02526 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Wednesday, March 2, 2005 14 Sheraton Hotel, 161 Donald Street 15 Winnipeg, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 Volume 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02527 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 02528 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 02529 1 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS 2 Presentation by Rivers West and Red River floodway Trail Coalition 3 Jeff Frank Glen Manning 4 Jim August Janice Lukes 5 Lorna Hendrickson 2533 Presentation by Paul Clifton 2580 6 Presentation by Mr. Stuart Manness 2670 Presentation by Mr. Douglas Ford 2697 7 Presentation by Ms Susan Goyer 2711 Presentation by Mr. Dave Woytowich 2729 8 Presentation by Mr. Ross Hadden 2743 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02530 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 92 Presentation. Rivers West & The Red 2579 River Trails Coalition. Presented 3 by Jeff Frank, Lorna Hendrickson, Janice Lukes, Jim August 4 5 93 Presentation: Submission to the 2579 Manitoba Clean Environment 6 Commission Public Hearings Regarding Integration of Recreation 7 and Greenway Considerations as part of the Red River Floodway Expansion 8 Project. Submitted by Rivers West and The Red River Floodway Trail 9 Coalition 10 94 Mr. Clifton's presentation to CEC 2668 11 95 Mr. Clifton's submission, We Are 2668 12 All In It Together 13 96 Presentation of Mr. Manness to CEC 2745 14 97 Presentation of Mr. Kocay to CEC 2745 15 16 98 Presentation of Susan Goyer to CEC 2745 17 99 Presentation of Dave Woytowich to 2745 18 CEC 19 100 Presentation of Ross Hadden to CEC 2745 20 21 22 23 24 25 02531 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 02532 1 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2005 2 Upon commencing at 1:00 p.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. Could 5 we come to order and get back to business. 6 Welcome to day 11 I believe it is. Just let me 7 briefly report on some business. Dave Farlinger, 8 from our consulting team, has been in contact with 9 Dave Andress, the ice jam engineer consultant that 10 we have engaged. He has received most of the 11 material that he needs to review. He has 12 indicated that he will likely have a written 13 report available for us on Monday and that he 14 would be available on Wednesday. We had hoped to 15 get him on Tuesday. It would have made our 16 proceedings next week flow a little easier; 17 however, he felt that wouldn't be sufficient time 18 for him to do all the work he needs to. So he 19 will be here on Wednesday. 20 So the business next week at the 21 beginning of the week, the agenda for Monday will 22 be more or less as already posted. Tuesday, we 23 may not have a full day. Wednesday, we'll deal 24 with Mr. Andress. And then we may finish 25 Wednesday afternoon or we may have to go into 02533 1 Thursday morning, we'll see how it goes. But I 2 don't see any reason why we won't conclude these 3 proceedings sometime next week, Wednesday or 4 Thursday. 5 This afternoon, we have two 6 presenters. First is Rivers West, the Red River 7 Corridor Association. Following them will be 8 Mr. Paul Clifton, resident of RM of Ritchot. 9 Turning to the Rivers West group. I'd 10 ask you all to introduce yourselves for the 11 record. Any of you that are giving evidence will 12 have to be sworn in, so the Commission Secretary 13 will do that following your introductions. So 14 please introduce yourselves for the record. 15 MR. FRANK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 16 I am Jeff Frank. 17 MR. MANNING: I am Glen Manning. 18 MR. AUGUST: Jim August. 19 MS. LUKES: Janice Lukes. 20 MS. HENDRICKSON: Lorna Hendrickson. 21 22 (JEFF FRANK: SWORN) 23 (GLEN MANNING: SWORN) 24 (JIM AUGUST: SWORN) 25 (JANICE LUKES: SWORN) 02534 1 (LORNA HENDRICKSON: SWORN) 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You may 4 proceed. 5 MS. HENDRICKSON: Mr. Chair, before we 6 begin our formal presentation this afternoon, I 7 just wanted to make a statement. After listening 8 to the testimony over the past few weeks and 9 particularly the narratives that we heard on 10 Monday of those people whose lives have been torn 11 apart or destroyed, it is really difficult to 12 present on recreational use of the floodway. We 13 respect the magnitude of the statements that all 14 presenters have made. 15 There has been so much divisiveness 16 and animosity in these proceedings and we 17 certainly do not want to add to this. We do not 18 want this to be another issue that causes 19 additional divisiveness and bitterness in the Red 20 River Valley. We are not advocating recreation 21 over water quality over mitigation or 22 compensation. All issues are important and must 23 be considered and addressed in a matter acceptable 24 to all. 25 The parties involved need to meet 02535 1 their obligation to the people of the Red River 2 Valley. Thanks. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 4 MR. FRANK: Thanks, Lorna. Our 5 presentation today is with regard to recreation 6 and greenway use of the floodway. The formal 7 submission was distributed some time ago to the 8 panel and the other intervenors. This 9 presentation provides some additional colour and 10 flesh to that presentation and a little less 11 detailed, perhaps a little more information. 12 What we'll be talking about today is, 13 first of all, an introduction to Rivers West and 14 the Red River Trail Coalition. We'll describe the 15 vision and strategy that the coalition has 16 developed to date. How we interpret from the 17 information available to us what the MFEA's vision 18 and strategy is for recreation and greenway 19 development as part of the project. We'll review 20 some precedents that we think are relevant to this 21 discussion. We'll talk about an integrated design 22 approach that incorporates recreation as part of 23 the project. And finally, we'll be making some 24 very specific recommendations to this CEC for 25 consideration for including in the licence. 02536 1 As Lorna said, the floodway project 2 includes some very serious issues such as flood 3 protection, groundwater, upstream flooding, 4 downstream concerns, costs, and we acknowledge 5 that all of these are legitimate interests and 6 we're not in any way, through this presentation, 7 intending to diminish any of those. However, we 8 do think it's important to acknowledge that 9 recreation greenway relates to the quality of life 10 for the citizens of Manitoba, and as well, to 11 addressing specific safety and security concerns 12 that are present in the floodway at this point in 13 time. 14 It's our job today, we feel, to 15 provide you with the information necessary to help 16 you gauge the importance of these values and 17 issues. Remember, please, that recreation has 18 always been part of this project from its very 19 inception. The very first analysis of 20 alternatives referred to recreation as one of the 21 significant benefits that an expanded floodway 22 could provide. 23 As recently as the March EIS draft 24 statement, recreation was acknowledged as one of 25 the four significant benefits of the expansion 02537 1 project. So it's been widely acknowledged, and 2 we'll talk in more detail about that through our 3 presentation, but it's been widely acknowledged 4 that recreation is part of this project. And 5 there is considerable public expectation that it 6 be included. 7 Our intent here today then is to 8 provide what we think is a reasonable process and 9 an effective process by which to go about doing 10 that. 11 I'm going to turn it over to Jim 12 August now. Jim is the Chair of the Rivers West 13 board and he'll introduce you to Rivers West and 14 what it's all about. Jim. 15 MR. AUGUST: Thank you, Jeff. I'm 16 pleased to be here presenting. Just a little bit 17 of background on Rivers West, Red River corridor. 