unreasonably high 02450 1 and may result in reduced or no compensation for 2 what actually is artificial flooding. 3 My review of the results presented in 4 the 2004 Acres report, which recomputed natural 5 rating curves at the Floodway inlet, indicated 6 that they were coming up with new rating curves -- 7 it is actually a rating table or a family of 8 curves -- that have slightly lowered the threshold 9 water levels at the Floodway inlet. These are the 10 levels that would signal eligibility for 11 compensation. 12 So, in comparison with the existing 13 rating curves, the new rating curves will trigger 14 compensation sooner at a lower level. 15 The modelling study performed by Acres 16 was very thorough and very detailed. The 17 assumptions I found to be very reasonable. The 18 work looked very solid. I think it is probably 19 about the best that could be done, given the 20 available data. 21 Despite the fact it is the best that 22 could be done, they, quite frankly, identified 23 uncertainties with their model results and even 24 put some magnitudes to these uncertainties that I 25 am quoting in the table here: 0.1 to 0.3 feet at 02451 1 a flow of 200,000 cfs -- sorry, that's minus 0.1 2 to plus 0.3 feet at 200,000 cfs. But, at 300,000 3 cfs, the uncertainty grows considerably to minus 4 1.0 foot to plus 0.8 feet. So, there was concern 5 about how to handle this uncertainty in a case 6 such as this. 7 In most hydraulic structures, like 8 dykes or bridges, engineers deal with uncertainty 9 by covering -- putting in a safety factor, 10 typically called "freeboard". So, if a model says 11 the design flood level is at a given level, a 12 freeboard would be added and the dyke would 13 actually be built higher or the bridge deck would 14 be set higher than that peak water level to allow 15 for a number of things. Included in those are 16 uncertainties in coming up with the discharges and 17 the water levels. 18 One way to handle the uncertainty in 19 the new rating curves would be to apply a vertical 20 allowance, like freeboard. But, in this case, it 21 would be a reduction to the levels in the table, a 22 reduction to those levels that would trigger 23 eligibility for compensation, in order to 24 compensate for possible overestimates of water 25 levels by the model. 02452 1 Another concern was that the rating 2 curves would be used to identify whether or not 3 artificial flooding has occurred at the gauge just 4 upstream of the inlet control structure. From 5 that point, the intention was -- and I will read 6 from the MFA response to Information Request 7 Number 58, from the Ritchot Concerned Citizens 8 Committee. The response was -- and I quote: 9 "If the computed natural level at the 10 Floodway inlet has been exceeded in 11 any year, then the MIKE 11 model will 12 be run using recorded flows and the 13 daily natural levels at the Floodway 14 inlet. This will provide a map 15 showing natural levels all over the 16 valley. The difference between the 17 natural and recorded levels at each 18 location in the valley will be the 19 artificial flooding at that location. 20 This information will be included in 21 the June 30th report and will also be 22 available on the Department's flood 23 management website." 24 So, the intention is to take the 25 level, once artificial flooding is indicated to 02453 1 have occurred, and spread that upstream -- 2 determine the shape of that flood surface upstream 3 using the MIKE 11 model. For reasons that I have 4 already made clear I hope, we have concerns about 5 that because of the fact of the limitations of 6 one-dimensional modelling. 7 We feel it would be much more 8 reasonable if a model like Telemac 2D -- or 9 perhaps in the future, there will be better models 10 than Telemac. It would be better if a model like 11 that was used rather than a one-dimensional model 12 like MIKE 11. 13 Furthermore, the current MIKE 11 14 model, the one that was provided to me in response 15 to my information request, has some limitations 16 and deficiencies that go beyond just the fact that 17 it is a one-dimensional model. I think it is 18 important that I bring this out because I think 19 this is quite significant. 20 Going back to the concept of the 21 one-dimensional model, I am taking just a small 22 segment of the Red River between the mouth of the 23 marsh river, and here's the entrance to the 24 Floodway. There is the inlet control structure, 25 entrance to the Floodway, mouth of the marsh river 02454 1 and we have the Red River channel meandering in 2 here. 3 There is a MIKE 11 branch that 4 simulates the Red River, plus its adjacent banks 5 on both sides. I don't know exactly, but I 6 suspect that the divide between that Red River 7 branch and the next floodplain branch is a high 8 point, like St. Mary's Road on this side and 9 perhaps the railway, Highway 75 on this side. 10 But, it is clear from the cross-sections in the 11 model, that it is more than just the river. It is 12 actually this whole wide swath through here. 13 When I looked at the model to see what 14 sort of distances were being used, the distance 15 that was input into the model from this point of 16 the marsh river to the entrance to the Floodway 17 was 17,000 feet. It is also approximately the 18 straight line distance. 19 If you took the channel distance, the 20 distance would be greater than 30,000 feet. 21 So, the modeler has made a choice here 22 to represent a situation where overland flow is 23 dominant and chosen to ignore the flow in the 24 channel. This is reasonable to do when you have a 25 really deep inundation and the river channel 02455 1 becomes a small part of the whole cross-section. 2 That's not an unreasonable thing. 3 But, it is clear that that only 4 applies to a very, very high spring flood peak 5 situation. It does not apply to the lower one. 6 So, the model is limited to only that range of 7 flows; really high flows. 8 So, my concern was if the MIKE 11 9 model, as it now exists, was going to be used to 10 define artificial flooding up the valley in a 11 small flood, then the fact that this distance is 12 no longer representative, would create quite a 13 distortion in the results and perhaps give quite 14 misleading results. 15 The fourth issue is effects of the 16 project on flood levels. Here, the 768 17 Association was concerned on flood levels, but 18 they also were wondering about what is happening 19 with all these changes occurring simultaneously in 20 the floodplain. 21 There are changes that have already 22 occurred to the Floodway, to the west dyke. There 23 are developments that are occurring and roads that 24 may be changing their grade. There are dykes 25 being built, some small, some large, there are 02456 1 houses being built up on pads. 2 The question has a combined effect of 3 all these changes and flood levels been fully 4 evaluated, in combination with the proposed 5 Floodway expansion. 6 In my review, I found that the Telemac 7 model appears to have accounted for most, but not 8 all of the minor pads and dykes that have sprung 9 up along the rural roads in the Floodway forebay 10 area. 11 Some manual calculations I did suggest 12 that perhaps these changes to the pads and small 13 ring dykes may not have a significant effect on 14 the water levels. There seem to be fairly large 15 openings still between adjacent pads and dykes 16 that allow a lot of flow to go through and there 17 doesn't seem to be a lot of backing up of the 18 water or increase in velocity between them. 19 However, the surest way to really 20 answer the question would be to update the Telemac 21 model with all the changes, use a finer grid in 22 the area where there are clusters of pads and 23 dykes, and then test for the entire scope of the 24 Floodway expansion project on water levels with 25 the model, comparing pre-project to post-project. 02457 1 This is a map of that Floodway forebay 2 area again. The shaded areas indicate areas that 3 are blocked out from flow, either by fill or pads 4 for individual homes, these smaller points, or 5 large community dykes, with this being the 6 Turnbull Drive Dyke, 768 Association Dyke. 7 Another concern, although it may be 8 outside the scope of this hearing, was: What does 9 the future hold with regard to the addition of 10 more pads and dykes aligned with the existing 11 roads? Would these eventually create barriers to 12 flow, increasing velocities between them and 13 causing the water level to rise on the upstream 14 side of them? 15 That would be an issue for future 16 planners. 17 So, in conclusion of issue four, the 18 estimates of water level changes to the Floodway 19 entrance resulting from the proposed Floodway 20 expansion appear to be reasonable. However, the 21 accuracy of the water level estimates upstream of 22 the entrance is less reliable due to the 23 limitations of the MIKE 11 model. 24 Let me clarify that. The first point 25 really speaks to the modelling of the enlarged 02458 1 Floodway. The effect of the widened Floodway on 2 water levels, I think, has been fairly well 3 modelled so that the calculation of water level 4 right at the Floodway entrance seems reasonable. 5 But, upstream of that, as we spread up through the 6 valley, I would have much less confidence in the 7 results that have been estimated. 8 Issue five: Effects of the west dyke 9 on overland flooding. The concern was that the 10 west dyke may cause an increase in overland flood 11 levels. 12 I need to step back here and clarify 13 the different alignments of the west dyke. This 14 Telemac model grid, the coloured green grid that 15 you see, the edge of it, the north edge defines 16 the alignment of the west dyke as it existed at 17 the time of the 1997 flood. 18 That is no longer the case. There has 19 been a change. The dyke has been realigned from a 20 point here, westward to there. 21 The proposed project is recommending 22 an extension to that alignment along this red line 23 to there. So, what is in the Telemac model and 24 what is proposed for the future is quite 25 different. There is 18 and a half square miles of 02459 1 area that is blocked out from flooding, that would 2 have been flooded under the old alignment. This 3 proposed alignment, as I understand it, has not 4 been tested with any model. 5 The 18 square miles of surface area 6 may not cause a really large impact on water 7 levels, but it probably would have an effect on at 8 least local water levels in the area. But more 9 significantly, the full effect of the west dyke, 10 the fact of its extension, plus the proposed 11 raising, may have a significant impact, which I 12 believe is in contradiction with the statement in 13 the EIS that the west dyke will be raised to 14 increase the freeboard up to 1.7 metres, 5.8 feet, 15 this will have no effect of water levels or flow 16 patterns at the inlet. Well, that depends where 17 you stake your starting point. 18 If you accept that the west dyke 19 alignment, where it is now is the base case, and 20 you are simply raising it to increase the 21 freeboard, that statement may not be too far off. 22 But the fact that the west dyke has been extended 23 and raised, creating a barrier that wasn't there 24 before 1997, would block a lot of flow from 25 entering into the City of Winnipeg. And this 02460 1 water would be displaced and remain on the south 2 side of the west dyke. It would have a 3 significant effect on flood levels immediately 4 upstream of the west dyke and that effect would 5 continue down to the floodway entrance. 6 There were statements in 1997, the 7 post-flood analysis, that concluded that the west 8 dyke extension did not cause flooding at Ste. 9 Agathe. It did not have any impact at the 10 floodway entrance. And these statements could 11 well have been true, because in 1997, the water 12 level was very low along that area where the west 13 dyke was extended. At many places along the west 14 dyke, the water level never even reached the toe 15 of the dyke, and where it did reach the toe of the 16 dyke, the depth wasn't very great. So that 17 extension did not physically block a lot of flow, 18 and therefore the impact on the upstream side 19 would have been low. 20 There is a big difference between the 21 1997 and a 700 year flood. A 700 year flood is a 22 much greater depth of water, and it would be much 23 more effective in protecting Winnipeg. But on the 24 flip side, this large volume of water that would 25 be retained on the south side of the dyke has to 02461 1 go somewhere, it has to have an impact locally, 2 and it won't stay there, it will flow down towards 3 the floodway inlet, and it will have an effect all 4 the way down there. But this has not been tested 5 by any modeling that I could find. 6 And that concludes my presentation. 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Yaroslav. 8 MR. LOUDFOOT: I will get into the 9 conclusion, a summary and position statement of 10 the 768 Association. 11 If you could hang on a second, bear 12 with me. I have gone back to the beginning of our 13 presentation. 14 The 768 Association has obviously 15 reviewed Mr. Shumuk's information, and we have 16 reviewed to an extent some of the documentation 17 that was available to us, and we have developed 18 several minor positions and an overall position on 19 the construction of the overall floodway 20 expansion. 21 If you just give me a minute to go 22 through this, I will be right with you. 23 We believe that prediction of water 24 levels and velocities, as well as determination of 25 natural water levels throughout the floodplain, on 02462 1 an ongoing basis, require that complete 2 topographic data is used throughout the 3 floodplain, and accurate data, as our consultant 4 has been discussing. And we also believe that the 5 best available computer model should be used to 6 analyse this data, so that proper predictions are 7 given to people throughout the valley leading up 8 to a flood, as to what the levels are going to be 9 and also to determine compensation in the case of 10 artificial flooding. 11 We also believe that in the future, if 12 a backup gate system is proposed by the Floodway 13 Authority or the provincial government, that a 14 detailed review should be held prior to approval 15 of a backup gate system, a process similar to the 16 one we are taking part in now. 17 We also believe, on Mr. Shumuk's 18 recommendation, that natural water -- or the 19 natural rating table should be interpreted in such 20 a way as to provide compensation for artificial 21 flooding to residents or property owners upstream 22 of a floodway when the water level is within the 23 range of uncertainty. I hope I was clear on that. 24 The 768 Association has developed an 25 overall position statement on the expansion of the 02463 1 Red River Floodway. This position statement is 2 based on the effects of the expansion on the 3 forebay area only as we understand it. It is not 4 based on the effects of the expanded floodway, on 5 any other areas in the area of Winnipeg. 6 We are not able to speak to concerns 7 of other groups and individuals such as concerns 8 with groundwater, ice jams downstream of Winnipeg, 9 or the effects of other flood protection works, or 10 any other concerns that have been brought forward 11 by anybody else. 12 Our position is that from our 13 standpoint as residents in the forebay area, the 14 768 Association supports the physical construction 15 of the expanded Red River Floodway. 16 We believe that, if operated and 17 managed properly, there is an opportunity for the 18 expanded floodway to improve flood protection of 19 properties both within the floodway dykes and in 20 the floodway forebay area. As stated throughout 21 this presentation, however, we do have concerns 22 that we feel needed to be addressed. 23 That, Mr. Chairman, concludes our 24 presentation. Thank you very much for the 25 opportunity to make the presentation. 02464 1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 2 Questions from the proponent? 3 MR. McNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 4 Doug McNeil speaking. I would like to thank 5 Mr. Shumuk for his presentation. I thought it was 6 very good. I think a lot of the points that were 7 made in his reports and made in the presentation 8 probably wouldn't have been necessary if they 9 understood the baseline for this project. 10 So just for reiteration, or rather to 11 raise the question, are you aware that the effects 12 that we are assessing for this project -- or 13 rather that the baseline is the existing 14 situation, plus any other foreseeable changes to 15 the existing situation if this project wasn't to 16 occur? Are you aware of that situation, 17 Mr. Loudfoot or Mr. Shumuk? 18 MR. SHUMUK: Early in my review, we 19 had discussions about what specifically is the 20 existing situation? What date? Is that today? 21 Is it a year ago? Is it when you started the 22 designs? Is it back in 1997? There was no 23 clarity as to what date existing, representing. 24 So we felt we had to make an assumption. And in 25 consultation with my client, the assumption of 02465 1 taking the existing situation as being just prior 2 to the 1997 flood was reached internally. We have 3 been quite frank about that. And that's the basis 4 that my review was done. 5 MR. McNEIL: Yeah, I am sorry that you 6 didn't phone us and ask us, our consulting team 7 and our EIS team in terms of what constituted the 8 baseline for this project. 