18 It was incorporated in 1999. But about three 19 years prior to that, a fair amount of work had 20 gone on. It was really the focus of can one 21 promote the Red River corridor as a recreational 22 trail, as a tourism destination, not just for 23 local folks but for people coming in from out of 24 town. We did a lot of work in the early days with 25 destination Winnipeg, the tourism department as 02538 1 well as Tourism Manitoba or Travel Manitoba. 2 We started out looking at really from 3 Winnipeg going north through the Town of Selkirk 4 and eventually up to Gimli. But the interest 5 level by the various communities along the 6 corridor was very high. So really now what has 7 happened over the last number of years, our 8 organization, and I'm going to just make a quick 9 list of who is a member of the Rivers West board, 10 but we really now have a mandate dealing from the 11 U.S. border to Lake Winnipeg. 12 Members of our Board of Directors 13 represent Canadian Heritage, Federal Government, 14 Cidam (ph) which is the Francophone Economic 15 Development Corporation, Circle of Life, 16 Thunderbird House, City of Selkirk, City of 17 Winnipeg, Destination Winnipeg, Enterprises Riel 18 Corp. Inc., Greenway on the Red, Lower Fort Garry, 19 National Historic Site, Manitoba Culture, Heritage 20 and Tourism, Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs 21 and the Recreational Trails Association, Manitoba 22 Water Stewardship, Nature Conservancy of Canada, 23 the O Tours is a private tour operator, RM of East 24 St. Paul, RM of Franklin, RM of Ritchot, RM of St. 25 Clements, St. Boniface Museum, Forks North Portage 02539 1 Partnership, Town of Emerson, Town of Morris and 2 Western Economic Diversification. So it's quite 3 diverse in the sense it has representatives from a 4 number of communities sitting on the board as well 5 as government departments. 6 Our mission statement is fairly 7 succinct. It's to develop the Red River corridor 8 as a destination. And in that sense, and we 9 really do look at the whole idea of tour 10 development. We have looked at a number of trail, 11 river trails throughout North America and really 12 see an opportunity for the local community to 13 benefit from the Red River as a destination. 14 We began looking at it as a marketing 15 and promotional initiative but the more we got 16 into it, we realized that there is much more to 17 it. And I should say we're seeing more of that as 18 these discussions go on. We're looking at the 19 whole conservation side and there's a fair number 20 of initiatives being undertaken focusing on that. 21 So our mandate, it's up on the board 22 here, it's development, promotion and management 23 of a natural, tourism, cultural and heritage and 24 recreational resources of the Red River from 25 Emerson to Lake Winnipeg; to development of an 02540 1 international greenway along the Red River, with 2 the focus on increasing tourism, recreation and 3 economic development activity; and the 4 implementation of the floodway portion of the Red 5 River greenway. So the floodway is an integral 6 part of this overall thrust. And the other thing 7 we are working on is the nomination of the Red 8 River as a Canadian heritage river. And it's 9 quite likely that that will be approved at their 10 annual or their biannual meeting to take place in 11 Winnipeg in 2007. 12 We understand that the premier has 13 committed to the development of an international 14 greenway. That's a public statement that's been 15 made, and we are part of that planning process. 16 And that again, just repeat, that the floodway is 17 an integral part of this greenway. It's the 18 largest piece of contiguous public land along the 19 greenway and becomes a very important part of our 20 overall plan and thrust from a recreational 21 planning perspective. 22 So with that, I'd like to turn it back 23 to Jeff. 24 MR. FRANK: Thanks, Jim. So we're 25 using this term "greenway" and we thought it fair 02541 1 to describe exactly what we mean by that. There 2 are endless numbers of definition. This one I 3 pulled out from B.C. Ministry of Environment. But 4 basically, what it talks about is corridors that 5 link areas of green space, provide wildlife 6 habitat, recreation opportunities, et cetera. So 7 in a very general sense, greenways are corridors 8 that are developed for a multiplicity of reasons. 9 More recently, Rivers West 10 commissioned a study on the development of a 11 greenway along the Red River corridor. This was 12 completed in 2004 and it describes three kinds of 13 greenway that we're contemplating as part of the 14 Red River greenway. 15 A recreation greenway that's focused 16 on trails, making links for recreational purposes, 17 ecological greenways that develop, enhance, 18 promote, protect significant, natural corridors. 19 Cultural and historic greenways that 20 focus on cultural and historic values along the 21 greenway portion and we believe all of these three 22 subtypes of greenway are applicable to the 23 floodway. 24 So who is this Red River Floodway 25 Trail Coalition? Jim explained what Rivers West 02542 1 is and we'll just talk briefly about the synergies 2 that brought this group together. 3 Back in March of last year, the MFEA 4 issued a call for expression of interest for 5 people who are interested in recreation in the 6 floodway. That became a catalyst for a number of 7 groups to come together. Janice Lukes is the 8 Chair of the coalition currently. She is also the 9 Chair of the St. Norbert Heritage Trails 10 Association, and in that capacity, started to 11 bring together a number of groups to respond to 12 this request from the Floodway Authority. 13 So as the proposal developed, a number 14 of groups came together. Many of them were 15 directed to the coalition by the Floodway 16 Authority, recognizing that it's appropriate that 17 these groups get together and work together. 18 Following that, the coalition members 19 realized that the submission was very conceptual, 20 that it really had little flesh to it and it was 21 necessary for the groups to come together to begin 22 to understand some of the issues and opportunities 23 that the floodway presents for the various 24 interests. As such, Rivers West started to 25 develop this Trail Coalition as more of a working 02543 1 entity. And it undertook to bring parties 2 together to view a greenway, to go down to Grand 3 Forks which has established a significant greenway 4 presence as part of their flood mitigation 5 measures. And following that, to undertake a 6 workshop, to bring stakeholders together and 7 develop together vision guiding principles and a 8 strategy that can become the foundation for future 9 consideration as part of the recreation 10 development. 11 So this coalition represents a very 12 broad public constituency. Approximately 70 13 groups have participated in coalition activities 14 to date. And this runs the gamut from various 15 trail associations and hiking associations and 16 naturalist associations and hang gliding 17 associations and various government agencies that 18 are interested in fitness, recreation and tourism. 19 In response to this opportunity to 20 present to the CEC, the coalition members saw that 21 there is a need to kind of further formalize that 22 process. In our formal submission, we have the 23 terms of an MOU; and to date, we have had response 24 from these various groups. And as you can see, 25 they represent a broad cross-section of municipal 02544 1 governments, of economic development organizations 2 and recreation organizations. 