9 Having said that, though, would you 10 agree that some of your concerns are -- I won't 11 say no longer -- I don't want to put words in your 12 mouth -- but no longer valid in consideration that 13 the baseline would include the west dyke in a 14 temporary fashion for any future floods, without 15 the expansion of the floodway, along the alignment 16 similar to what is proposed for the permanent 17 works as part of the expansion project? 18 I guess what I am saying is, in 1997 19 the west dyke was raised and extended in 20 anticipation of what they believed at the time to 21 be the threat of wind and wave action and water 22 going over land. And they didn't, "they," the 23 operators, did not have the sophisticated computer 24 modeling they have now, and so they reacted to 25 that flood event and prevented any water from 02466 1 breaching the southwest flank of Winnipeg and 2 getting into Winnipeg. 3 Without the project the west dyke 4 would in fact be raised again, especially for an 5 event bigger than 1997, to protect the city. 6 Because of the project and because of the design, 7 then we are likely to raise it in the location 8 that we know eventually we will be doing so 9 permanently. 10 So, in consideration of that, does 11 that remove some of your concerns about the 12 modeling that has been done? 13 MR. SHUMUK: My conclusions would have 14 been different had the existing situation, 15 existing baseline been defined in that way to me. 16 Perhaps my client would like to add to that. 17 MR. LOUDFOOT: We felt, in discussion 18 with our consultant, that it was reasonable for 19 the baseline to be everything prior to 1997, as we 20 were aware that sort of the existing floodway was 21 the baseline. We were just trying to figure out 22 what the existing floodway is. We felt that since 23 the raising of the west dyke, prior to 1997 flood, 24 and work that has been done on it since the 1997 25 flood, and the gaps that have been excavated in 02467 1 the east embankment along the floodway channel, we 2 felt it was reasonable to include them in this 3 review process, or we felt it would be reasonable 4 to include them in the review process, as they had 5 not been reviewed by any other sort of 6 environmental review process in the past that we 7 were aware of. 8 If we are wrong on that assumption, I 9 apologize, but that is the best information we 10 had. 11 MR. McNEIL: Okay. 12 MR. DUERKSEN: If I go back to one of 13 Mr. Shumuk's slides on issue 5, he makes the 14 statement, 15 "Therefore the following statements on 16 page 5-11 of the EIS, the west dyke 17 will be raised to increase the 18 freeboard up to 1.7 metres. This will 19 have no effect on water levels or flow 20 patterns at the inlet." 21 And Mr. Shumuk makes the statement, 22 "This is not substantiated by data or 23 model results that has been made 24 available." 25 Do you have data or models that shows 02468 1 us what the impact is of the raising the west 2 dyke? That's one concern that we talk about under 3 this issue. 4 MR. McNEIL: Mr. Chair, I thought I 5 was asking the questions at this point. If you 6 wish -- can you repeat the question? 7 MR. DUERKSEN: You asked whether, in 8 light of defining the date of what we consider to 9 be existing, whether that has any impact on 10 relieving our concerns. I am saying one of our 11 concerns was that proper modeling wasn't done, 12 doesn't seem to have been done on the raising of 13 the west dyke. 14 MR. McNEIL: Okay, well then I would 15 like to point you to -- 16 MR. DUERKSEN: My statement is, we 17 still have that concern unless you have something 18 additional to add that we are not aware of? 19 MR. McNEIL: Mr. Duerksen, was all of 20 the appendices and technical documents available 21 to you as a registered participant to this 22 process? 23 MR. DUERKSEN: I would assume so. 24 MR. McNEIL: Are you aware that 25 appendix M is predesign of the west dyke -- sorry, 02469 1 appendix F -- and there was modeling done with 2 respect to wind and wave uprush on the proposed 3 alignment and extension of the west dyke in that 4 appendices. Are you aware of that? 5 MR. DUERKSEN: Am I aware personally? 6 MR. McNEIL: Or the 768 Association. 7 MR. SHUMUK: I am aware there was some 8 modeling done on waves and uprush. I am not aware 9 that there was modeling done that compared to 10 existing, or wherever existing is, it is still not 11 clear to me what date that refers to. But there 12 was -- in the EIS or in the project definition and 13 engineering assessment reports, I couldn't find 14 two model runs, one pre-project, one post-project, 15 and a clear comparison of what those impacts were. 16 There was some modeling of the final, 17 the post-project case, but in terms of impacts we 18 need to look at, well, what would have happened if 19 that extension and raising wasn't there? 20 We are left to infer, because there 21 was no -- everywhere I looked, and maybe you can 22 point me if I missed it somewhere, everywhere I 23 looked I couldn't find model results for what 24 defined the existing status hydraulically for 25 water levels and velocities in the forebay area. 02470 1 MR. McNEIL: That's a fair comment, 2 and you could have clarified with us and our team. 3 The other thing is, are you aware that 4 in appendix L -- this is further to Mr. Duerksen's 5 question -- I believe it is appendix L, water 6 regime by Acres, which also was supported by 7 Manitoba Water Stewardship running the MIKE 11 8 model to determine the profile of the water 9 surface of the peak of various floods, that that 10 also in fact took into account the proposed west 11 dyke, and as well the new natural rating curve. 12 So I guess what I wanted to mention, 13 and ask if you're aware that we were using 14 up-to-date information through the pre-design 15 process for this project, and based on our 16 definition of the baseline in the EIS and in the 17 documentation that has been put forward by the 18 project administration team through the 19 cooperative environmental assessment process, that 20 it wasn't necessary to model the west dyke and its 21 existing situation because it would be foreseen 22 that without the project the west dyke would be 23 raised to protect against the 700 year event, or 24 something bigger than 1997. 25 Anyway, back into some details, with 02471 1 respect to Avonlea Corner, the one question I had 2 for you, Mr. Shumuk, is you suggested using a 3 finer grid with the Telemac 2D model in areas like 4 Avonlea Corner. So I am just wondering if it 5 would result in, do you think in higher 6 velocities, or refine the area of the velocities 7 shown over and above the coarse grid? 8 MR. SHUMUK: Both. The finer grid 9 would allow a more detailed depiction of the 10 extent of the area that would be flowing at as 11 excessive velocity. But it would probably, I 12 suspect, actually come up with a higher numerical 13 maximum velocity simply because it is working on a 14 finer mesh and it can pick up that maximum. 15 And it is in concurrence with one of 16 the answers that MFA provided to one of my 17 information requests. There was an indication 18 that there was some reservation on part of whoever 19 wrote the answer to the information request about 20 the spacing of the calculation points. I think 21 they mentioned an 800 metre spacing, and implied 22 in their answer that that should be tightened up. 23 I am simply concurring with that. 24 MR. McNEIL: Okay, thank you. 25 Are you aware that our designers 02472 1 recognize that in appendix F, that in fact it is 2 proposed as part of this project that we armour 3 the side slopes in and around that corner because 4 of those higher velocities already identified? 5 MR. SHUMUK: I gathered that, yes, 6 from the answer to that information request that 7 there was already probably an intention to improve 8 the armouring. What I wanted to do is suggest 9 that there may be other areas that haven't been 10 identified that may be prone to erosion, that a 11 finer grid model may pick up, that may have been 12 missed in the modeling to date. The only place 13 that has been identified is Avonlea Corner. 14 MR. McNEIL: Okay, thank you for that. 15 With respect to artificial flooding, 16 and non-spring, or summer operation as we call it, 17 were you aware that Manitoba Water Stewardship 18 agrees with you in this perspective that the MIKE 19 11 isn't appropriate for determining artificial 20 flooding? And were you also aware that because of 21 that it wasn't used in the summer of 2004 to 22 determine the artificial flooding? 23 MR. SHUMUK: No, I wasn't aware of 24 that, because it was again an answer to an 25 information request, a very recent information 02473 1 request for this hearing, that it was stated that 2 MIKE 11 would be used to simulate water levels and 3 map the artificial, or the flood levels up the 4 valley. 5 MR. McNEIL: I believe that the intent 6 of the response to that question was with respect 7 to spring flooding. 8 Anyway, just for your information, and 9 I am not going to pose this as a question. In 10 terms of determining artificial flooding for the 11 non-spring/summer situation in 2004, Manitoba 12 Water Stewardship hired a helicopter and they 13 videotaped the natural peak level just before the 14 operation, and then during the peak of the flood 15 with the operation of the gates, they videotaped 16 again to determine the limits of both the natural 17 flooding and the artificial flooding. 18 I think that is it, Mr. Chair. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 20 MR. McNEIL: Sorry, one more thing. 21 You indicated you didn't get all the data that you 22 had requested. Would you acknowledge that we have 23 been very cooperative in getting you the data as 24 quickly as we could from our other consultants, 25 including the CHC? 02474 1 MR. SHUMUK: I was quite impressed how 2 quickly data was delivered to my first 3 information -- well, the information request that 4 I made. That which was delivered was delivered 5 very promptly, and I thank you for that, that was 6 very good. I found your people to be very 7 cooperative. But the information I asked for, CHC 8 model results, Telemac 2D model results in the 9 forebay area, there was an indication that this 10 would be forthcoming two or three times, but it 11 never did arrive. 12 MR. McNEIL: Yes. Were you aware that 13 that required some more work on behalf of the 14 Canadian Hydraulic Centre to meet your request? 15 MR. SHUMUK: That was the substance in 16 one of the Emails. 17 MR. McNEIL: Anyway, I am happy to 18 announce that we just received it today, so you 19 can take this information home with you. 20 MR. SHUMUK: It doesn't benefit this 21 hearing, though, does it? 22 MR. McNEIL: No, but I like to 23 complete requests when we can. Better late than 24 never, right? 25 MR. CHAIRMAN: You won't go home empty 02475 1 handed to Victoria. 2 Mr. Shumuk, I have one question, or I 3 actually have a couple questions, one for you. It 4 is on this modeling matter, and about a week and a 5 half ago, Mr. Rick Bowering was in attendance here 6 and was answering questions on behalf of the 7 province. Do you know who Mr. Bowering is? 8 MR. SHUMUK: Yes, I do. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked him a question 10 about MIKE 11 and 2D Telemac, and asked him how he 11 would compare them. He made some comments, and I 12 don't know if you have had a chance to review the 13 transcript. Let me bring it over. It is only a 14 couple of paragraphs, and maybe you could have a 15 quick look at it, and then perhaps provide some 16 comment from your perspective on the two different 17 models? 18 MR. SHUMUK: Okay. In general, I 19 concur -- did you want me to read this out? 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. 21 MR. SHUMUK: The question, this is a 22 transcript from February 16th from this hearing. 23 The chairman asked, 24 "Is the MIKE 11 model the best model? 25 I am told there is another model, a 2D 02476 1 Telemac model, how would they 2 compare?" 3 Mr. Bowering's answer, 4 "You know, until about ten years ago 5 only university researchers used 2D 6 models and not many people used one 7 dimensional models. Up until 10 years 8 ago the standard method was using U.S. 9 corp of engineers HEC 2 models. So 10 the MIKE 11 model was quite an advance 11 from that. Now what the MIKE 11 model 12 does is, if you tell it where the 13 water is going to go, it will compute 14 very accurately what the water surface 15 profiles will be. The advantages of 16 the two dimensional model is you don't 17 have to tell it where it is going to 18 go, you just have to give it a valley 19 and it will figure out for itself 20 where it is going to go. So a two 21 dimensional model is better than a one 22 dimensional model. They are quite a 23 bit more difficult to use, take a lot 24 more computation time, and we are 25 already in a situation with the 02477 1 complexity of the model, by the way, 2 we are in the process of extending 3 this model all the down to the south 4 end of the Red River down in South 5 Dakota. So it is a very large complex 6 model, and to do a two dimensional 7 model of that size probably in ten 8 years will be operationally feasible. 9 At this point it is probably not. So 10 the way that we have used two 11 dimensional models is to fine tune 12 specific questions in areas like the 13 floodway inlet where complicated 14 things happen and the model helps us 15 to zero in on exactly what is 16 happening there. But for operational 17 purposes, we believe the MIKE 11 model 18 is really the best model for the job." 19 I agree with everything up until the 20 very end. Yes, two dimensional models are very 21 difficult, large, complex tools. But the CHC did 22 model from Emerson at the border right down into 23 Winnipeg with the Telemac models that -- results 24 that are presented in their studies in preparation 25 for this expansion. So, there is proof it is 02478 1 doable. 2 Now, in an operational way, perhaps 3 for some operations that have to be repeated on a 4 very frequent basis, I could see that maybe at 5 this time two dimensional models are not feasible. 6 However, for completing requirements for an 7 environmental assessment for a project like this, 8 I don't think it is unfeasible to run Telemac 2D 9 again to try and answer some of these questions 10 more fully that I feel are still open. 11 And MIKE 11 can be used, but it has to 12 be used carefully. The users have to know its 13 limitations and be very careful that they don't 14 extend interpretations or results from the models 15 into areas where the results are no longer valid. 16 So I largely agree with them, but I think for the 17 purpose of more analysis for the environmental 18 assessment -- this is going to be a one time 19 thing, this is not operations -- I don't see that 20 the Telemac couldn't be used more to answer some 21 of these questions. 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Thank you for 23 that. 24 MR. LOUDFOOT: I have an additional 25 comment. I guess running these two dimensional 02479 1 models requires substantial effort and resources 2 and time. I would have -- maybe we ought to back 3 up on one of our recommendations or positions. 4 Possibly during the operation of the floodway, you 5 know, the water is coming up, you have to make 6 predictions of what will happen in an awful hurry. 7 The Floodway Authority and the Manitoba Department 8 of Conservation should probably use the most 9 appropriate model at the time. I still think they 10 should also use the most complete topographic data 11 available. But when it comes to sort of a 12 post-flood situation, when they are trying to 13 determine if artificial flooding did take place, 14 and if it did, who would receive compensation, I 15 believe that, you know, now time is available, and 16 at that point the best available computer model 17 should be used. 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 19 MR. McNEIL: Mr. Chair, just a 20 re-examination question after this last little -- 21 please? 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. 23 MR. McNEIL: Mr. Shumuk, there are 24 other two dimensional models, and the manufactures 25 or fabricators or suppliers of MIKE 11 also have a 02480 1 two dimensional model. Would you think that that 2 is appropriate or comparable to the Telemac 2D? 3 MR. SHUMUK: I am probably somewhat 4 limited in my knowledge to give a very definitive 5 answer. My exposure to MIKE 11 1, that's their 6 two dimensional model, is sort of peripheral. It 7 is another two dimensional model, and it certainly 8 answers a lot of concerns that I presented in the 9 1D versus 2D issue. 10 Specifically, whether it would be 11 better than Telemac or not, I really can't say. I 12 know that other authorities such as BC Hydro, who 13 have very carefully reviewed a number of models 14 for their purposes, they chose Telemac, despite 15 its greater expense, because of some features it 16 had. I think Telemac is a two dimensional finite 17 element model. It handles wetting and drying of 18 floodplain surfaces, or of surfaces that are going 19 to receive flow in a better way -- those are 20 comments I have heard -- than MIKE 21. But these 21 things don't stand still. The developers of the 22 software keep enhancing their tools. So a comment 23 that was made, you know, it was two or three years 24 ago I heard that comment, that may already be out 25 of date. So really it takes another effort, when 02481 1 you are about to embark on a 2D model, to do a 2 proper evaluation and make a choice at the time. 3 MR. McNEIL: Would you also agree that 4 after all the development and whatnot of one 5 particular model, like the MIKE 11, and especially 6 all the calibration that Manitoba Water 7 Stewardship has been incorporating into the model, 8 that it would overcome some of the deficiencies 9 that you have spoken about? 