3 So out of this October workshop, the 4 coalition members developed a vision. And that, 5 simply put, is that the Red River Greenway will be 6 accessible, community destination provide high 7 qualities. It will be sustainable. It will 8 provide for outdoor recreation. And I think very 9 importantly, that it will provide for healthy 10 living, connecting communities and the 11 environment. And it's that connecting communities 12 connecting to the environment that we think are 13 really at the core of the strategy. 14 As well, four guiding principles were 15 developed by the coalition and these include 16 obviously flood protection as being number one. 17 And we have always acknowledged that that's the 18 reason for this ditch and that's the most 19 important priority. Safety and accessibility, 20 both accessibility to communities and 21 accessibility to individuals, whatever their 22 condition. 23 Consultation and cooperation. And 24 it's been interesting through this workshop 25 process to have snowmobilers and four-wheel 02545 1 drivers -- four-wheel vehicle drivers sitting in a 2 room with the horse council and the cross country 3 ski association and coming to grips with their 4 differences and dealing with them in a positive 5 and productive way. 6 And it was quite remarkable the manner 7 in which the groups came to agreement in a 8 cooperative and consensus building fashion. 9 And finally, the principle of 10 conservation and environmental stewardship is 11 really something that we need to apply to 12 everything we do. 13 So the design strategy started to 14 provide some hints about some of the key issues 15 that would need to be addressed through a formal 16 design process. Remember, these are really just 17 the seeds of ideas that need to be nurtured and 18 developed. 19 Establishing a trail identity. This 20 was something that the coalition's members felt 21 very strongly about. And as well, they felt 22 strongly that recognition of Duff Roblin in that 23 greenway would be an appropriate thing to do. 24 As you may recall from the first slide 25 that we illustrated, the floodway now is a fairly 02546 1 barren and inhospitable environment so 2 opportunities to seek shelter from the wind and 3 from the sun would be important. 4 There are a number of existing staging 5 facilities along the corridor route. So there is 6 clearly opportunity to grow from those staging 7 facilities. Adding trees and grasses, separating 8 uses where possible. Again the snowmobiling and 9 horseback riding may be compatible with their 10 different seasons but snowmobiling and 11 cross-country skiing may not be. Providing 12 multiple crossing opportunities. Many times 13 during the season, the floodway has some water and 14 it's necessary to cross that and that's something 15 that needs to be considered. 16 Drafting a trail code. The Winnipeg 17 trail system has done that so there is a clear 18 understanding of the roles and obligations of all 19 of the users of the facility as to what the 20 appropriate behaviour is. And this is a necessary 21 part to mitigate some of the concerns that have 22 been expressed to the Commission to date with 23 regard of current unauthorized use of the 24 floodway. 25 Plan for the long-term. We show in 02547 1 these slides an image of the legislative buildings 2 when they were built around the 1920s and as they 3 appear today. The foresight to plant the few 4 trees is something that all of us in Winnipeg 5 relish now, but it required that foresight 100 6 years ago to do that. 7 And finally, creating a stable 8 governance body. This is going to be a complex 9 organism with lots of different users and lots of 10 different needs. The manner in which that whole 11 system is governed needs to be integral to the 12 design of that system. 13 With regard to the spatial 14 organization of a potential system, what we are 15 illustrating here, again very conceptually, is the 16 idea that this isn't necessarily a trail running 17 48 kilometres up the floodway, rather this 18 opportunity is to subdivide that trail into 19 reasonable loops; to borrow diversity from 20 existing features, for example, the Seine River as 21 an existing natural environment that ties directly 22 into the floodway offers a range of diversity that 23 we would never be able to recreate nor would we 24 necessarily want to recreate in the floodway. But 25 it's there. We can make that relationship. 02548 1 And link to growing neighbourhoods. 2 The black lines that you see here are the existing 3 trail systems within the City of Winnipeg that 4 span out to the floodway. So certainly there is 5 opportunity to utilize the floodway right of way 6 as an opportunity to link them together in an 7 interesting and dynamic way. 8 So our objective here is to ensure 9 that recreation and greenway issues are addressed 10 in keeping with the project's initial intent. So 11 what was that initial intent? 12 As I mentioned earlier, recreation has 13 been identified as one of four sizeable benefits 14 of this project, the others being flood protection 15 obviously, employment and infrastructure 16 improvements and recreation is right up there with 17 them in previous documentation from the Floodway 18 Authority, and we happen to agree. 19 Initially, back in July 2003, the 20 description of the project stated that the 21 development of the project will include the 22 maximum practical extent of recreation facilities, 23 not may include, not might include, not should 24 include but will include. 25 And as recently as March 2004, 02549 1 Minister Ashton is quoted in a press release that 2 the MFEA will allocate a portion of overall costs 3 to the expansion. 4 So clearly, between then and now, some 5 things have changed. The guidelines for the 6 preparation of the EIS in February 2004 state that 7 incorporation of recreation facilities to the 8 maximum extent practical. Well, that's a fairly 9 fuzzy statement there. Who is to decide what is 10 practical and what is maximum? The will is gone 11 from here. 12 At our workshop in October of last 13 year, I'll paraphrase Mr. McNeil. We don't have a 14 specific quote. But opening the workshop with a 15 statement that there are no funds available for 16 any recreation or trail development as part of the 17 project. And that's since been confirmed in these 18 proceedings with Mr. McNeil's, I believe it was 19 the opening commentary regarding recreation that 20 it is not part of the project. There is no money 21 for it in the project and that any recreation 22 undertakings are the responsibility of other 23 parties. And again, that's a paraphrase. I'm 24 afraid I don't have the specific quote with me. 25 So what about the EIS? What has it 02550 1 said about recreation? And again, paraphrasing. 2 There is a considerable discussion about the 3 positive benefits of recreation and then they are 4 dismissed as not being an environmental effect. 5 So there are no conclusions with regard to 6 recreation. There are conclusions, however, with 7 regard to the existing conflicts that occur in the 8 floodway and a notation that these conflicts need 9 to be mitigated. And that's a responsibility of 10 the project. 11 The mitigation measures that are noted 12 I believe refer to consultation rather than any 13 particular development. 14 With regard to greenway, I guess the 15 thing that struck me was, quoting from the EIS, 16 that the project will cause "no appreciable 17 adverse effects on aesthetic quality of the area." 18 I don't know what could possibly provide an 19 adverse effect to what is already quite an adverse 20 environment. 21 So the MFEA asked the public to 22 contribute information regarding recreation and 23 its potential incorporation into the floodway. By 24 my count, there were 12 proponents came forward 25 with proposals regarding recreation, and that was 02551 1 back in April of 2004. 2 The reference is made in the 3 supplementary EIS of November 2004 to MFEA having 4 received this information and subsequently an 5 opportunity report, that is essentially a copy of 6 the November 2004 EIS supplementary statement, was 7 issued in January. 8 The most concrete statement arising 9 from that report is that the MFEA will "consider a 10 number of next steps." Amongst those are 11 developing a recreation group and establishing a 12 multi-use four-season greenway trail along the 13 floodway within the project's pre-design. Again 14 I'll underscore that they will consider these 15 things but are making no commitment to do them. 16 The recreation group, as it's defined 17 in the recreation opportunity report, deals with 18 mitigating the negative impacts of recreation on 19 the floodway. It is not described as something to 20 deal with potential or the positive benefits. 21 So the coalition or Rivers West has 22 had a long ongoing dialogue with the MFEA really 23 since the inception of the MFEA. We first visited 24 Mr. Gilroy when there was still plastic on the 25 chairs in the office. More recently, the MFEA has 02552 1 participated in the tour of Grand Forks. The 2 coalition met with the MFEA on January 17th to 3 come to some agreements on a mutual understanding 4 of the Floodway Authority's priorities, 5 understanding that recreation is something that 6 can and should be considered later. Again, this 7 is the MFEA's position. But that the MFEA would 8 assist the coalition to obtain funding to 9 undertake a master plan for the floodway. 10 Subsequently, one of the outcomes of 11 that meeting was a discussion about bridges and 12 crossings. We were assured at that meeting that 13 this is a matter that can be left for later and 14 that there's lots of opportunity to deal with it 15 at a later date. We were a little uneasy about 16 that when looking at the schedule for construction 17 of the bridges and corresponded to the MFEA on 18 January 21st of this year with some very 19 preliminary recommendations for consideration of 20 recreation opportunities on the bridges, this in 21 the absence of any master plan or any specific 22 recommendations which has always been our 23 difficulty. 24 Correspondence received from the MFEA 25 on February 8th states that the MFEA would 02553 1 consider those recommendations in their ongoing 2 design. 3 So we've had this ongoing dialogue and 4 communication and trying to understand one another 5 but it appears, from our standpoint, that what the 6 MFEA is saying is that it's the responsibility of 7 others to design and implement recreation and 8 greenway facilities. 9 And I think the other factor that is 10 implicit in that is that the recreation fabric is 11 something that can be overlain on the project at 12 some later date without any significant 13 consequence to it. So let us get on with our 14 important engineering works. When we're done 15 that, you can come along and recreate to your 16 heart's content. That's not what other 17 jurisdictions do. 18 First of all, the United States 19 Department of Federal Highways Administration. In 20 1999, the U.S. Federal Highways Administration 21 introduced legislation to incorporate 22 non-motorized facilities in all of their public 23 projects. Any road, bridge in the United States 24 is funded by the Federal Highway Administration 25 must integrate planning and design of recreation 02554 1 facilities as part of its project. 2 The U.S. army corps of engineers 3 spends in the order of $268 million a year on 4 recreation. That comprises 5.4 per cent of its 5 total annual budget which is in excess of 6 $4.5 billion. Again, their policy is that all 7 projects that they are involved in must include 8 consideration of recreation. 9 Another municipality, the City of 10 Boulder. This is something that came up from our 11 Google search, nothing of any specific intimate 12 knowledge other than they do a considerable amount 13 of planning and design around flood and storm 14 water conditions and they have integrated 6 per 15 cent of their budget to recreation. 16 Closer to home in Canada, the City of 17 Saskatoon. Many of you who have visited there are 18 no doubt familiar with the Meewasin Valley. The 19 Meewasin Valley is approximately 6,500 hectares in 20 size. So I believe that's not too terribly 21 dissimilar from the floodway. It's about 80 22 kilometres long. And in 1979, the City of 23 Saskatoon, the Government of Saskatchewan and a 24 neighboring municipality got together and said 25 this is a neat resource and prepared a master 02555 1 plan. In that case, it was a 100 year master plan 2 that they commissioned for that corridor. In the 3 25 years since the preparation of that master 4 plan, a total of $70 million has been invested in 5 the Meewasin Valley. Of this amount, $20 million 6 has come directly from the original partners and 7 the remainder has been levered from public and 8 other sources. It includes conservation measures, 9 interpretive facilities and approximately 40 10 kilometres of trail. Over a million people a year 11 utilize these facilities in Saskatoon. 12 In Edmonton, Alberta, again a place 13 known for its commitment to recreation trails. 14 They recently completed a master plan for the 15 utilization of utility right-of-ways. The outcome 16 was recommendations for 62 kilometre network of 17 trails and a total price tag in excess of 18 $21 million. The first phase of construction 19 recommended is for $7.7 million. 20 Closer to home, Grand Forks, which was 21 visited by the coalition members and the MFEA. As 22 part of their flood mitigation measures, they have 23 developed the greenway which incorporates 32 24 kilometres of paved trails and other facilities 25 such as pedestrian bridges. They have facilities 02556 1 for cross-country skiing and snowmobiling, an 2 investment of $20 million that was cost-shared 3 50/50 by the state and by the army corps of 4 engineers. 5 So you can see through all of these 6 examples that they all involve some form of 7 integration of planning, of design of recreation 8 facilities, as part of the design of an overall 9 project. So this is what we refer to as an 10 integrated design approach. 11 So why should this be a subject of 12 interest to the CEC? Well, the CEC's terms of 13 reference require consideration of the principles 14 of sustainable development guidelines for 15 Manitoba. And this is an act of the Province of 16 Manitoba. 17 So what does that strategy say? And 18 we have selected some of the principles and one of 19 the guidelines from a whole long list. But it 20 says it is necessary to integrate environmental 21 and economic decisions. It talks about 22 stewardship, about shared responsibility and 23 understanding. But in the guideline section, it 24 talks specifically about integrated 25 decision-making and planning. And that is the 02557 1 encouragement and facilitation of decision making 2 and planning processes that are efficient, timely, 3 accountable and cross-sectoral which incorporate 4 an intergenerational perspective of future needs 5 and consequences. 6 So we submit that recreation is an 7 integral part of this project and that 8 integration, integrated planning with a view to 9 immediate needs and long-term intergenerational 10 needs must be part of this project. 11 As well, there are other government 12 organizations at play here. There is a whole new 13 department in government called Manitoba Healthy 14 Living that speaks of the health benefits of 15 recreation. There is the Manitoba -- the capital 16 region review that talks about the incorporation 17 of bicycle and pedestrian paths into all of the 18 capital region's major developments. 