10 MR. SHUMUK: Yeah, calibration is sort 11 of the saving grace of modeling. You can take a 12 mathematical representation and, you know, in 13 detail it may be doing things wrong, it may be 14 overestimating in one part but underestimating 15 elsewhere to compensate, and you come up with the 16 right answer. Generally, it holds in modeling 17 that if you calibrate well to real events, and if 18 the event you are simulating is between calibrated 19 events, so your model is calibrated to something 20 lower and something higher, and you are within the 21 range of those calibrated events, you are pretty 22 safe, even if the model is not perfectly handling 23 all the elements within the situation. Where it 24 is more dangerous is where you are extrapolating 25 to levels that are much higher or lower than what 02482 1 the model is calibrated for. There you can be 2 quite seriously in error. 3 The one issue I raised about the way 4 MIKE 11 has been structured in that example from 5 the marsh river to the entrance to the floodway, 6 that is a serious limitation that really says this 7 model is only for high floods, it cannot work for 8 low floods, it cannot work for the situation where 9 the water is all in the channel, because the 10 distance is so far off that whatever roughness you 11 put in for that reach, it cannot represent it 12 fairly. And if I recall in -- the MIKE 11 13 modeling that was presented after the 1997 flood, 14 it matched fairly well at the peak, but on both 15 the rising and falling limbs at the lower flows, 16 it was quite seriously off, much more than the 17 plus or minus six inches that the government was 18 looking for. 19 MR. McNEIL: I heard two different 20 things from you. You said earlier, a few minutes 21 ago, that it would be difficult to project to 22 higher floods. Yet the MIKE 11 is for the higher 23 flows, right. So if you are calibrated at 1997, 24 especially with an experienced modeler such as 25 Mr. Bowering or Mr. Casiro, or the other people in 02483 1 their shop, that someone should feel fairly 2 confident about their projection of a profile of a 3 higher flood, based on their experience, and the 4 number of years they have been using the model, 5 and the calibration and everything that went into 6 it? 7 MR. SHUMUK: When I mentioned 8 calibration, when I said a high flood, I meant, 9 for instance, if you calibrate to the 1997, we had 10 1997, we had lots of measurements and we can 11 calibrate the model to that level. So at that 12 peak, or for flows within close to that range of 13 the peak, I think the model can be trusted. The 14 700 year flood is a lot larger than the 1997. I 15 would not have confidence, even if I calibrated it 16 myself, with my experience, necessarily believe 17 what it is giving me for a flood that is that much 18 larger, without some more confidence in the way 19 that it is behaving. 20 MR. McNEIL: I guess what I was going 21 to get at next is that the Telemac model was also 22 used to forecast water levels for a 700 year 23 flood. Also in Mr. Bowering's testimony he says 24 that -- I am just trying to find the location. 25 Maybe you could comment what 02484 1 Mr. Bowering said, again on February 16th in the 2 transcript, page 309, starting line 2, and I 3 quote, 4 "You know, the other interesting thing 5 we found, whenever we run the 2D 6 model, we find that the MIKE 11 model 7 is very close to what the 2D model is 8 giving us. We really haven't run into 9 a situation where the 2D model gives 10 us any surprises. At this point we 11 are very confident with the results we 12 were getting from the MIKE 11 model. 13 It could be, you know, technology 14 changes so rapidly, it could be in 10 15 or 15 years another technology would 16 be better." 17 MR. SHUMUK: I could believe that if 18 that's at high levels, like with large inundations 19 over the floodplain. I would be surprised if 20 Telemac and MIKE 11 could agree at much lower flow 21 levels where -- 22 MR. McNEIL: Like a summer flood? 23 MR. SHUMUK: Like a summer flood. 24 MR. McNEIL: Okay, thank you. 25 I guess the other thing, were you 02485 1 aware that when we contacted CHC about the Telemac 2 2D model, and repeated some of the concerns that 3 you had, in other words, refining their model, 4 that as the modeler, the experienced modeler, the 5 reply back to the Floodway Authority was that they 6 really didn't feel that would change the results 7 very much? You are an experienced modeler, and I 8 don't know what models exactly, but you can make 9 those kind of statements, can you not, as a 10 modeler? 11 MR. SHUMUK: I can. 12 MR. McNEIL: Knowing your model and 13 knowing how you calibrated and whatnot? 14 MR. SHUMUK: You can. If you use a 15 model enough, you start to get a sense where it is 16 going to go. But I have often been surprised by 17 models. I have counterintuitive results coming 18 from models, which on reflection and further 19 investigation has changed my thinking that in some 20 cases the model is right and my preconceived 21 notions are wrong. I think the modeler always has 22 to take a back seat to the results, and analyze, 23 when you get surprising results from the modeler, 24 analyze what is causing that before deciding 25 whether the model is wrong or whether the 02486 1 modeler's expectations is wrong. 2 MR. McNEIL: Okay, that is fair. 3 Thank you very much. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just take 5 us away from modeling a moment or two, and 6 Mr. Webster may take you back there when he comes 7 to ask questions. I just have a question for 8 either Mr. Loudfoot or Mr. Duerksen. I am 9 wondering whether the two summer emergency 10 operations, 2002, 2004, did the water come up 11 against your dyke? 12 MR. LOUDFOOT: If I remember 13 correctly, it may have been just high enough to 14 touch the toe at the lowest point. Our concern 15 during summer operation isn't so much flooding of 16 our land -- 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: No. 18 MR. LOUDFOOT: -- but riverbank 19 stability. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. 21 MR. DUERKSEN: I don't know if you're 22 aware, but during the construction in 1979 of our 23 dyke, on one corner there was a slip plain that 24 was found. So there was a piece of our dyke is 25 missing, it is purposely kept low. 02487 1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Explain slip plain? 2 MR. DUERKSEN: There is a weakness in 3 the soil and there was movement found, so the 4 extra loading of the extra soil wasn't put on top 5 of that in the event it might slide in. So, when 6 soil gets saturated, it loses some of its sheer 7 value. So the strength of the soil under wet 8 conditions, my limited knowledge of geotechnical 9 engineering says that it is weaker soil. 10 So when we have a situation in the 11 summer where the floodplain gets flooded, the soil 12 is saturated, we could have the slip plain being 13 affected adversely. That's one concern that we 14 had. That's why we asked for funding to 15 specifically investigate that and hire a 16 geotechnical consultant to give us a 17 recommendation on that. But we could not get the 18 funding for that. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: We appreciate that. We 20 didn't have enough money to give you to fund you 21 for that point. Thank you for your answer. 22 Barrie? 23 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. I have two 24 questions. First of all, you made mention of a 25 backup gate for the inlet structure, and yet I 02488 1 didn't hear very much about that. Could you 2 enlarge on that, please? 3 MR. SHUMUK: You didn't hear much 4 about that because there is nothing that I had to 5 work with. I understand the decision on a backup 6 gate system has been referred to a panel of 7 experts, and they haven't reported back. So 8 whether or not there is going to be a backup gate 9 system, if there is, what that design would be, 10 that information is not available. I had nothing 11 to work with, so I basically had to pass on that 12 issue. 13 MR. LOUDFOOT: I believe at the time 14 that we did make our application for participant 15 assistance, it was our understanding that the 16 backup gate system was going to be part of the 17 proposed floodway expansion and it is our 18 understanding that has since -- for the meantime, 19 has changed. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Could you tell us 21 exactly what the backup gate means? 22 MR. LOUDFOOT: No. 23 MR. DUERKSEN: That would probably be 24 a better question to ask of the MFA. In the 25 original draft project description there was 02489 1 mention of some kind of a backup gate system in 2 case of some kind of failure, some kind of a fail 3 safe system. 4 MR. WEBSTER: I would take it that 5 this is a second structure, but I presume we have 6 to ask the MFA when they are back on the stand? 7 MR. McNEIL: Yes, Mr. Chair, in the 8 predesign it was contemplated that a backup gate 9 system, which would be another set of gates to 10 back up the existing gates, might be proposed for 11 part of this project. 12 The consultant who did the Canadian 13 dam safety analysis on the structure recommended 14 that backup systems within the existing control 15 structure, rather it be installed as part of this 16 project, and that's the position that the MFA has 17 taken. 18 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 19 The other question relates to what the 20 chairman was saying a few minutes ago. We have 21 heard quite a bit of opinion yesterday about the 22 design height of the expanded floodway, and the 23 design height of the original floodway gate being 24 at 778 feet. 25 The 768 Association has a name that 02490 1 leads us to believe that the dyke is somewhat 2 lower than that, although I suspect that you have 3 raised it from the original 768 feet height. 4 My question is, are you concerned, as 5 people were yesterday, about the proposed, that 6 the height of the expanded floodway works with a 7 water level of 778 feet? 8 MR. LOUDFOOT: Going back to when the 9 floodway rules were being debated and there was a 10 draft report that was out, I tried to look at 11 these numbers and -- I was thinking, we are 12 originally protected to 768, now we are protected 13 permanently roughly to 771. And I tried to think, 14 okay, if we have to protect ourselves to an event 15 of 778, how would we do it? 16 And to be perfectly honest with you, I 17 don't know how we would. I think we would 18 essentially be toast if a flood of that magnitude 19 was experienced in the forebay area. 20 MR. WEBSTER: I guess my question 21 should be then, are you concerned that as part of 22 the floodway expansion the raising of your 23 perimeter dyke is not, to the design level, is not 24 part of the plans? 25 MR. LOUDFOOT: Yes, we are concerned, 02491 1 but we also really don't know what we can do about 2 it. To answer your question, we are concerned 3 about the possibility of a flood of that 4 magnitude. 5 MR. WEBSTER: Does the operation of 6 the floodway gates cause you the same concerns 7 that we heard yesterday from people who are 8 somewhat further upstream? 9 MR. LOUDFOOT: I am sorry, we were not 10 in attendance yesterday, but I imagine our 11 concerns about the operation of the gates is 12 somewhat similar to our neighbours to the south. 13 We, as part of our presentation, 14 because we did not have the ability through the 15 participant assistance program to have somebody 16 qualified look at the operation, we chose only to 17 express our concerns that the operation of the -- 18 the operating rules for the floodway are not being 19 specifically reviewed by this process. I hope 20 that answers your question. 21 MR. WEBSTER: Partially. Thank you. 22 MR. LOUDFOOT: Okay. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any members 24 of registered participant groups who have 25 questions for 768 Association? 02492 1 Seeing none, are there any final 2 questions from the Floodway Authority? 3 MR. McNEIL: I think this question is 4 for Mr. Loudfoot, because I can't remember. The 5 flood proofing program in the valley, if you say 6 the top of your dyke is at 771, and the flood 7 protection level now is '97 plus 2, so that would 8 be 773 and a half, why didn't your community take 9 advantage of the flood proofing program? 10 MR. LOUDFOOT: At the time, I guess 11 under the management of the City of Winnipeg, our 12 dyke was reshaped to -- using the soil that had 13 been put on there to quickly upgrade the dyke in 14 1997. Additional soil was brought in. It is now 15 reshaped and hopefully permanently stable at the 16 elevation it is at now. 17 To be perfectly honest, we felt 18 that -- not that this is adequate for all floods, 19 but it is best situation that we have now, and 20 that if we chose to raise it further there would 21 be problems with the flood protection works using 22 up people's entire property. I guess what it 23 boils down to is there is no room. That's all I 24 have to say. 25 MR. McNEIL: Thank you. 02493 1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do you have 2 any final comments you wish to make? 3 MR. LOUDFOOT: Not right now. 4 Gentlemen? 5 MR. SHUMUK: No. 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for 7 your participation and your presentation here 8 today. 9 MR. LOUDFOOT: Thank you for the 10 opportunity to participate. 11 MR. DUERKSEN: Thank you. 12 MR. SHUMUK: Thank you. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: We might as well take 14 our afternoon break now, 15 minutes. Please be 15 back for 5 after 3:00 p.m. 16 17 (Proceedings adjourned at 2:50 p.m. 18 and reconvened at 3:05 p.m.) 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Could we come 21 back to order, please. We will now have a 22 presentation on behalf of the City of Winnipeg. 23 Could I ask you to introduce yourselves for the 24 record, please, and I'll have the Commission 25 Secretary swear you in. 02494 1 MR. MacBRIDE: Thank you very much. 2 My name is Barry MacBride. I am the Director of 3 the Water and Waste Department for the City of 4 Winnipeg and I have with me Mike Skholny and Mike 5 is the Manager of Engineering in the Water and 6 Waste Department and Grant Mohr. And Grant is the 7 senior land drainage planning engineer in our 8 department. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 10 MR. MacBRIDE: Thank you. And good 11 afternoon, members of the Commission, ladies and 12 gentlemen, participants and of course members of 13 the Floodway Authority. We are very happy to 14 appear today in support of the Floodway Expansion 15 Project and we'll just sort of go through this. 16 By way of presentation outline, we are 17 going to first of all talk about the support for 18 the floodway project and then we are going to talk 19 about two other issues that we know you have 20 talked about previously as well, those being the 21 primary dykes and other flood protection works in 22 Winnipeg. 23 So certainly, the City of Winnipeg 24 overwhelmingly supports the Floodway Expansion 25 Project. We have been sort of watching this 02495 1 process since 1997 evolve and are very glad to see 2 it coming to the point where we actually might get 3 this floodway expansion constructed. We know it's 4 been a lot of work. We certainly appreciate the 5 work of the Floodway Authority and the many 6 engineering consultants and the environmental 7 impact consultants as well. 8 Just for the information of folks, 9 during the public consultation phase, the Manitoba 10 Floodway Authority did come and meet with members 11 of city council I think on two occasions and they 12 offered four occasions and did have a discussion 13 about the project and the things that have to be 14 done. 15 So why would the city -- this probably 16 goes without too much discussion, why would the 17 city support the project? Well, the big reason is 18 that the current level of flood protection is a 19 one in a 100 year event. And over the next 50 20 years, and you've heard this from the Manitoba 21 Floodway Authority, there is a 39 per cent chance 22 that the design flood will be exceeded in the 100 23 year flood right now and the city will be 24 inundated, and I mean inundated. And their 25 consultants have done some various ideas. 02496 1 It's always bothered me that we only 2 talk 50 years because really we should be talking 3 a longer period of time. So over the next 100 4 years, there is a 63 per cent probability that the 5 city will be inundated if we don't proceed with 6 this project. And I am going to show you where 7 those numbers come from because I think it's 8 important that you know. 9 The conclusion is with a 63 per cent 10 probability of failure that the current level of 11 flood protection is inadequate. So we have 12 supported the IJC recommendation to build flood 13 protection to the largest flood on record or to a 14 level that can be economically justified. And we 15 think that's where you're proceeding, where it's 16 going and we say let's get it done. 17 I'm sorry to show you this graph but I 18 sort of think I need to because if you've seen it 19 before, I sort of apologized. But if you haven't, 20 it's probably worth seeing. And it's a graph that 21 talks about the probability of failure of a 22 structure on this ordinate versus the life of a 23 structure. And it is really just the monomial 24 theorem, flipping a coin, for example, and these 25 are for different return periods. For a return 02497 1 period of two years obviously and you have a one 2 year life of a structure, there's going to be a 50 3 per cent chance that that structure is not going 4 to make it through a year. It's like flipping a 5 coin heads or tails. If it was two years, that 6 structure might fail 75 per cent of the time and 7 onward. So if you are flipping a coin, the 8 chances of you avoiding the head as you go up, 9 that curve gets less and less and less. 10 So there's many curves out here but 11 the next one I'll talk about is for T equals 100, 12 which is the green curve, and that's a 100 year 13 event. And that's sort of the protection we have 14 now. It's sort of about a 100 year event. And 15 you can see that as people will tell you, there's 16 a one per cent chance of getting that in any given 17 year. But as you look over time, those chances go 18 up and it turns out that it's 63 per cent over the 19 100 years using that simple formula. It's really 20 one minus 99 over a 100 raised to the power 100 21 would get you .63. You can see that this 63 line 22 pretty well is true for any return period. So if 23 you have a 100 year return period, there's a 63 24 per cent chance that it won't last 100 years. And 25 if you had a 50 year return period, well, it's a 02498 1 63 per cent chance that it would fail in 50 years, 2 et cetera. 