19 There is extensive literature from the 20 World Health Organization on the crisis that we 21 are facing globally with regard to health and 22 sedentary lifestyles and how recreation 23 infrastructure is an important factor in 24 addressing that. 25 So the coalition is being awfully 02558 1 presumptuous coming here and telling you all what 2 to do, but we think that we have some good purpose 3 in doing that. First of all, it's quite a 4 remarkable group of diverse users who have come 5 together as a single point of contact. The 6 coalition members have demonstrated that they are 7 able to manage their internal grievances and to 8 come to consensus around decisions. We envision 9 that the same group -- I spoke earlier of a 10 governance body -- can come together as the 11 management group for any future recreation 12 developments. 13 There is existing use of the floodway 14 and it is unsafe and it is unsecure and it is a 15 tremendous nuisance and a difficulty and, in many 16 places, hazardous for adjacent municipalities and 17 they have legitimate and real concerns. And 18 that's something that can be addressed through 19 this process. 20 The coalition members have developed a 21 lot of -- invested a lot in building this 22 consensus to date and are quite proud of that and 23 as well have garnered a great deal of positive 24 media support around the notion of recreation at 25 part of the floodway. 02559 1 So in terms of the MFEA and the 2 coalition, I mean we see that our paths are 3 parallel and that it's in both our interests to 4 adopt a cooperative approach. 5 So our objectives for this integrated 6 planning approach are threefold. First of all, we 7 believe that there are a number of immediate 8 coordination needs. We believe that it's 9 necessary to integrate at the earliest stage 10 long-term plans into the floodway pre-design. And 11 we believe that it's necessary to implement and 12 operate. 13 So what are some of those immediate 14 needs? And again, we aren't privy to the detail 15 of the floodway's plans nor do we have the 16 resources currently to fully address them. But 17 for example, there is temporary access roads, 18 there will be restoration, there will be 19 construction staging sites and facilities. Have 20 any of these been considered with regard to their 21 potential after-use for recreation? Mr. McNeil 22 has talked about the bulk excavation and the 23 potential to utilize that at a later date for 24 earth forming. That's fine. But perhaps there's 25 some efficiencies that can be gained if we address 02560 1 the recreation as part of that initial operation. 2 Perhaps not, I don't know. 3 Bridges and crossings are something 4 that we have had a greet deal of concern about. 5 We understand that it's very costly to add a 6 pedestrian or a bicycle lane or a sidewalk onto a 7 bridge. And that those should only be added where 8 they are warranted. While we've made our best 9 guess at this point in time where we think they 10 may be warranted, the plans aren't in place that 11 can really substantiate that. 12 There would be revetments, there will 13 be other shoreline structures. What use might 14 these have for recreation and how can that be 15 planned into the development? What is Floodway 16 Authority planning with regard to signage or 17 interpretation and how will that relate to future 18 recreation uses? And again, these are all just 19 maybes, but things that we think need to be 20 considered. 21 With regard to the long-term, it's 22 necessary to develop, as Meewasin Valley did, a 23 long-term master plan. And the starting place of 24 that is understanding what the detailed 25 programmatic requirements of the various users 02561 1 are. So that's number one. Out of that falls as 2 master plan and the related budgets. The 3 operation and maintenance plans come out of that. 4 How should it best be implemented given all of the 5 other circumstances, phase, what are the business 6 prospects associated with that, where will the 7 money come from? How can it be sustained? What 8 kind of communication strategy is necessary, both 9 with regard to users and to the public overall in 10 contributing to the plan? And ongoing 11 consultation during the floodway design so that 12 there is a direct knit between the floodway 13 planning and the recreation planning. 14 The third point was implementation. 15 And we believe it will be a real shame to have a 16 ribbon cutting ceremony for the floodway and not 17 have an initial phase of recreation facilities as 18 part of that. 19 So with all of the generalities behind 20 us, we need to develop a number of specific 21 recommendations which we think address these 22 various needs. First of all, we recommend that 23 the environmental licence consider the following 24 things; first of all, that recreation facilities 25 and greenway development be incorporated into the 02562 1 project; that the coalition is in place and 2 frankly delivering on a silver platter to the 3 MFEA, a group that is prepared to take leadership 4 on this issue. And we think it's important that 5 that group continue in partnership with the MFEA 6 in that integrated design approach. 7 The Floodway Authority has spoken of a 8 recreation working group and we support that; 9 however, in addition to that, we envision a 10 recreation and greenway project team that can work 11 collaboratively on the project. And we illustrate 12 those relationships here on this slide. Where the 13 Trail Coalition representing perhaps 40 groups, 14 perhaps more, is responsible for developing the 15 recreation program, integrating user needs, issues 16 identification and resolution of conflicts and 17 design of components of the system. A recreation 18 group that includes non-coalition stakeholders, be 19 they municipalities, be they hay farmers, 20 whatever. 21 And that the third group involved in 22 this project team include the Manitoba Floodway 23 Expansion Authority that can read the technical 24 guidance, the integration with the floodway 25 design, the input on costing and staging and 02563 1 liaising with their expertise and consulting team. 2 And that these three groups be charged with 3 finding ways to make it work, it being recreation 4 and greenway. 5 The outcomes of this partnership are 6 these immediate integration aspects that I spoke 7 of and a master plan that describes the detailed 8 recreation program that provides the 9 implementation plan and the communication 10 strategy. 11 Continuing on with the 12 recommendations. We believe that the operation 13 and maintenance plan, for whatever recreation 14 facilities go in here, has to be integral to the 15 project. It can't just be left out in the cold. 16 We have too much experience on good ideas that had 17 been built without proper consideration to how 18 they are going to be operated and maintained and 19 we make recommendations in our formal submission 20 to you on that. 21 With regard to environmental 22 considerations and addressing those, the Floodway 23 Authority has stated that any future environmental 24 licensing or any future licensing at all will be 25 the responsibility of any recreation proponents. 02564 1 And frankly we think that's inappropriate. That 2 the recreation facilities are an integral part of 3 this floodway project and as such, it should be 4 the responsibility of the Floodway Authority as 5 owner of this right-of-way to be responsible for 6 those considerations. 