3 And the whole point of showing you 4 this is that when I first was taught about this 5 graph in engineering school probably 35 years ago, 6 was that if you want something to have a very low 7 risk of failure, you have to design for a long 8 return period. So that designing for a T equals 9 10,000, which obviously wouldn't work for us here 10 at the floodway on this example, but that's how 11 you get down to low probability of failure. And 12 that will come up again. 13 So the components required for a one 14 in 700 year flood, certainly the components that 15 are sort of prominent, bridge replacements, 16 channel widening, inlet control structure, safety 17 improvements, west dyke raising and lengthening, 18 outlet structure and utility crossings 19 relocations, you are very familiar with. 20 MR. ABRA: Sir, slow down, please. 21 The court reporter has to keep up with you. 22 MR. MacBRIDE: Thank you. I'm sorry, 23 I will do that. 24 The other components, and they are 25 mentioned in the EIS and certainly mentioned in 02499 1 the supplementary filings in much more detail, are 2 other components. And I say here to complete the 3 project but there are things that have to be done 4 to protect to a 700 year event, and permanent 5 raises to the primary dykes in Winnipeg. And that 6 is estimated to cost 149 million. And additional 7 flood-proofing measures within Winnipeg 8 $107 million. And those numbers have been around 9 for some time and the Floodway Authority is well 10 aware of them and has indicated that discussions 11 will be ongoing in order to address these things. 12 But I thought the Commission should be aware of 13 them. 14 The SAFE study. And by SAFE, we mean 15 Ste. Agathe Floodway Expansion study estimate of 16 $658 million actually included $110 million for 17 these projects. Most primary dykes raises were 18 not contemplated at the time. And we'll talk 19 about that. But the recent filings estimate of 20 $665 million did not include these components. 21 So the first issue is the primary 22 dykes. I think you might be familiar with them by 23 now. There is 117 kilometres that generally 24 follow streets in Winnipeg. There is of course 25 houses on the river side of the primary dykes. 02500 1 But the primary dykes, the line in the sand that 2 the people that design this system design the 3 protection for Winnipeg. So we may protect the 4 houses, do the best of our ability to protect the 5 houses on the river side of the primary dykes but 6 the real line in the sand that we are expected to 7 do is to make sure those primary dykes do their 8 job. 9 This is a little diagram that I have. 10 It's very much a simplification and I'll tell you 11 why it's a simplification in a minute. But a 12 profile of the Red River in Winnipeg and the 13 primary dyke level, 26.5 feet James, and I'm sure 14 you know what that means, obviously on a profile 15 through Winnipeg. And that was when they were 16 built right after the 1950 flood, they were built 17 to 26.5. 18 You all are aware of course that in 19 1997, at James Avenue, the river reached 24.5. 20 And that became, for various reasons, where there 21 is 2 feet of free board left, that became sort of 22 the limit and I know you've heard evidence about 23 artificial flooding upstream in order to sort of 24 maintain that level. And the thing that the 700 25 year design level, water level at James is 26.5. 02501 1 So clearly, we have some work to do here in terms 2 of the primary dykes. 3 I told you this was a simplification 4 and it very much is because a primary dyke level 5 shown in black here actually goes up and down, up 6 and down. And in some cases, it's even below 26.5 7 for whatever reason. And in other spots, it's 8 above 26.5. The river levels too are a 9 simplification in that in Winnipeg at James, these 10 are the correct numbers. But depending on whether 11 the flow was mostly through from the Red River as 12 in 1997 which caused higher levels up here. 13 And in the design, the 700 year 14 design, it's really affected a lot by the back 15 water effect of all the flow from Winnipeg and 16 from the floodway such that it again wouldn't be 17 parallel. There would be more impacts in the 18 northern part of the city. 19 But the whole point of this is that 20 26.5 for a primary dyke level and 26.5 for a water 21 level just won't work. 22 This is virtually the same thing in 23 words. The primary dykes were constructed in 1950 24 to 26.5 feet. A safe water level we talk about is 25 24.5 feet with 2 feet of free board. The free 02502 1 board's there for wave action, for mistakes, for 2 errors in forecast, et cetera. The floodway 3 expansion design water level is 26.5 in Winnipeg. 4 So we need to do -- we need to raise the primary 5 dykes to 28.5 to re-establish this 2 feet of free 6 board. Stability is an issue for the existing 7 dykes. 8 We see that the primary dykes are as 9 important an element as the West Dyke, for 10 example. That if any element fails, of course, 11 you have a disaster. And if the primary dykes 12 fail, we'll have a disaster in Winnipeg. 13 The Manitoba Floodway indicates that 14 the city can employ temporary flood proofing 15 measures until permanent works are built. And we 16 also believe that we can employ temporary flood 17 and we'll have to put in temporary works until 18 they are done. 19 So I want to give you some idea about 20 this raising, the temporary raising to this 1 in 21 700 year flood. And I'm aware that Mr. McNeil 22 gave you some idea of this. The estimated dyke 23 cost for permanent are $149 million. I'll sort of 24 explain that a bit more later. Temporary sort of 25 $7 million. So a temporary raise we believe is 02503 1 doable. It's 110,000 cubic metres of material and 2 will take one or two weeks to construct. 3 I would point out though that during 4 the 700 year event, it will take place during a 5 period of unprecedented work. We'll be doing 6 secondary dyking a lot more than we did in 1997 in 7 a lot more locations because of the increased 8 water level. There had been temporary dyke raises 9 in the past, 1956 and 1966. There are risks, 10 weather, forecasting error on the size of the 11 flood. 12 Evacuation will be required. In 1997, 13 we had sort of our simplified rule was that we 14 should evacuate people that are living behind 15 temporary structures. So any temporary structure, 16 sandbags, are -- the way we talked about it was 17 when the bags are wet, it's time for the folks to 18 move out. And when the sort of temporary clay 19 dyke is wet, it's time for the folks to move out. 20 And wet, sort of 6 inches or a foot of water above 21 them. 22 So this is what it looks like in 23 Winnipeg. The red areas are the areas that would 24 have to be raised temporarily right now or 25 permanently. Ideally, in the long run, they 02504 1 should be raised permanently. So it's sort of 45 2 per cent of the Red River, again along major 3 streets. And this gives you some idea of the 4 deficiency range greater than 2 feet, 11.9 5 kilometres. So those are areas that really don't 6 even meet the 26.5. It's not quite true because 7 the water level is actually higher than 26.5 in 8 the northern part of the city. One foot to two, 9 15.4 kilometres. And less than one foot or .3 10 metres, 9.6 kilometres. So the $149 million would 11 reconstruct all those streets up to the flood 12 level. 13 When the estimate was prepared for us 14 by the consultants on the $149 million, they did 15 not include all of this 9.6 kilometres. There was 16 a discussion that if the street was within 17 6 inches of the elevation, it wouldn't make sense 18 to do it. So this number might be a little lower 19 in the $149 million. 20 Well, I don't think this -- this point 21 of this slide is that permanent dykes would be 22 better than temporary dykes for safety. And I 23 think some of the numbers in here that -- you 24 know, we all know that temporary dykes must be 25 constructed during the spring, whereas permanent 02505 1 dykes will be in place. They will be more 2 resistant to breaching, piping or slope failures. 3 Temporary dykes will limit access obviously 4 because we'll be using up existing roadways to 5 build the dykes. Permanent raising is engineered 6 so the traffic can flow. Temporary are less 7 reliable and for the reasons we talked about. 8 Temporary, there's a lower tolerance for forecast 9 error. I mean that's only because you are 10 starting with a better base if you have a 11 permanent structure. 12 And you can't react to last minute 13 changes in forecast. And actually this was 14 important even in 1997. You know, we weren't 15 going for beyond 24.5. And even that level came 16 up rather suddenly. But I think there is 17 certainly -- you know, we couldn't react beyond 18 that. We had to say we're done, we cannot let it 19 go to 25.5 or 26.5 at that point even though there 20 was certainly some case. So the conclusion here, 21 and I think we would all agree, that primary dykes 22 are safer. They are more expensive but they're 23 safer. 24 So without permanent raises to the 25 primary dykes, there is an argument that there is 02506 1 less than a 1 in 700 year flood protection with 2 our current plan here. Temporary raises are 3 possible. They are not the best long-term 4 solution. So what we need is an engineering and 5 financial plan to permanently raise the city's 6 primary dykes in a logical fashion. 7 We've certainly had discussions with 8 the Floodway Authority on this and it probably 9 wouldn't make sense to dig up a street that was 10 replaced two years ago that needs a foot of 11 raising. But it might make sense to dig up a 12 street that's going to be replaced anyway and 13 raise it up two or three feet. 14 MR. MOTHERAL: Just as a point of 15 clarification. When you say a temporary dyke, 16 does that mean all earth or is that earth and 17 sandbags? Maybe I missed something. 18 MR. MacBRIDE: Okay. And for primary 19 dykes, I think we would say earth would be 20 preferable. So we can get the width and the clay 21 and the ability to maybe even add sandbags on top 22 of it. You know, obviously if we were building a 23 six inch dyke, we'd probably just put down 24 sandbags. But normally, we'd try to get that full 25 width, full clay structure in our temporary works. 02507 1 That's what we did in a lot of cases in 1997. We 2 actually built clay dykes. 3 MR. MOTHERAL: That's what the 4 $7 million would cover? 5 MR. MacBRIDE: That's correct. 6 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. 7 MR. MacBRIDE: And I repeat again here 8 that Manitoba, and I'm not too sure if Manitoba 9 has but at least the Manitoba Floodway Authority 10 has committed to future discussions with the city 11 on this issues. 12 There are other vulnerabilities during 13 a major flood and they are listed on this slide; 14 backup of river water into the sewer system 15 causing basement flooding or overland flooding. 16 The river can be higher than some basements. And 17 of course, the sewers are all connected with the 18 river so we have to close gates and that's what we 19 do every spring. And obviously, if there is a 20 lack of gates, which there are on some systems, or 21 a failure of gates or temporary measures that we 22 utilize in lieu of gates, that would cause a 23 problem. A failure of the secondary dykes in 24 river water flooding in the sewer system. And 25 I'll tell you a bit more about that. 02508 1 And the main one, the one that is 2 excess rainfall events. So if it rains while the 3 river is high, we say we're living on pumps. Some 4 of those pumps have pretty good capacity but some 5 of them have virtually nominal capacity to pump 6 out the rain water that falls on Winnipeg. 7 The flood pumping stations are built 8 in around 1950, a little later actually. And they 9 of course need work and has been identified to us 10 by consultants who have looked at the reliability 11 of them and temporary pumps. And there is an 12 issue with the waste water treatment pumps that at 13 high river levels, they can't discharge by gravity 14 and they don't function basically. 15 So we have been working on these 16 problems along the way. We've developed a 17 computerized flood manual. And I won't 18 necessarily talk about it, but it's a GIS based 19 flood manual so our crews can communicate and get 20 things done. Right now, it only works -- it's 21 only populated the data base up to 25.8. 22 We have installed land drainage and 23 combined sewer outfall gate structures and you 24 probably have seen some of those under 25 construction. We have spent -- city council has 02509 1 spent $4 million to date and has got 16.5 million 2 more to complete. We have now installed gates up 3 to about 23 James Avenue. So we've got to get up 4 to 25.8. That's the way the estimates were put 5 together, up to 25.8. But now, of course, we 6 probably have to get up to 26.5 as well, so. 7 The flood pumping stations need 8 rehabilitation mostly around the power and the 9 ability to operate under high load conditions. So 10 the transformers, the wiring, the controls are 11 all -- the pumps are probably in better shape 12 because they can be rehabilitated. 13 When we talk about isolating the sewer 14 system in areas protected by secondary dykes, this 15 is an example of course of a home that's 16 surrounded by flood water. And it's also 17 connected to the sewer system. So if this dyke 18 fails, the flood would obviously inundate the 19 house and then into the sewer system. And then 20 into the sewer system, it can flood many more 21 buildings, even buildings on the sort of dry side 22 of the primary dyke. 23 So it's very important that engineers 24 do this and we did this during 1997 as we blocked 25 off each of those homes and did measures 02510 1 temporarily to isolate those things. 2 So where have we been since 1997 to 3 2004, the city has sort of spent $14.4 million on 4 these projects. Over the next six years, and this 5 comes from the council approved capital budget 6 2005 to 2010, there is another $25.7 million to 7 address some of these projects that need doing. 8 So we're sort of spending -- council is spending 4 9 and a half million dollars a year at this 10 situation. 11 But it's a big program. If we want 12 the permanent dykes to get up to 28.5, that's 13 $149 million, eventually other flood 14 infrastructure is $107 million. We've sort of got 15 $40 million to 2010 so we still have 48 years 16 beyond 2010 to finish. And that's a concern to 17 myself and to city council. 18 It's interesting to note that the Ste. 19 Agathe floodway expansion study done by KGS did 20 try to tackle the issue of these temporary 21 measures and the state of the city's flood 22 infrastructure. And they do indicate that the 23 probability of failure of the existing flood 24 infrastructure, that's all the measures that we 25 have in place, is 50 per cent for a flood level of 02511 1 25.8 James. So that's a conditional probability, 2 that the water level has to be up at that level. 3 But when a flood does occur to that level, there's 4 a 50 per cent chance, according to KGS. And they 5 did say that this number is not scientifically 6 based, it's just from their analysis of all the 7 works that have to be done, that the system would 8 fail us. 9 And that's a pretty high number 10 because you can imagine, if we manage to spend 11 $665 million and get this thing up to a 700 year 12 flood and actually get a 700 year flood, it would 13 be unacceptable for these systems to fail. They 14 have to work during this flood. 15 So KGS indicated that improvements to 16 the flood infrastructure could reduce the risk of 17 failure to .05 and that the benefit to cost ratio 18 exceeded 1. And KGS recommended that the 19 improvements proceed. And the Manitoba Floodway 20 Authority has indicated that it will work with the 21 city and the province to address the issue of 22 improvements to the flood infrastructure. 23 So by way of conclusions, we are 24 supporters of the floodway expansion project. 25 It's needed by Winnipeg, it's needed by Manitoba 02512 1 and it's needed by Canada. The city I guess would 2 have preferred that raising the primary dykes and 3 flood proofing works in the city were part of the 4 project, at least analyzed and figured out exactly 5 what the plan was, to go from where we are to 6 then. 7 The city has funded a number of flood 8 proofing initiatives since 1997 and has continued 9 to budget for them. And the work should be 10 completed as soon as practical. 