7 With regard to funding for phase 1, we 8 have included in our submission a recommendation 9 that a minimum of 1 per cent of the overall budget 10 be devoted to recreation. And we provide a range 11 within that. And what we're thinking here is we 12 don't have a number, we don't have a plan, we have 13 a bunch of ideas, we have a bunch of issues, we 14 have a bunch of concepts. But we acknowledge that 15 there is a need to develop initial facilities in 16 order to stimulate future development. That if we 17 don't make that initial investment, the likelihood 18 of anything ever being done with that floodway is 19 remote at best. 20 Whereas with a modest investment in 21 relation to the overall budget, the likelihood is 22 that that investment can be levered many times 23 over and create the seeds to grow a full system 24 over time. 25 And finally, just a recognition that 02565 1 the coalition and the Floodway Authority need to 2 partner in finding those other sources of funds, 3 that there is an opportunity, a significant 4 opportunity to lever those partnerships and that 5 we should all be obliged to pursue that. 6 So in conclusion, finally, we believe, 7 and we really do, that it's necessary to do this 8 or we're going to lose opportunity. So the danger 9 of leaving this process to a later date is that 10 loss of synergy between this construction activity 11 and a potential after-use of it. And really 12 wasted effort of opportunity. And that is by not 13 integrating at the earliest possible stage, we 14 will inevitably backtrack and have to do things 15 over again. 16 Running out of funds. If we don't 17 oblige it, we will run out of funds. That this 18 will be the last priority. And as a result, these 19 obligations will be deferred and the likelihood of 20 acquiring this opportunity again diminished. 21 So when we thought the workshop 22 participants, the public thought of this Duff 23 Roblin greenway idea, we approached Mr. Roblin and 24 asked him for his thoughts. And his written 25 response to us included this comment: 02566 1 "This overdue concept has been an 2 unrealized aspiration of mine so I am 3 happy to endorse your efforts." 4 So let's not repeat this again where 5 30 years down the road we have another unrealized 6 aspiration. 7 And I'll leave it at that with this 8 image of the existing floodway as it appears today 9 and some of the ideas that have developed around 10 that. And that concludes the presentation. Thank 11 you very much. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any 13 questions from the Floodway Authority? 14 Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no 15 questions but I'd just like to say thanks to Lorna 16 Hendrickson and Rivers West and the Trail 17 Coalition for the efforts to date and we look 18 forward to working with them in the years to come. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. WEBSTER: I have one specific and 21 one general question. First of all, you mentioned 22 the importance of bridges and crossings being 23 built to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle 24 traffic. Can you tell us of instances where 25 pedestrian and bicycle provision on highway 02567 1 bridges is missing and is currently a problem? 2 I don't believe there are -- any of 3 the bridges incorporate any safe pedestrian 4 crossings at this time. Are there, Glen? 5 We've heard recently there is a 6 discussion of a bike lane on one of the bridges. 7 But as far as pedestrian only access, we haven't 8 heard of any. 9 I know over the gates in St. Norbert, 10 it is not a legal-sized pedestrian access crossing 11 but people use it thinking it is and it presents a 12 very dangerous situation and there is always 13 hundreds of people out there on the gate bridge, 14 Courchaine Road. So that is a real concern. 15 I'll just make a comment on the 16 generality of trail development linking into 17 bridges and roads. I mean we are much further 18 behind many many other communities throughout 19 North America. We did some original research on 20 the Rivers West concept in the early days and 21 we're just not there. And as new initiatives come 22 forward, that's when it has to be integrated. 23 It's too difficult and too expensive to start 24 adding either widening roads or bridges or 25 walkways. 02568 1 If I may. The existing demand for 2 those bridges, we are uncertain of what that is. 3 Our expectation is though that, you know, with the 4 kind of bubble diagram that you see here, is that 5 it will create significant demand potentially. 6 And that's what we need to understand. 7 MR. WEBSTER: I am under the 8 understanding that the highway bridge in 9 Sprucewoods Park north/south across the 10 Assiniboine is in fact an example of that at the 11 present moment. 12 Okay. 13 MR. WEBSTER: And I'm not sure whether 14 you have experience of that. 15 I'm sorry, it incorporates bicycle 16 facilities or it doesn't? 17 MR. WEBSTER: No. But I wondered if 18 you were aware of that? I was hoping that you 19 were aware of it. 20 The other aspect which I didn't hear 21 you speak about was the effect of a desolate 22 aspect such as presently exists in the floodway 23 and the invitation to vandalism versus the effect 24 of some development to allow recreation and simply 25 to make it look more attractive. Have you thought 02569 1 about that aspect of things in terms of your 2 proposals and your thinking for the kinds of 3 things you'd like to do with the floodway 4 right-of-way? 5 Yeah. I think going back to process 6 again, what we envisioned, that it is necessary to 7 engage the people that are directly affected now 8 as well as the people who will use it in the 9 future. What -- the most appropriate method is to 10 mitigate that. We can speculate on that. There's 11 lots of literature about how if you make a place 12 nice, it's less likely to be vandalized, if you 13 provide more access, if you provide more rules. 14 So there's lots of different measures to be 15 applied to that. 16 It's a little early to describe 17 specifically which one is best. And that requires 18 the consultation amongst all the parties. And 19 there is even, you know, issues about the 20 emergency response. For example, Springfield is 21 concerned because of the costs they incur in 22 responding to difficulties in the floodway. 23 So how is that going to be organized? 24 And that really becomes part of that governance 25 that needs to be flushed out and worked through. 02570 1 MR. WEBSTER: But it sounds as if it's 2 an interest of the coalition that you represent, 3 to make these things work? 4 Yeah. I think everybody recognizes 5 that that's all part and parcel of doing this kind 6 of thing. You have to work through all those 7 details. 8 On the same subject of crossings, you 9 had mentioned you would like to see 1 per cent of 10 the funds and that's not hard to figure out, it's 11 about 6 and a half million dollars. Did you 12 assume that would be paying for these extended 13 bridges, the crossings, like for the pedestrian 14 and crosswalk? Would that cover all of your 15 crossings? 16 Actually, in the formal submission and 17 the specific recommendations that we include 18 there, we specifically exclude that from that 19 budget. 20 Okay. 21 And, you know, $6 million, 6 and a 22 half million dollars, it sounds like a lot of 23 money. But over 48 kilometres, it evaporates 24 pretty quickly. 25 No, I realize that. I'm wondering 02571 1 just if that was part of it. I'm not an engineer 2 but I don't think 6 and a half million dollars 3 would go very far in extending the crossings and 4 bridges. 5 If this was incorporated into part of 6 the plan of the floodway, to make the bridges 7 accessible to pedestrians, how many of the 8 crossings did you foresee of the several that are 9 being done? 10 Yeah. See again, that puts us in the 11 difficult position of trying to anticipate these 12 things in the absence of a plan and we tried to do 13 that. In our correspondence to the MFEA, what we 14 suggested was three crossings as being the most 15 important and most obvious. And clearly, the 16 floodway gate that Janice spoke of is an obvious 17 one that already receives a significant pedestrian 18 warrant and really needs to be attended to. The 19 others I believe were Highway 59 north and south. 