11 So recommendations is that the CEC 12 recommend that construction of the floodway 13 expansion project proceed without delay. We 14 understand that there is a lot of information you 15 have received over the last two weeks and that you 16 will be taking that into account. But somehow, we 17 believe that those things can be taken care of and 18 the construction of the project can proceed. 19 The second recommendation is that the 20 city, provincial and federal governments work 21 together to permanently raise the primary dykes in 22 Winnipeg. We see that as a long-term objective 23 and has to be done really to complete this 24 project. 25 And that the city, provincial and 02513 1 federal governments work together to upgrade the 2 other critical flood infrastructure in Winnipeg. 3 And that concludes the presentation. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 5 Mr. MacBride. Questions, Mr. Webster? 6 MR. WEBSTER: Mr. MacBride, a couple 7 of questions. First of all, will use of temporary 8 primary dykes, as you have described, necessitate 9 the maintenance of water levels south of the 10 floodway gates at higher levels than if they were 11 permanent primary dykes? 12 MR. MacBRIDE: That's probably not a 13 question for me, that's more of a question for the 14 Authority I think, somebody who really understands 15 the hydraulics. I think the idea is that if you 16 had the temporary dykes and built them properly, 17 that they would be used just like they were 18 permanent dykes and that wouldn't affect the 19 levels. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. Secondly, 21 are the locations of the primary dykes that you 22 have shown us, are they fixed or are they subject 23 to revision from what's shown? 24 MR. MacBRIDE: They are subject to 25 revision. There is a process under the dyking 02514 1 authority act where they can be revised and 2 extended and moved if sort of construction or 3 development or somebody wants to do that. It 4 requires, in a sense, that it be replaced by 5 another primary dyke. So there had been very few, 6 you know, probably 10 or so little movements of 7 the primary dyke. 8 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. What plans are 9 there to deal with the sewer system levels? In 10 other words, you have a level that the sewer 11 systems are protected to by the pumping systems 12 within the city. Is that going to be left the way 13 it is? Is that sensitivity basically a fixed item 14 in terms of your calculations? 15 MR. MacBRIDE: Well, I think that is 16 looked at at each pumping station, at each case. 17 So I think what you're talking about is when 18 you're pumping over the dyke into the river during 19 a summer -- sorry, a spring flood, do the pumps 20 have capacity and head, enough height, to do that? 21 And I believe that the original flood pumping 22 stations, 37 or so, and that's a rough number, 23 were built even for a higher level. They were 24 built for a four feet above 26.5, so they were 25 sort of built for 35. So we don't think we will 02515 1 have head problems with those. But we'll have to 2 look at each one to see. Two feet in some cases 3 could be significant, in some cases not. 4 MR. WEBSTER: This is of concern I 5 think particularly for operation ostensibly for 6 emergency purposes during non-spring flood 7 situations; in other words, during the summer and 8 fall. The trigger for summer operation, when it's 9 occurred the last few years, has been the threat 10 of basement flooding in the city. And I wondered 11 in fact if the capacity to protect basements was 12 something that you were looking at changing? 13 MR. MacBRIDE: I don't think we really 14 have looked at that very much. It has been looked 15 at a little bit I believe in sort of the studies. 16 But the concern that you are bringing up is that 17 the whole infrastructure of pumping during the 18 permanent pumping stations that actually are 19 connected to mostly combined sewers were built for 20 this storm of 1948 plus a little bit. It was a 21 big storm that occurred and I think it's sort of 22 one and a half inches of rainfall. At that time, 23 there would be a lot less pavement so run-off 24 would be less. So we always in our mind think 25 that a one inch rainfall, 25 millimetres is about 02516 1 all we can handle. 2 So as you get into the spring, that's 3 probably adequate because we don't get a lot of 4 large rainstorms during the spring. But obviously 5 in the summer, the probability of getting 30 or 6 50, we certainly had 80 millimeters of rain on a 7 summer day, so that those capacities would be 8 overwhelmed. And I think that's the concern. 9 It actually happened I guess in 1993 10 where the river was up and the flood pumping 11 stations were all working at their capacity. 12 Nevertheless, there was extensive damage in terms 13 of basement flooding. And the insurers got 14 involved and so I think the people operating the 15 floodway, and I know it's not the Floodway 16 Authority, made the decision in a couple of years 17 to allow more gravity capacity by keeping the 18 river lower. Because gravity capacity is much 19 better than the lesser pumped capacity. 20 MR. WEBSTER: We've been shown maps 21 that indicate the extent of basement flooding that 22 might occur with various scenarios of river level 23 and so forth. And I guess we are also aware of 24 the fact that part of the city has combined sewers 25 and part of the city does not. And yet the 02517 1 basement flooding maps, if I remember correctly, 2 don't differentiate between those two sections, 3 those two parts of the city. Perhaps they ought 4 to. 5 My impression, from what you have 6 said, is it's a pumping capacity question in terms 7 of basement flooding. But in the case of combined 8 sewers, then there's obviously the concern about 9 putting sewage in the river. 10 MR. MacBRIDE: Yes, yes. But the 11 sewage would go in the river if the river was down 12 low anyway because the whole interceptor system 13 that's taken sewage to the plants is working full 14 out at that time when there is an overflow. In 15 terms of the differentiation, you know, it depends 16 on the levels, but certainly all sewers are sort 17 of combined to some extent. There is 18 interconnections and there is -- certainly at 19 ground level, there is huge interconnections 20 called manholes. If you get the water level 21 coming up in a separate area and flooding the 22 ground, it's going to run to the manholes on the 23 waste water system and do the same effect. And 24 certainly, we spent a lot of time in 1997 working 25 on that and sealing manholes so that wouldn't 02518 1 happen. 2 MR. WEBSTER: I guess where I'm going 3 with my question is, is the dealing with basement 4 flooding to a greater extent so that the operation 5 of the floodway would be less necessary in the 6 summertime? Is that something that could be 7 remedied by simply installing bigger pumps? 8 MR. MacBRIDE: I think it probably 9 could if you had big enough pumps to equate to the 10 gravity capacity. But it would be installing 11 bigger pumping stations, not just the pumps of 12 course. 13 MR. WEBSTER: More capacity to put the 14 water basically into the river, assuming the river 15 can handle it as far as I recall. It's not a 16 question of the river being unable to handle the 17 flow to the city, it's a question of getting the 18 water from the city into the river that's the 19 concern. 20 MR. MacBRIDE: I think that's correct. 21 I think it would be very expensive to duplicate 22 the gravity capacity but I think it could be done. 23 MR. WEBSTER: Okay, thank you. And 24 finally, you mentioned that when the water level 25 in the river is high enough, that you can't 02519 1 dispose of treated waste water from the waste 2 treatment plants in the city. And my question is 3 what do you do with the water outflow from those 4 plants during a flood situation? 5 MR. MacBRIDE: Well, it still goes to 6 the river because we can pump but we can't use our 7 whole system. So we can't use the treatment 8 plant. We pump from very low levels up to above 9 ground level and it sort of flows by gravity 10 through this treatment plant. And of course, if 11 the water level down here comes up because of the 12 river, well we can still pump here but we can't 13 use all the processes in between. 14 So I think, for example, at the North 15 End plant in 1997, even at the sort of 24.5 level, 16 we were not able to really get good secondary 17 treatment because the water came up in the 18 buildings in the plant, so that part of the 19 process wasn't working -- the clarification wasn't 20 working as it should work. 21 MR. WEBSTER: So the water was 22 expelled but it wasn't treated fully before it was 23 expelled? 24 MR. MacBRIDE: That's correct. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacBride, on slide 02520 1 19, the six year budget, there is a line that 2 talks about the Kildare trunk permanent flood 3 pumping station, an allocation of $700,000. Does 4 that have anything to do with that Transcona 5 outfall that was recently in the news? 6 MR. MacBRIDE: I'm going to let Mike 7 Skholny answer that. It's the same facility. 8 MR. SKHOLNY: The budget for that item 9 is not related to pumping the overflows that were 10 occurring this winter which were waste water 11 overflows. And that was, I think, explained at 12 previous sessions of your hearings as to why they 13 occurred. And it was because of blockages and 14 malfunctions within our sanitary sewer system. 15 And then they overflow -- because of those 16 blockages, it's just an overflow into the land 17 drainage system. 18 What this pump station is for is that 19 under certain flow conditions in the floodway, the 20 Kildare outfall cannot discharge land drainage by 21 gravity. And, therefore, we have to pump the land 22 drainage out of the land drainage pipe into the 23 floodway under certain flow conditions. And so 24 that's -- in 1997, for instance, we had actually 25 set up a battery of temporary pumps with standby 02521 1 generation equipment to run those pumps to allow 2 us to discharge land drainage into the floodway. 3 And because that is a very large outfall, carries 4 very large quantities of flow, it was deemed that 5 a permanent installation was much better than 6 relying on temporary works. So that's what those 7 funds are for. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Just 9 on that incident in the last fall in the Transcona 10 outfall, was that -- would you consider that an 11 unusual occurrence whereby some sewage overflowed 12 into the floodway? 13 MR. MacBRIDE: So in this case, in 14 Transcona, Transcona as you might see it, there 15 are -- they were installed I think in the 1960s. 16 And I have a map actually on my computer disk here 17 that might show but they were sort of 20 existing 18 locations where there is a high level overflow 19 from the waste water sewer to the land drainage 20 sewer. And they were installed to protect against 21 basement flooding from clogged waste water sewers. 22 And essentially, we found out about 23 this Transcona event on December 14th of this 24 year. And I think December 15th, I should check 25 my dates, we found one that was actually 02522 1 operating. The sewer had clogged and the sewer 2 had filled up and was going over. And we kept 3 looking and we found another one on December 18th. 4 And since then, we haven't found any. And we've 5 been going there every week and checking all 20 of 6 them. And we're trying to determine whether we 7 should instrument them, you know, put an 8 instrument in so we don't have to go check them. 9 But for now, we're going to check them every week. 10 And as far as we know, they haven't been 11 overflowing since December 18th. 12 The Transcona outfall has been 13 flowing -- the Transcona outfall also discharges 14 from a storm water retention basin which serves 15 all of Transcona from sort of west of Plessis 16 Road, a huge portion of land. And all that flows 17 to a retention basin. And there's pumps in those 18 retention basins and they are designed to be 19 pumped out into the Transcona sewer. So it's not 20 unusual for us to see the flow in the sewer. 21 What was a concern of course was the 22 indications from the sampling done from one of the 23 intervenors here was that there was sewage in the 24 sample and there shouldn't be sewage in the 25 sample. 02523 1 THE CHAIRMAN: So the answer to my 2 question whether that was unusual is yes? 3 MR. MacBRIDE: It's unusual because it 4 hasn't happened since and we are -- we believe we 5 are responsible for that and we're going to take 6 measures to make sure it doesn't happen. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: So you don't think it 8 will happen again? 9 MR. MacBRIDE: Yes, well, I'll just 10 give you some examples of running a sewer system. 11 You know, I think last year in Transcona, like two 12 years ago maybe in Transcona, we found the home 13 that was actually connected to the land drainage. 14 So we're not connected to the sanitary sewer like 15 it should be. So those might be out there in 16 small numbers. But in a big area, no, it 17 shouldn't happen. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. On a 19 different subject, you more or less discussed this 20 but I just ask for a little more elaboration. The 21 feasibility of raising the primary dykes in the 22 event of a major flood, say a 1 in 120 year or 23 greater, how difficult or how feasible would it 24 be, particularly if it's rainy, if there's snow 25 and ice that still hasn't melted? 02524 1 MR. MacBRIDE: Yes. And those are 2 things that obviously make it more difficult and 3 that's why of course we all, I'm sure including 4 the Authority, would want to see permanent dykes 5 in place at some point. So those things, we did 6 it in 1997. We removed the snow. We scarified if 7 we thought we had to and we put down dykes. And 8 some of them were tested and some of them weren't. 9 It's a big job but the numbers aren't 10 that high. Like we can move 110,000 cubic metres 11 of earth in sort of two weeks. It's all the 12 decision-making before. Okay, we've got to do 13 this, what's the flood prediction and when do we 14 start and when do we commit in getting contractors 15 on board? You know, all those things are 16 logistics but they will be part of our flood 17 manual. They are not yet but our flood manual 18 will be fixed so that we have a good plan laid out 19 to do that. But still, you know, if it snows the 20 day before, then you have to work on that and 21 clear the snow and do those things. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: At what point would it 23 become very difficult to complete that within two 24 weeks? 25 MR. MacBRIDE: I don't know that. 02525 1 Maybe some of the other fellows can answer. I 2 would just say in 1997, you know, the question was 3 asked very late in the game, can you raise those 4 dykes? And I think the answer was no at that 5 point. It was too late to do, right, to raise 6 even the secondary dykes and the primary dykes. 7 And I think we are mostly about the secondary 8 dykes at that point. Can we raise the secondary 9 dykes? And I think we sort of said it's 10 impossible. Everybody sort of sapped out at this 11 time and won't be able to do that. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Thank 13 you. We have no further questions. Thank you 14 very much for your time and your presentation 15 today. 16 MR. MacBRIDE: Thank you very much. 17 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, while 18 we're in transition here, could we add a few more 19 exhibits? Mrs. Rutherford's presentation will be 20 Exhibit 85. The 768 Association presentation will 21 be 86. The 768 Association submission will be 87. 22 And the City of Winnipeg presentation will be 88. 23 24 (EXHIBIT 85: Presentation: Valerie 25 Rutherford, resident Ritchot 02526 1 Municipality) 2 3 (EXHIBIT 86: Presentation: 4 Presentation of the 768 Association, 5 Slide presentation by: Rob Loudfoot, 6 Yaroslav Shumuk and Rob Duerksen) 7 8 (EXHIBIT 87: Submission: Submission to 9 the Clean Environment Commission 10 Public hearing on the Red River 11 Floodway Expansion Proposal. The 768 12 Association) 13 14 (EXHIBIT 88: Presentation to the CEC 15 on the Red River Floodway Expansion 16 Project. The City of Winnipeg. 17 Presented by: Barry MacBride, Director 18 of Water and Waste Water) 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stinson, are you 21 ready to ready to make your presentation? 22 Mr. Stinson, you are aware of our general 23 guidelines, more or less 15 minutes with some 24 reasonable leeway. Could you please state your 25 name for the record? 02527 1 MR. STINSON: James Keith Glen 2 Stinson. 3 4 (JAMES STINSON: SWORN) 5 6 MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, members of 7 the committee, MFA, participants and all 8 intervenors, I'd like to thank you for this 9 opportunity to speak to you today. I am retired, 10 have been for approximately seven years but I do 11 act as a hobby guide on the Red River and probably 12 spend in excess of 100 days on the Red River 13 between Lockport and Lake Winnipeg. Therefore, I 14 get to see what comes down that river and the 15 floodway. Plus the erosion from the east bank -- 16 sorry, the west bank at Lockport. And we almost 17 got River Road sliding in. I won't even get into 18 that. 19 My wife's uncle lives at Breezy Point 20 and every year we're having to clean up his stuff. 21 I live in the RM of St. Clements 22 approximately 4 miles from the floodway as the 23 crow flies. People ask me why I'm interested in 24 this. I'm interested because of my quality of 25 life and I'll get into that later. 02528 1 I have attended numerous rounds of the 2 hearings, I would suggest approximately a dozen of 3 them, 10 to 12 of them. I have attended numerous 4 workshops and I have attended every one of your 5 meetings except for three hours one evening when I 6 had a personal matter I had to attend to. I am 7 not a member of any coalition, not because I'm 8 against anything they say but they had many issues 9 that they wish to deal with and I wanted to just 10 deal strictly with groundwater. 11 Now, I had been disappointed 12 throughout the hearings, attending it. I will get 13 into them first. But first off, Mr. Sergeant, I'd 14 like to thank you. I'd like to thank you for your 15 punctuality and the way you have held these 16 meetings. Throughout my career, I saw a lot of 17 meetings held and I have to say you probably held 18 this the best of any of them so far. Thank you. 19 But I have found but there were very 20 confrontational, there were some very rude 21 comments and there is intimidation. And I thank 22 you again for last Thursday for speaking up 23 concerning the camera stuck in a person's face. I 24 found that very intimidating and it was not 25 needed. I had never heard why we have two sets of 02529 1 cameras, one from the MFA in the back taking 2 pictures and another one walking around, taking 3 pictures in peoples's face. I hope they are going 4 to be available for everybody later. 5 But I shouldn't be surprised of the 6 attitude concerning MFA. But I will tell you, I 7 have been very very pleased with the Inter and the 8 TetrES group. From the day one, my wife and I had 9 serious doubts concerning MFA but we had all high 10 hopes in the engineers and I thank them, 11 especially John and Dave. 12 What we found, we felt like we were a 13 little pebble in the ocean. The MFA was the big 14 Titanic, very hard to move and change directions 15 but we all know what happened to the Titanic. I 16 hope we don't get there. 17 Now, we felt we had been invited to 18 these hearings but not listened to, especially by 19 the MFA. Yesterday, sir, yesterday there was ten 20 public people speaking. I don't know if you 21 noticed, the MFA here, there was one person from 22 the MFA, sometimes two. And even one of those 23 persons left during the presentation. Were their 24 decisions not important enough for as many of 25 those people to show up for that day? 02530 1 Now, this all has to do with attitude 2 and ego, especially we saw during the 3 cross-examination by the MFA. And I expected to 4 see that in a criminal court. This is a tribunal. 5 But that's not the issue, facts are the issue. 6 I had been asked several times why I'm 7 here. I don't have the time. I may be retired 8 but I have made the time. I have personally made 9 the time and committed the last over a year and a 10 half to doing this. Why? Because my drinking 11 water is potentially endangered. 12 We had some difficulties trying to 13 understand this. We live outside of town, we 14 cannot get High Speed. So I had to attend the 15 Selkirk Library. I was almost daily into that 16 place. The tech reports were not brought out to 17 Selkirk until later in the year. It was only when 18 I spoke to Dave and the boys in September that 19 they said yes, maybe we should send them out 20 there. They were just going to send the first 21 four volumes. 22 I have never read an EIS but I have 23 read an awful lot of legal documents and studied 24 them. That EIS has a very poor index. I'll leave 25 you to the judgment of that, Mr. Sergeant. I'm 02531 1 sure you've looked at a lot of them. 2 But I will say that over a month ago, 3 my member of parliament, on my behalf, made a 4 request to Mr. Bowering requesting the report for 5 the summer operation of 2004 which, according to 6 legislation, must be filed within 30 days. He 7 said in one chaser, and to this day, we have yet 8 to receive it. I'll explain to you why that's 9 important, sir. 10 I'd like to move on to cumulative 11 effect. Has it been taken into consideration? I 12 have to totally disagree that it was. I'd like to 13 refer you the testimony and the evidence given by 14 the MFA on the 15th. And then, Dr. Webster, your 15 comments concerning -- to MFA, concerning their 16 testimony on the 15th. It was near the end of the 17 day. When they came back the next day, their 18 whole attitude concerning cumulative effects had 19 changed. What we heard in all the rounds was what 20 we were hearing on Tuesday. 21 The definition that they supplied goes 22 as -- their definition says. 23 "An assessment of incremental effects 24 of an action on the environment when 25 the effects are combined with those 02532 1 from other past, existing and future 2 actions." 3 That was almost verbatim in the way 4 you questioned them Dr. Webster. But if you look 5 in the glossary, chapter 12, page 2, which is the 6 end of the volumes, normally when you find 7 glossaries and words are defined in what's in a 8 hearing or any document, their definition of 9 "cumulative effect" which I read from the EIS 10 says, 11 "The combined effects of several 12 projects on the environment. 13 Cumulative effects have to be 14 considered as part of the environment 15 assessment process." 16 It's different than what they said 17 here. So I ask you to judge what was said on 18 Tuesday and what was said on Wednesday. 19 And then take into consideration 20 Mr. Doering's comments yesterday. When he was 21 talking about cumulative effect, he said, and I 22 quote, in one of his slides, 23 "To consider the potential, 24 environmental, social, economical and 25 cultural effects of the construction 02533 1 and operation of the Red River 2 Floodway Expansion Project." 3 And he stressed and went on that only 4 expansion. That's what we were told throughout 5 the entire hearings. I thought maybe I was wrong 6 and misinterpreted it but I spoke to other people 7 that attended and they had the exact same. It was 8 only expansion, nothing on the present or past. 9 Operating rules. We were told during 10 the rounds that they were not part of the mandate. 11 Now, I heard you today, Mr. Sergeant, say that it 12 was the effects, the effects are part of it. 13 Well, you cannot get effects unless you have the 14 result of the rules. 15 Now, in 2004, they operated the 16 floodway in the summertime on the 10th of June. 17 They operated and classified it as an emergency. 18 I'd like to say to you that was a perceived 19 emergency, perceived there was going to be a 20 thunderstorm. That floodway was operated until 21 the 29th of July. Was there a perceived going to 22 be a thunderstorm for seven weeks? 23 Now, those operating rules, one would 24 think, should be in entirety in one place where 25 you could view them rather than jump around. A 02534 1 little part here, a little part there, a little 2 part there. We don't only get sewage in the 3 spring time, we get it the summer and we get it a 4 lot. There's no difference to my groundwater. If 5 it gets contaminated in June, May, July, August, 6 it's when the floodway is operated. It's the same 7 thing. 8 Now, you may laugh at this thing when 9 I say this next one. What is the MFA asking for 10 in the EIS? Any document, serious legal document 11 you look at, they say in the first couple of 12 paragraphs, even the first chapter what exactly 13 explicitly, explicitly sets out what they are 14 asking for. That allows your job to be able to 15 say yes or no. So I say, what do they want to 16 protect Winnipeg from, a one in 700 year flood? 17 What is it? What is a one in 700 year flood? Is 18 it 140,000 CFS? Is it like the 1826 of 226 or is 19 it X amount of cubic metres of soil removed? 20 So is the -- and what you are being 21 asked to say -- is the EIS complete? I disagree. 22 It's full of promises and it's very big and it's 23 very verbal. We used to always say that BS 24 baffles brains, and this thing is sure full of a 25 lot of documents. 02535 1 Now it says studies are not completed. 2 It says statements, it's not relevant. 3 $11 million, nowhere can I find in the EIS where 4 it says $11 million. It does say there is a 5 mitigation fund. Media and propaganda has said 6 it's 11 million. 7 I want to get into the 2-foot issue, 8 the depth deepening. 9 On Tuesday morning Mr. Gilroy made a 10 presentation before you, and he said that there is 11 going to be from 0 to 2 feet, depending on the 12 location of deepening. Approximately an hour and 13 a half later, the MFA -- I could be corrected but 14 I think it was Mr. McNeil -- said there was going 15 to be no deepening. 16 Now Mr. McNeil explained saying the 17 reason for that was that it had only been decided 18 the week before that they weren't going to deepen 19 it. Well, even the Prime Minister, I have seen 20 the Prime Minister change, change his speeches an 21 hour before they are being made. So either 22 Mr. Gilroy did not think that was a problem issue, 23 or is he being kept in the dark like we are? If 24 it is correct that they are not going to lower 25 2 feet, file a supplement. Full disclosure in any 02536 1 proceedings goes on throughout the hearing. There 2 is no reason a filing of a supplement could not be 3 filed within the last two and a half weeks. 4 The guidelines, section 5 of the 5 guidelines for the EIS says, "it shall include but 6 not limited to." Now, the MFA will disagree with 7 me, but I will say nowhere it says exactly where 8 the access roads, borrow sites, disposal sites, 9 placement, it goes on and on and on. They will 10 say it's in the EPP, Environmental Protection 11 Plan. I would like to have some input on the EPP 12 and I'm sure you would too. Would this not have 13 been the venue to say that? 14 Monitoring. Dr. Webster, I'm very, 15 very impressed and very pleased and feel good that 16 you are pressuring, or asking questions concerning 17 the monitoring. What I would say, basically, 18 there is a lack of or a very inadequate 19 monitoring, specifically of past, present, that 20 can be -- and future. One of the easiest ways 21 that I found, if you don't identify a problem, 22 it's easy to say there's no problem. Don't 23 monitor, you can easily say there's no problem 24 then. 25 So they use data in the EIS stating 02537 1 from, I believe it was '78 to '85. Now, we all 2 know in the last five years our government has 3 really increased factory farms to the south, swine 4 and cattle. I'm not arguing that point or 5 another. But we do know, and we have heard that 6 bacteria and viruses have drastically increased in 7 the last five years, and the danger of them. To 8 say that there is up-to-date data -- why wasn't it 9 used? I don't know. 10 But wells, there has been a question 11 on how many wells were monitored, but I'm going to 12 use the 287, give them the benefit of the doubt 13 they monitored 287, either physically or speaking 14 to people, but they say out of 8,600. Okay. But 15 why so few in the study? I can show you in a very 16 brief view of that map of their study area. Drive 17 down highway 206 and there is at least 10 or 12 18 wells that I can show you that are not shown on 19 that map. It's a very restricted area. I'm about 20 four miles from the floodway, I'm not in their 21 area. One mile north of 44 highway is not in 22 their monitoring area. 23 I'd like to say, what is in the water 24 in the floodway? I don't care if it's summertime 25 or spring, what is in that water? 02538 1 Now, Mr. MacBride had spoke earlier, 2 and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but during the 3 16th of September when that lovely sewage from the 4 north end broke free and came into our river, it 5 was revealed by the city that it takes 6 10 millimeters of rain in a 24-hour period for the 7 storm and sewer drains to discharge into the river 8 system. So 10 millimeters of rain -- 9 10 millimeters, that's all it takes for any of 10 those drop structures. 11 That's why I say, what is in the 12 water? I believe it's the Floodway Authority's 13 responsibility to know what's in that water. 14 The Floodway Advisory Board, there is 15 no one, no one from East St. Paul, Springfield or 16 RM of St. Clements on the Floodway Advisory Board. 17 They take up 90 per cent of the floodway, 100 per 18 cent of their residents use that drinking water. 19 You know, by them not being on that Floodway 20 Advisory Board, this caused no input, zero input 21 when the guidelines were changed last November. 22 The inlet structure, I haven't looked 23 at it, but it's 1960's technology. We're in 2005. 24 My career didn't start in 1960. Things have 25 changed drastically since then. 02539 1 Almost every year, and sometimes 2 twice, artificial -- I hate using that word that 3 says artificial flooding, flooding is flooding -- 4 artificial flooding thousands of people. I'm sure 5 the residents south of the inlet deserve as much 6 consideration as the residents of Winnipeg. 7 Now, the MFA are not acting in good 8 faith, and I seriously believe this, or good 9 citizens if they don't at least review that issue 10 of artificial flooding. To say bill 23 will 11 compensate them for artificial is only the partial 12 truth. And that's what we've been told. We've 13 been told the partial truth. 14 Yesterday, Mr. Doering when he spoke, 15 he spoke very much like the MFA. He said that 16 bill 23 will compensate for artificial flooding. 17 Partial truth. Bill 23, I spoke to the 18 legislature on this because it says artificial 19 flooding in relation to a given event means 20 flooding caused by floodway operation during 21 spring flooding. Artificial flooding does not 22 compensate those people in the summertime. If 23 it's operated in the summer -- it's never been 24 answered when spring, when summer, we won't get on 25 with that. 02540 1 So it's only half truth, and that's 2 what we were told. We've been told the half 3 truth. 4 To say that technology, or structure 5 at the inlet is sound shows total disregard for 6 citizens south of Winnipeg. We're doing a whole 7 new redone. Don't miss the boat, look at it, 8 please. 9 Ice jams. MFA simply says the 10 floodway does not cause ice jams, period. I am no 11 expert, but I've always had to rely on common 12 sense. And during true emergency situations, 13 common sense is what caused people to live. 14 So I asked, how many miles is it from 15 the south perimeter through Winnipeg to Lockport? 16 And how many miles from Lockport to Lake Winnipeg? 17 But how many ice jams are experienced from the 18 south perimeter to Lockport? And how many ice 19 jams are experienced from Lockport to Lake 20 Winnipeg? Better yet, how many ice jams were 21 there before the gates were opened? 22 Now, common sense should prevail. If 23 the model says there should be no ice jams, a 24 responsible person would ask, why then are there 25 ice jams? 02541 1 I believe it is the MFA's 2 responsibility to explain this discrepancy, or at 3 the very least I think they should hire a 4 helicopter and fly north, not only south, and 5 check during the flooding and during the ice jams. 6 Now aquifers, this has been beat to 7 death for the last several days by experts, a lot 8 of very smart people from the MFA, from outside as 9 well. But virtually, tens of thousands of 10 people's lives, and I mean this, tens of thousands 11 of people's lives are in your hands, by the stroke 12 of your pen. That's the larger than the City of 13 Brandon. That's the second largest city in 14 Manitoba. They rely on that daily. 15 Mr. Motheral, in your farming you know 16 how vital clean water is. Residents of Winnipeg 17 believe public hearings and public input have 18 satisfied all the concerns. I have talked to 19 several of them. They honestly believe this. 20 We are continually told widening has 21 solved the problem. I believe the MFA has been 22 playing politics by telling partial truths. 23 The residents of Manitoba were not 24 told the truth and nothing but the truth. They 25 weren't told that our aquifer is still potentially 02542 1 at danger. All they said was, we're not going to 2 deepen. 3 But what do both parties agree on? 4 There are two aquifers. There is the sand and 5 gravel and there's the bedrock. 6 Now the aquifer flows truly from the 7 east to the west. But do only the viruses go east 8 and west? There's discharge from the low channel 9 or pilot channel. This year at 30 below, we're 10 not that cold very often, but you constantly had 11 water in it, you constantly had water. That is 12 pristine water lost forever. 13 My neighbour had her water checked 14 yesterday, and was told by people trying to sell 15 her a water purification system, no, I'm sorry, I 16 can't sell you anything because you've got the 17 best water east of the floodway. This is people 18 trying to sell you the thing, they are saying it, 19 it's the best water going. 20 Now, they will agree that there's 21 potential for some, and I say some and I won't 22 quantify how much, there's some transfer of water 23 from the channel into the aquifer while under 24 operation. And it could take up to a year to 25 clear it. 02543 1 Now, whose responsibility is it to 2 come up with methods of preventing this transfer? 3 I don't have the money. The MFA have spent 4 several million dollars doing this. They were 5 aware of this concern over a year ago, and to 6 simply say not practical is totally irresponsible. 