20 Actually there may have been four. Let me check. 21 But nevertheless, what we did was 22 basically from this diagram, we said okay, where 23 is a lot of stuff likely to occur? And it's 24 likely to occur around where stuff occurs now. So 25 given that, we have Highway 59 by Birds Hill Park 02572 1 in the north -- sorry, the Spring Hill area and 2 Birds Hill area. There is St. Mary's and the St. 3 Norbert crossing. 4 So that was our response to that very 5 question to the MFEA. And it's a guess. So 6 that's -- based on what we know, that's what we 7 have guessed now. 8 Have you been pleased with your 9 association with the MFA in your past meetings? 10 That's a very general question. 11 Well, it's a difficult question. I 12 mean we acknowledge that they have a difficult 13 task and they are under significant time 14 constraints to address all the things that they 15 need to address. If I said we weren't 16 disappointed that we weren't further along, you 17 know, I wouldn't be telling the truth, and 18 apparently that's illegal here. So we would have 19 hoped that this would have been addressed a long 20 time ago. That the integration of the recreation 21 components into the pre-design was something that 22 occurred a year ago. 23 So we have had a cordial communication 24 and we have received fair hearings and we haven't 25 always received all the information we have asked 02573 1 for. But it's really I think the timeliness of 2 the process. And I think it really boils down to 3 this, that the MFEA has some serious issues with 4 regard to serious engineering issues, problems, 5 and believes that recreation can wait till later. 6 And we don't. I mean we think it's something that 7 has to be integrated as quickly as possible or 8 we're going to miss opportunities. 9 I don't think it's a disappointment 10 with the organization and their team. It seems to 11 be, whether related to economics or whatever, a 12 policy shift that we understood was going to be 13 part of -- recreation was going to be very much 14 part of the planning process. That was our 15 understanding in the early days. And over time, 16 we have come to realize that's not going to be the 17 case or it doesn't seem to be taken seriously or 18 it will come later. And that's not what our -- 19 our vision from the early days -- that it wouldn't 20 be integrated and we understood that that's how 21 the whole planning process would proceed with 22 recreation as a part of it, given that their 23 mandate of building a floodway is, first and 24 foremost, an engineering side. But this needs to 25 be tied in with it. That's where the 02574 1 disappointment is. 2 I think those expectations have been 3 set to the public also in the numerous statements 4 that have been made. Maybe because we were closer 5 to working with them and involved in this process, 6 we are seeing the expectations that are set aren't 7 necessarily being met. 8 Thank you. And just a little bit on 9 the lighter side. I mentioned to the Chairman 10 here a minute ago, when I looked up there, I seen 11 Duff Roblin greenway and you realize, Greenway was 12 a liberal. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Barrie. 14 MR. WEBSTER: One other question and 15 comment. Have you looked at all at the approach 16 taken by the Netherlands in terms of dealing with 17 waterways and the corridors they provide for 18 recreational purposes because they have done a 19 marvelous job in that country. 20 We were actually planning a trip there 21 but we had budget cuts. 22 MR. WEBSTER: Well, even if you don't 23 have budget cuts, you may be able to look at it by 24 other means. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Have you thought how 02575 1 prepared trails with trees and other vegetation 2 along the way might co-exist or not co-exist with 3 the farmers who are taking hay off the floodway at 4 present? 5 Yeah, we have. And there's an obvious 6 conflict here between trees and hay I guess. But 7 in reading through some of the background 8 documents in the EIS, I noted that this is 9 something that the hay farmers acknowledge is a 10 future use of the floodway and they are prepared 11 to cooperate in how that will be integrated. So 12 we see them as a stakeholder just as all the other 13 stakeholders. 14 And if you look at the diagram here, I 15 mean there is some places that may have a heavy 16 hand and some places that may have a soft hand in 17 relation to the recreation of greenway 18 developments. So it doesn't necessarily have to 19 be contiguous throughout the whole length to be a 20 truly fine product. 21 So all of those -- we don't understand 22 the nuances of all those things. We understand 23 that that's an issue that needs to be dealt with, 24 that these are important users of that resource. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do any of 02576 1 the registered participant groups have questions 2 of Rivers West? Please identify yourself for the 3 record again, Dr. Stewart, and proceed. 4 Good afternoon, I'm Dr. Stewart. I'm 5 Chair of the North Richot Action Committee. I 6 have a comment, a question for clarification and 7 then kind of a what-if question. 8 The comment first, thanks very much 9 for your opening statement. The question for 10 clarification is, does the concept of the greenway 11 depend on floodway expansion or could it go ahead 12 with the existing floodway, recognizing there is 13 an opportunity for synergy if expansion goes 14 ahead -- when expansion goes ahead, I'm sorry. 15 Yeah. I mean the geographical land 16 mass is there and the right-of-way is there. But 17 what isn't there without the expansion is a 18 project to build off of. So while it's 19 conceptually feasible, because the space is there, 20 the linkages are there and everything is there to 21 develop this recreation component, could it happen 22 without the motivation of infrastructure project? 23 It hasn't happened yet and a lot of people have 24 tried over the years. So I can't answer it any 25 better than that, I'm sorry. 02577 1 There's probably not an answer for the 2 next one or there might be. Mr. McNeil used the 3 phrase "reservoir" the other day and we've been 4 using that for about seven years and 10 months. 5 And most of the area that we represent lives in 6 the reservoir. 7 And the Chair asked the other day, you 8 know, what might be some solutions and I suggested 9 perhaps a grandfather buy-out or some kind of 10 buy-out. The downside of that is we end up with a 11 ghost community. You know, the municipality is 12 depopulated. 13 Do you see any joint benefit as we 14 leave? I don't think the hills are going to be 15 high enough for hang gliding but there will be 16 lots of potholes. Do you see any way that some of 17 the integrity of the RM can be maintained as a 18 green zone as people either leave voluntarily or 19 less voluntarily the reservoir? 20 You know, the depopulation of the Red 21 River is something that's been going on. If you 22 go south from -- south of Morris to Emerson, 23 virtually nobody lives on the river. And you 24 know, it's quite a shock actually when we first, 25 through Rivers West, started to develop this 02578 1 greenway initiative. And people have really 2 turned their back on the river or moved to the 3 ring dyke communities and just said forget it. I 4 mean, we're not living through this anymore. And 5 that's a great misfortune for those people I'm 6 sure. But what it does provide is an opportunity 7 for the greenway development of those. Because 8 you have less direct conflict with individuals, it 9 perhaps creates an opportunity for greenway 10 development as sad as that is. 11 So if we can move to some kind of 12 negotiated or mediated resolution to occupying the 13 reservoir, your coalition would be a stakeholder 14 in those kinds of discussions? 