7 On the 22nd of February, this is a few 8 days ago, Mr. McNeil, on Global television when 9 asked about installing a liner, his reply and I 10 quote, "That is completely not technically 11 feasible at all." And that has been the attitude 12 of the MFA during the entire hearings, especially 13 the MFA. 14 Personally, I've seen villages in 15 India with contaminated water and what those 16 people have to live through. I grew up my first 17 20 years from Walkerton. I go back there quite 18 often. I don't want Walkerton to follow me here. 19 When I retired, they would have moved me anywhere 20 in Canada. I chose to stay where I was because of 21 my quality of life. I don't want to have to pick 22 up and run. And I can tell you in the last year 23 my wife and I have thought seriously about packing 24 up and moving, strictly because of the loss of our 25 water. 02544 1 So every time the floodway is operated 2 at present, I'm not talking about expansion, at 3 present, there is a potential for my drinking 4 water and quality of life -- John and I spoke 5 extensively -- how do you evaluate quality? 6 Money, I don't care about money, my quality of 7 life is put at risk. 8 And I seriously say this, gentlemen. 9 Our lives and quality of life are not in MFA's 10 hands, they are in your hands. I know you only 11 make recommendations, but they live by your 12 recommendations. Can you honestly ignore this 13 potential? 14 Now, these are only a few 15 recommendations. I did this up quite a while ago 16 before the people were speaking, but I thought I'd 17 give you some idea. I think maybe you should send 18 the EIS back for total completion. Conduct proper 19 monitoring with a baseline, not an evolving 20 baseline. This baseline has jumped all over the 21 place. Prepare a thorough monitoring program to 22 include active and inactive operations for the 23 floodway right-of-way, I'm just talking the 24 right-of-way. 25 Develop a thorough monitoring program 02545 1 for the areas serviced by the two aquifers. I 2 believe the KGS report in 1999 said that the 3 aquifer would go back as far as Anola. The 4 monitoring area is much bigger than that. 5 Research alternatives for diverting 6 water into the floodway. Explain why ice jamming 7 occurs on the Red River. And use a firm that has 8 no ties to the MFA, no ties to the province, use 9 somebody totally, no ties to any of the groups, 10 use somebody totally separate. You know, it gets 11 too passionate, too us/them. Just get 12 independent, total independent. 13 And subject all technical aspects of 14 the EIS for peer review. Forget your egos. Leave 15 your egos at the inlet gate. We don't need them 16 in this. 17 No one disputes that it's taken a lot 18 of work to get to this stage. We were not naive 19 enough not to realize a lot of concerns get 20 minimized in order to meet the deadlines. And 21 they have been given deadlines, and that's not 22 fair to them. 23 Ensure no, and I stress "no" 24 floodwaters can enter into either of the two 25 aquifers. Otherwise you are playing Russian 02546 1 roulette with thousands of people's lives. Thank 2 you very much. A year and a half and 15 minutes, 3 thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stinson. 5 Wayne has a question of clarification. 6 MR. MOTHERAL: Just on clarification, 7 Mr. Stinson, and your one bullet on what both 8 parties can agree on. It says here, potential for 9 some transfer of water from the channel into the 10 aquifer while under operation. Did I hear you 11 say, I believe you said we know there is some 12 transfer of water? 13 MR. STINSON: No, I say there is some 14 potential for transfer. I have to use potential 15 because I don't know, I haven't done it. I don't 16 know, I haven't seen the model. I heard some say 17 yes, some say no, some say some. I don't know. 18 MR. MOTHERAL: I'm just clarifying you 19 said potential. Okay, thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much 21 Mr. Stinson. 22 Next on our list is Ken Praznuik. 23 MR. PRAZNUIK: My name is Ken 24 Praznuik. 25 (KEN PRAZNUIK: SWORN) 02547 1 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, 2 Mr. Praznuik. 3 MR. PRAZNUIK: Thank you. I'll just 4 make a brief presentation dealing with an area 5 that probably hasn't got a lot of attention during 6 these reviews. Maybe I could start by giving you 7 a brief historical overview. 8 I live in Prairie Grove located on the 9 Springfield-Tache boundary, one mile south of the 10 floodway and 3 miles east of Grande Pointe. My 11 family has lived in this area since 1933. Prairie 12 Grove is an old community located along the old 13 Dawson Trail settled by Scottish immigrants in the 14 1860's. The cemetery in the community has grave 15 stones dating back to this period. The community 16 was originally called Protestants Ridge in 17 recognition of the early settlers and the 18 topography. 19 The early settlers chose this site for 20 this cemetery well, having survived the flood of 21 1950 and 1997. They surely didn't anticipate the 22 actions of modern day bureaucrats. 23 The construction of the original 24 floodway had a drastic effect on Prairie Grove. 25 Traffic flows were changed. Dawson Road was cut. 02548 1 Wells went dry. Farms were cut in half. 2 Over the years there were other 3 changes that we could see firsthand. For example, 4 how the use of the floodway backed up water south 5 of the city. This became painfully apparent 6 during 1997 when we were helping our neighbours to 7 the east in Grande Pointe. 8 Since 1997 a number of events have 9 occurred that bear repeating. As part of the 10 joint federal/provincial program, a project titled 11 the Seine River Tributaries Diversion was 12 proposed. Among its benefits was the lessening of 13 costs related to a new drop structure in Grande 14 Pointe. Ultimately that proposal did not proceed 15 as funds were fully allocated elsewhere. 16 The dyking of Grande Pointe did 17 proceed, along with the twinning of PTH 59 south. 18 The project included a new drop structure and 19 diversion of the Seine River. The public open 20 houses that advertised this project I believe did 21 not mention a new drop structure or the Seine 22 River Diversion. 23 From everything I have seen, the 24 Environmental Impact Study with respect to this 25 project did not mention either the drop structure 02549 1 or diversion. 2 I recognize the purpose of this 3 meeting is not to discuss prior activities, 4 however many residents feel they were mislead, 5 which underscores the intense distrust and fear 6 the area residents have. 7 To add insult to injury, the 2002 8 Acres Engineering report prepared for the province 9 indicate that, 10 "Under certain conditions it's 11 possible that the water from the 12 floodway could back up through the 13 drop structure into the diversion, and 14 this could result in flooding in the 15 area east of Grande Pointe." 16 The province adopted the cheapest 17 method of hopefully preventing this event, that 18 being an earth fill plug. There are two piles of 19 dirt along the floodway that theoretically can be 20 used to stop the backup. 21 While we all recognize that Winnipeg 22 must be protected, must it be at the expense of 23 the rural residents? 24 Next I will make a few comments about 25 the consultation process. 02550 1 If the consultation process has been 2 designed to give the illusion of paying attention 3 to the concerns of people living outside the 4 capital region, all the while not committing any 5 cash to the areas outside of Winnipeg, and above 6 all else, not delaying the commencement of the 7 construction, then in my view the process has been 8 a resounding success. If on the other hand, the 9 process was to be transparent, candid and 10 inclusive, then in my view it has failed terribly. 11 Firstly, the province, by virtue of 12 its size and ongoing requirements, has monopolized 13 virtually all the local engineering firms. This 14 combined with meagre resources provided to a 15 limited number of interest groups has guaranteed 16 limited opposition. Citizens only recourse is to 17 spend significant sums of personal funds to mount 18 credible counter arguments. 19 An example of this slow and confused 20 process is the response to the question of 21 compensation. We heard that earlier with the 22 previous presentation. When I read the proposed 23 compensation legislation, I note that two criteria 24 have to be met in order to receive compensation. 25 One is that the flooding was caused by the 02551 1 floodway, and the other is that the floodwaters 2 were from the Red River. 3 In the case of Prairie Grove and 4 Lorette West, residents flooding could be caused 5 by the floodway -- or it is possible it could be 6 caused by the floodway. The natural water flow is 7 northeast, and the floodway acts as a huge dam. 8 The floodwaters likely come, however, from the 9 Seine River. The question was, were we eligible 10 for compensation? I first asked this question in 11 Oakbank in April 2004, and continued to ask the 12 same question at public meetings and in writing. 13 The responses were vague and non-committal. 14 Finally in December we received a response to a 15 pointed question. The answer was we were not 16 eligible, no rationale or explanation. It 17 shouldn't take close to a year to receive an 18 answer to a simple question. 19 The basic problem with the review and 20 the entire consultation process is that it does 21 not take into account the existing conditions or 22 the cumulative effect of various actions, 23 including the expanded floodway. The floodway 24 acts as a huge dam diverting the natural flow of 25 water. It has caused and continues to cause 02552 1 significant drainage and flood problems for those 2 south and east of the floodway. 3 The Floodway Authority newsletter 4 boasts that, 5 "The authority will maintain or 6 increase drainage capacity for all 7 rural drainage structures." 8 While the current situation is not adequate, it 9 has been becoming progressively worse and is 10 likely to become much worse in the future. 11 Maintaining the capacity is not acceptable. I 12 understand the determination of what work will be 13 undertaken will only be made during the detailed 14 design phase, coincidentally when all approvals 15 are in hand. 16 In the same vein, the authority 17 announced with much fanfare that it had the 18 technology to perform detailed modeling to 19 demonstrate flood prone areas within Winnipeg. 20 Meanwhile, our local government pleaded with the 21 authority to provide similar information for 22 Grande Pointe and Lorette West area. This is a 23 unique area with both the Seine and Red 24 interplaying with the floodway. Viewing 25 individual events or structures without 02553 1 considering how they might interact under various 2 conditions is not acceptable. 3 The focus is entirely on the Red River 4 to the extent that in our area the Seine is almost 5 ignored. It certainly won't be ignored at flood 6 time. During 1997, Grande Pointe was first 7 flooded by the Seine, a fact that seems to be 8 ignored. 9 The consultation process has also been 10 negatively affected by its narrow scope. There is 11 no money to assist with drainage, there is limited 12 money for drop structures, and there is no money 13 for additional flood protection outside of 14 Winnipeg. In order to qualify for flood 15 protection assistance, one had to experience Red 16 River flooding in 1997. The design of the 17 protection exceeded the extent of the flooding in 18 1997. So now we are left with a situation where 19 those who experienced flooding in '97 are better 20 able to withstand a more severe flood than those 21 who had no flooding. 22 While Winnipeg residents enjoy 700 23 year protection paid for by the government, rural 24 residents must pay 100 per cent of any additional 25 protection they put in place. Moreover, the real 02554 1 issue that reflects the warped priorities of this 2 project is that a reported $6 million will be made 3 available for construction of recreation 4 facilities. While residents outside the floodway 5 may experience tainted well water or flooding from 6 whatever source, the residents of Winnipeg will by 7 and large be high and dry and enjoy recreational 8 amenities. Perhaps they can wave to us from their 9 bike paths as we are sandbagging. 10 Clearly, with limited funds available, 11 every effort must be made to maximize the 12 long-term potential benefits of the floodway for 13 all Manitobans. There is a fundamental lack of 14 understanding as to how important these drop 15 structures are to rural residents. Once built, 16 they will likely never be altered, expanded or 17 supplemented with additional structures. There 18 must be flexibility and provision for greater 19 water flow built into the design. 20 Recreation enhancements, while 21 valuable, can be constructed in the future when 22 additional funds are available. This delay does 23 not materially affect the possibility of these 24 enhancements beings made in the future. The same 25 is not true of job structures. 02555 1 And finally just a few 2 recommendations. I recognize some of my comments 3 exceed the scope of this inquiry, however there is 4 no other forum to make these comments. While I 5 have significant doubts anything will come of this 6 process, I felt it important to document my 7 concerns. Particularly since I fear that in the 8 next major flood, Prairie Grove will become the 9 next Grande Pointe. Only then when we are flooded 10 will our voices also be heard. 11 I strongly urge the Commission to 12 recommend to the Province to use its newly 13 developed modeling ability to study this area in 14 detail under various scenarios, including the Red, 15 the Seine and the floodway. Undoubtedly these 16 studies will determine significant risks which 17 should be mitigated. 18 In correspondence from Springfield 19 municipality titled "Questions for the RM of 20 Springfield re Floodway Expansion Environment 21 Assessment," concerns about Prairie Grove were 22 raised, including a need for some mitigation 23 immediately this year to prevent backflow in the 24 Prairie Grove drain. 25 There also is a need for significant 02556 1 capacity increase with respect to the centreline 2 drain drop structure, to provide the potential for 3 future flood protection and drainage enhancement. 4 The funds required for further mitigation effort 5 should come from the recreation budget. Clearly, 6 flood protection has to trump recreation, at least 7 in the short-term. 8 The program for individual house 9 protection in rural areas should be reinstated and 10 expanded in terms of eligible areas, with either 11 direct advances or tax credits. 12 Finally, I would encourage the 13 Commission to remind the bureaucrats, the media, 14 and the citizens of Winnipeg that for the most 15 part the affected rural residents are not 16 obstructionist. We are not opposed to progress, 17 we just want to protect our homes and property 18 that we have worked so hard to build. 19 In a recent conversation with my 20 coworkers, they wanted to know if I was one of 21 those rural lunatics opposed to progress. I 22 responded by saying, isn't it odd that when the 23 residents of Devil's Lake want to alleviate their 24 flood conditions, the province pulls out all the 25 stops, employing the best legal talent to find any 02557 1 impediment to stop the project, all the while 2 taking the environmental high ground. If the 3 province wants to demonstrate its environmental 4 stewardship, the floodway expansion is a perfect 5 opportunity. Thank you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 7 Mr. Praznuik. My colleague, Barrie Webster, has a 8 question or two of clarification. 9 MR. WEBSTER: Just one small question 10 and that is, I understand that Prairie Grove 11 drain, the entrance into the floodway, the drop 12 structure into the floodway you are talking about 13 is the same one we heard about earlier from the 14 Seine River Diversion, the one that's parallel, on 15 the east side of Highway 59? Is that correct? 16 MR. PRAZNUIK: Correct. 17 MR. WEBSTER: The Prairie Grove drain 18 joins that drain before entering the floodway? 19 MR. PRAZNUIK: Unfortunately there is 20 two Prairie Grove drains, the one that enters into 21 the centreline drain, and then the Old Prairie 22 Grove drain that does enter the one you're 23 speaking of. 24 MR. WEBSTER: That's the one you are 25 referring to? 02558 1 MR. PRAZNUIK: Yes. 2 MR. WEBSTER: The one that intersects 3 at the Seine River Diversion, that parallels -- I 4 know there are two Seine River diversions as well, 5 but it is the one that enters at Highway 59. 6 MR. PRAZNUIK: I do have a CD prepared 7 by one of my neighbours, if you are interested in 8 seeing it, it's got a full view of that structure. 9 MR. WEBSTER: That might be useful, 10 but I think you have answered my question. Thanks 11 very much. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Wayne. 13 MR. MOTHERAL: Just a question. Have 14 you attended many of these hearings so far? 15 MR. PRAZNUIK: These hearings, I was 16 in Oakbank last Thursday, that was the only other 17 one I attended. 18 MR. MOTHERAL: I realized some of 19 these issues you brought up, we have heard before 20 and they have been brought up before. They are 21 certainly in our database here. 22 MR. PRAZNUIK: Good, I'm glad they 23 were. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 25 Mr. Praznuik. Next is Mr. Jack Penner. 02559 1 MR. PENNER: My name is Jack Penner. 2 I am the member of the legislature for the 3 constituency of Emerson, and I am the critic for 4 Water Stewardship for the Province of Manitoba. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'll have 6 the secretary swear you in. 7 (JACK PENNER: SWORN) 8 THE CHAIRMAN: We welcome you, 9 Mr. Penner, and please proceed. 10 MR. PENNER: Thank you very much. 11 First of all, for on very short notice, giving me 12 the opportunity to bring a few issues to this 13 hearing. I think it's extremely important that 14 you, as the Clean Environment Commission, took the 15 time to assess and hear the concerns of the people 16 of Manitoba, and we commend you, as the 17 Commission, for taking the time to review once 18 again the environmental concerns that Manitobans 19 have. But thank you again for allowing me to 20 appear before the hearing today. 21 In 1999, fellow Progressive 22 Conservative caucus member, Bonnie Mitchelson, the 23 MLA for River East and myself were appointed to an 24 all-party committee to study the options for flood 25 protection in Manitoba. To my dismay, that 02560 1 committee, chaired by Premier Gary Doer himself, 2 was only allowed to examine two different 3 proposals, rather than study an assortment of 4 various flood protection measures. That all party 5 committee was asked to make a choice between only 6 two projects for flood protection, expanding the 7 existing floodway or building a dam at Ste. 8 Agathe. Of those two options, my colleagues and I 9 supported the floodway expansion, and we still do. 10 The flood of 1997 showed everybody 11 just how close the City of Winnipeg came to a 12 massive disaster, and protection for future flood 13 is necessary. 14 And Mr. Chairman, is it possible for 15 me to make some comments beyond what I have in the 16 written context? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course. 18 MR. PENNER: Thank you very much. 19 Those of us that represented the Red River area at 20 that time took a lot of time to assess what was 21 happening. And I was given an opportunity by 22 Colonel Semiano, who was the army corp or the army 23 representative stationed in Altona, to have access 24 to a helicopter almost at will. And we flew the 25 valley many, many times from the eastern 02561 1 escarpment to the western escarpment, and as well 2 to north of Winnipeg as well as south of the U.S. 3 border. And what we saw had a great impact on how 4 I view flooding and what should be done or could 5 be done for flooding in the Red River Valley, 6 which I will make comment on a little while later. 7 But it was very obvious to us that on a few days 8 prior to the Z-Dyke construction started, that if 9 action weren't taken there was a real possibility 10 that much of the City of Winnipeg would go under 11 water in 1997. 12 However, as Water Stewardship critic I 13 have heard several valid concerns regarding the 14 expansion of this floodway that I feel that I must 15 address. These concerns have not only come from 16 municipal officials and professionals, but from 17 many private citizens who have concerns about the 18 unintentional side-effects of the floodway 19 expansion. 20 Flooding concerns are a major factor 21 that need to be answered for the public. Is there 22 enough river capacity north of the floodway to 23 handle the increased flow from Lockport to Lake 24 Winnipeg? 25 Again, those of us that have had the 02562 1 opportunity to see the ice jams firsthand, from 2 the air as well as from the ground, know what kind 3 of disastrous effect they can have at any time, 4 and how fast water levels can rise in areas such 5 as Selkirk and many other communities. 6 Many people have expressed worry to me 7 that the increasing flow, by expanding the 8 floodway, will simply put more strain on an 9 existing river structure that is already prone to 10 flooding downstream of the flood. 11 What guarantees will these communities 12 be given to have their flood protection needs met 13 at the time of need? 14 Ice jam flooding has also been another 15 recurring threat north of the floodway. How will 16 increased flood flows affect this natural forming 17 situation that has caused troubles in the past? 18 Moving south into the City of 19 Winnipeg, within the limits, the City of Winnipeg 20 has had concerns regarding the existing dyking and 21 flood structures that will require strengthening 22 on top of the floodway expansion in order to meet 23 the protection needs of the City of Winnipeg. And 24 the City of Winnipeg has, when we were governing, 25 many times come to us and said that the protection 02563 1 within the City of Winnipeg, the dykes within the 2 City of Winnipeg need to be raised and need to be 3 dealt with in a manner to ensure that when the 4 occasion arises their flood protection will be 5 assured. 6 While the expanded floodway will 7 relieve the greatest burden from a one in 700 year 8 flood, there are still areas within the city river 9 system which would be under threat and require 10 stabilizing. The operation of the floodway 11 obviously is a concern that needs an answer. 12 Finally on the topic of flooding, this 13 hearing heard yesterday from the Mayor of Ritchot 14 about this community's worries from flooding to 15 the south of the floodway. To have the Floodway 16 Authority tell property owners south of the 17 floodway that they simply could not expect to be 18 protected is very troublesome to the Mayor and 19 many of us that reside south of the City of 20 Winnipeg, as well as all of those that reside 21 close to the proximity of the dykes surrounding 22 the City of Winnipeg. 23 While a cost benefit analysis of all 24 works must be done, this entire process should 25 lead to a resolution that satisfies all Manitobans 02564 1 that are affected by the Red River flood. Should 2 areas where government actions may artificially 3 create flooding beyond 1997's levels not be 4 protected? 5 We believe that many of the 6 communities, if we raise and/or operate the 7 floodgates in such a way that will raise the 8 levels of water outside of the dyke south of the 9 City of Winnipeg, many of the communities will 10 require additional protection from where they are 11 today. And I named the communities of Letellier, 12 which has a major water treatment plant which 13 serves virtually much of the southern portion of 14 the Red River Valley for their drinking water 15 needs. And if that plant should go under, we 16 would be in serious trouble from Altona to Morden 17 and Winkler and Carman, and many of the smaller 18 communities that exist in that area. And we 19 believe there needs to be adequate assurance given 20 to those communities that those most essential 21 services will in fact be protected. 22 While the cost benefit analysis of all 23 works must be done, this entire process should 24 lead to a resolution that satisfies all 25 Manitobans. Communities along the Red River, 02565 1 Morris, St. Jean Baptiste and Letellier, to name a 2 few, may all see their existing flood protection 3 effects from pressures created at the floodway 4 opening. What study of those effects have been 5 undertaken and what studies have been done, and 6 have they been adequately done? Has there been a 7 study of how the increased flow levels will affect 8 the riverbank erosion levels south of the 9 floodway, north of the floodway, and within the 10 floodway itself? 11 Some areas along the Red River have 12 already seen significant amounts of topsoil washed 13 away and collapsed riverbanks in many areas 14 between the city and the U.S. border. We have 15 heard on numerous occasions those market gardeners 16 just south of the city here have complained about 17 their riverbank and their properties on the river 18 collapsing into the river. Well, I should say to 19 you that that is not just an issue experienced, or 20 something that's experienced just close to the 21 City of Winnipeg, that is a problem that has 22 occurred right through to the U.S. border and 23 beyond. 24 And I believe what we have seen on our 25 farm, we have lost at least four feet of soil on 02566 1 that section of our farm where the water overflows 2 virtually every year now. And we have seen the 3 collapse of riverbank, there must be at least 4 20 feet to 30 feet of riverbank that has totally 5 disappeared, including all the elm trees and 6 everything that grew on it. But it is the effect 7 of the faster flow of water, and the amount of 8 water that has come down that riverway in the last 9 number of years that has seen some fairly severe 10 erosion. 11 The other thing that I want to say, 12 that I didn't put in my comments here, is that 13 during 1988, when I was first elected, the elm 14 bark beetle became a real problem in Manitoba. We 15 have lost virtually all the elms along the Red 16 River. Anybody can fly that Red River, or anybody 17 can take a boat down the Red River during the 18 summer and take a look at how many elms are left 19 in on that whole river. It has always been by 20 view that if we would have taken action at that 21 time and cut all of the elms out of the Red River, 22 we would today have a lot less pollution in Lake 23 Winnipeg. Because every flood event, you see 24 massive amounts of wood float down river that is 25 broken down because of the dead and rotting trees. 02567 1 And they end up nowhere else but in Lake Winnipeg. 2 And I believe that that is a very significant part 3 of the problem that Lake Winnipeg is facing, is 4 that rotting material at the bottom of the lake. 5 And I think we could have prevented that if we 6 would have acted properly. 7 Of concern to the municipalities and 8 residents is our infrastructure such as roads, 9 highways and bridges. Faster flows, according to 10 one engineer, will create a greater strain on our 11 bridges crossing the Red River south of the 12 floodway. And again those of us that live close 13 to Letellier, which still has that old truss 14 bridge, the approaches on those bridges at St. 15 Jean and Letellier are falling into the river. 16 And the riverbank is sliding on a yearly basis. 17 And there will have to be some significant 18 attention paid, I think, to some of the major 19 infrastructure along that river, if we're going to 20 increase the flow capacity and make that river 21 water flow even faster or allow it to get away 22 even faster during flood events. I would suspect 23 that the engineer is correct in suggesting that 24 that should be a concern. 25 It is accepted knowledge that the 02568 1 construction of the current floodway resulted in 2 a crack in the bedrock. The officials from 3 affected rural municipalities have been before 4 this hearing to ask for a delay and to later 5 present evidence that may suggest that drinking 6 water can possibly be affected by the expansion. 7 Just earlier this year, E. coli 8 bacteria was discovered in high concentration 9 within the floodwaters. So groundwater effects 10 must be taken into very careful consideration as 11 clean drinking water accessibility is of the 12 utmost importance to those Manitobans residing 13 along the floodway. But it is not only along the 14 floodway, it is the entire Red River Valley is now 15 reliant on the Red River for its drinking and 16 potable water through the, via the treatment 17 plants at Morris and Letellier. And I believe 18 that a significant amount of attention must be 19 paid to the fact that we not allow those aquifers 20 that deliver water to the eastern part of the 21 province, and east of the Red River, be in any way 22 contaminated. And I think we should use all 23 possible means to ensure that there isn't a 24 mingling of polluted waters into that aquifer. 25 As for the bedrock fracture, it is my 02569 1 understanding that the Floodway Authority has 2 offered to patch the fissures using clay. To 3 those of us who live in the valley and know how 4 easily clay soils wash away by water currents 5 during flood events, that is simply unacceptable. 6 The people of Springfield, East St. 7 Paul and St. Clements are asking for absolute 8 assurance that their water supplies will not be 9 contaminated lest the future of their communities 10 be in danger. We believe that the absolute 11 sealing of the bedrock crack, that substantive 12 materials must be found to use to seal those 13 cracks in that aquifer. 14 Who will make the assurance to those 15 communities? Will the Floodway Authority make it? 16 Will the province authority make it? I believe 17 the floodway -- or the CEC does not have the 18 authority to order this, but they can recommend 19 it. And certainly we hope that the province will 20 pay a great deal of attention to ensuring that 21 there will not be contamination of that aquifer. 22 Finally, I am very concerned about the 23 drainage access to the floodway. And those of us 24 that live close to the river know what it means to 25 be able to -- and farm in that area, in our area, 02570 1 know what it means to have proper drainage in our 2 flat Red River valley. 3 Is the province going to ensure that 4 appropriate drainage facility be installed at the 5 floodway to allow agriculture producers to conduct 6 their operations the best they can under difficult 7 circumstances? Water flow access through proper 8 drop structures and adequate flow through 9 infrastructures are essential to ensure the 10 viability of the agricultural sector that the 11 Province of Manitoba relies on. 12 I want to make one further comment, if 13 I'm allowed, and that is -- I've been somewhat 14 hesitant to do this, and I know this is beyond 15 your authority, and if you deem it not 16 appropriate, please tell me. 17 I have been in Washington over the 18 last two weeks, and I have been in Kansas City 19 over the last two weeks dealing with water issues 20 on both fronts. And I have had the opportunity to 21 look at many of the proposals that the Americans 22 are currently looking at to study flood 23 prevention. And that's one of the main reasons I 24 made that trip and met with many of those people. 25 When I look at Manitoba and the huge 02571 1 potential for environmental, for environmental 2 protection of our water resources, and from the 3 aspect of ensuring that we will be able to drought 4 proof the province at the same time we offer 5 bigger and more flood protection for our 6 communities, I think it is imperative that we 7 start in this province discussing major structures 8 for storage of waters. We could do this on the 9 Pembina River. 10 We have commissioned a study -- a 11 study was commissioned by the Lower Red River 12 Valley Water Commission, and that study shows that 13 if two dams had been built on the Pembina, the 14 water levels at Winnipeg, not at Emerson but at 15 Winnipeg on the dyke could have been lowered by a 16 foot to a foot and a half. That might have not 17 required then the building of the Z-Dyke. That's 18 very significant. And I believe if we would allow 19 ourself the latitude to study properly 20 construction of a dam on the Assiniboine River at 21 Holland, which had been proposed many years ago, 22 and dams on the Souris and other areas, I believe 23 we could mitigate flooding in the Red River Valley 24 very dramatically. 25 And secondly, if we would allow 02572 1 ourselves the latitude to study the honeycomb 2 effect, which I took many pictures of during those 3 flood trips that we did, how much water was stored 4 on the escarpment because culverts at '97 were all 5 frozen shut. So every section of land had water 6 stored in it. And had all that water come 7 together as it normally would have with the 8 freed-up flows that normally exist in the spring 9 of the year, I suspect we might have had a much 10 higher level of flooding than we did. And I think 11 we were very fortunate to have that honeycomb 12 effect. 13 So to you Commissioners, I respect 14 that I probably overstepped my bounds in making 15 those kinds of comments, but I truly believe, and 16 believe in my heart that we should do the 17 construction in this province, or start 18 constructing many of these flood preventative 19 measures that we could use, and at the same time 20 drought-proof our province and look at the 21 tremendous economic impact that would have for 22 industrial development in many of our rural 23 communities. Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Penner. 25 And you needn't worry about overstepping your 02573 1 bounds, we are fairly open here. Any questions? 2 MR. MOTHERAL: It's not a question, 3 it's a comment. And I realized that our purpose 4 here is to ask you questions on clarity and all 5 that. But there is also, in your business of the 6 whole watershed districts, there is a lot of great 7 things going on in that sense too, with small 8 tributaries across the province, with conservation 9 districts. And Cooks Creek have been very well 10 attended at these Commission hearings and it's 11 good to see that. So thank you for those 12 comments. 13 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, if we 14 could just finish up our administration here, with 15 Mr. Stinson's presentation being Exhibit 89, Mr. 16 Praznuik's presentation as 90, and Mr. Penner's 17 presentation as Exhibit 91. 18 (EXHIBIT 89: Presentation: Clean 19 Environment Commission, Floodway 20 Expansion Project. Presented by James 21 Stinson) 22 23 (EXHIBIT 90: Presentation: Clean 24 Environment Commission Public 25 Hearings, March 1, 2005. Presented by 02574 1 Kenneth Praznuik) 2 3 (EXHIBIT 91: Presentation: Jack 4 Penner, MLA Emerson) 5 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 7 Pretty good time management, that brings us to 8 just about five o'clock. We meet tomorrow at 9 1:00 p.m. back here. On the agenda tomorrow 10 afternoon are two participant groups, the Rivers 11 West Red River Corridor Association followed by 12 Mr. Paul Clifton, and tomorrow evening we have a 13 public session with a half a dozen people wishing 14 to make presentations. So one o'clock here 15 tomorrow. 16 17 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 4:53 P.M.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02575 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