15 Potentially. I mean we certainly have 16 an interest. 17 My ideas are less than an hour old, so 18 thank you. 19 Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Fresh ideas are often 21 the best ones. Anybody else from the registered 22 participant group have questions? Do you have any 23 final comments you wish to make today? 24 No. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for 02579 1 your presentation. 2 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, as we are 3 moving on to the next presenter, could I add the 4 presentation we just saw as Exhibit 92 and the 5 submission Integration of Recreation and Greenway 6 Considerations as Exhibit 93? 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 8 9 (EXHIBIT 92: Presentation. Rivers West 10 & The Red River Trails Coalition. 11 Presented by Jeff Frank, Lorna 12 Hendrickson, Janice Lukes, Jim August) 13 14 (EXHIBIT 93: Presentation: Submission 15 to the Manitoba Clean Environment 16 Commission Public Hearings Regarding 17 Integration of Recreation and Greenway 18 Considerations as part of the Red 19 River Floodway Expansion Project. 20 Submitted by Rivers West and The Red 21 River Floodway Trail Coalition) 22 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paul Clifton. 24 Could I ask you to introduce yourselves and I'll 25 have the Commission Secretary swear you in. 02580 1 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Chairman, my name is 2 Paul Clifton. I am self-represented. And I have 3 to my right, Richard Sherring and he's technically 4 supporting me. And on my left, I have Janet 5 Vanderkruys and she's going to be reading off 6 throughout my presentation. 7 8 (PAUL CLIFTON: SWORN) 9 (JANET VANDERKRUYS: SWORN) 10 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clifton, how long 12 do you anticipate your presentation will take? 13 MR. CLIFTON: I understand I have 14 three hours and I'm going to ask that I go through 15 part of it. I'm going to seek, at an opportune 16 spot, to break for about 15 minutes. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what I'm going 18 to get at. In about three-quarters of an hour or 19 at about three o'clock? 20 MR. CLIFTON: A little bit longer than 21 that because of a potential impediment in that I 22 have a 50 minute continuous representation to 23 make. It runs 50 minutes and seconds. But as 24 soon as that's done -- just let me explain first 25 off. There's some housekeeping stuff I need to 02581 1 do. And I see that there's been some grievous 2 representations made on a very hurtful project, 3 potentially, and I think it's woefully 4 inappropriate and I'd like to speak to that. I 5 wasn't here but I had been reviewing the 6 transcripts and I speak specifically to 7 transcripts of Professor Doering to you. And, 8 Mr. Chair, I understand that he presented right 9 after Mrs. Maxine Clifton and Mrs. Rita 10 Bartmanovich. Both those gals named have suffered 11 grievously through representations actually 12 through being flooded repeatedly and through 13 representations to this Commission. 14 As it turns out, Professor Doering was 15 supported and for his work I understand he will 16 likely receive a cheque with a buffalo on it. And 17 I believe that that is inappropriate, that we are 18 at a public forum here for public representations. 19 And a professor with maybe an opinion, making 20 representations which he was brought back in to 21 apologize for, the representations were made and 22 you commissioners had heard it. That's woefully 23 inappropriate and I think his entire submission 24 should be expunged from the public record, sir. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I disagree, Mr. 02582 1 Clifton, because as you know, we hear any and all 2 opinions from members of the public who wish to 3 make the same. Whether we agree with Professor 4 Doering or not remains to be seen but we hear all 5 comments on all sides of the issue and then we 6 will weigh them and come to some decisions 7 accordingly. 8 And I would note that Professor 9 Doering, when he called to request an opportunity, 10 was calling just as an individual, as a Manitoban. 11 He was not doing it as a representative of any 12 particular organization to my knowledge. 13 MR. CLIFTON: Sir, just for the 14 record, reread the transcripts of his apology and 15 his representation to this Commission. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: He did note that he had 17 been a consultant to the Manitoba Floodway 18 Authority, but he did not state that he was 19 speaking on their behalf. Anyway -- 20 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. Let me go on with 21 my -- 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 23 MR. CLIFTON: I know, sir, that you 24 are clearly aware of who I am, and you likely 25 learned from the Government of Manitoba that I 02583 1 have very strong opinions on this issue. And I 2 think that possibly you have inappropriately read 3 in that my issues are of a monetary value relating 4 to past actions. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I have come to no such 6 judgment. And I have discovered just from dealing 7 with you alone that you have strong opinions. 8 Nobody else had to tell me that. 9 MR. CLIFTON: Yes. When I first met 10 you, I asked if you had stamina, Mr. Sargeant, 11 and -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: So far I have, but it's 13 not over yet. 14 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. Can I read in 15 then, my dear mother-in-law from Boissevain wrote 16 to me and everything seems to fall in my lap in a 17 timely fashion here. February 26th, '05, 5:15 18 p.m. 19 "Hello, Paul, I am cleaning up my 20 desk. I keep everything. And though 21 I thought this was nice and will keep 22 of course. Have so many cards and 23 letters to keep, I hate to throw 24 anything away." 25 I wrote to my mother-in-law, and I write a card to 02584 1 my mother-in-law I said, 2 "Dorothy, I think we've been through 3 the trials of 1996 and hopefully onto 4 a brighter prospect ahead. From an 5 extremely long, cold winter, excessive 6 snows, late spring, and extreme runoff 7 in the Red River basin, I think we've 8 seen it all. It's because of your 9 unselfish efforts to assist us during 10 the sandbagging operation this spring 11 that this thank you goes out. Please 12 accept this card, though late, as a 13 thank you for your assistance during 14 the flood of 1996." 15 Sir, in the submission I submitted to 16 you, I have a letter, starts off with a letter of 17 reply from Minister, the current Minister of Water 18 Stewardship, Mr. Steve Ashton. And it's in 19 relation to a couple letters I wrote to the then 20 Minister of the Environment, Mr. David Anderson, 21 and a subsequent letter to Prime Minister Paul 22 Martin. Along the way, I will represent 23 Mr. Martin as Mr. Dithers, so there is no 24 confusion who we're talking about. 25 But essentially, the Minister of Water 02585 1 Stewardship essentially said, the place for 2 dealing with compensation or discussions of your 3 beliefs of inequity is not at public hearings, and 4 I do not plan at all to ever talk about '97 and my 5 own personal issues related to '97, and I want 6 that clearly understood. 7 But along the way, in Mr. Anderson's 8 acknowledgment and reply, it talks about in the 9 first paragraph wherein I enclosed several 10 documentations with regard to the Winnipeg 11 Floodway. The prime minister's office has also 12 forwarded to me a copy of the letter of 13 February 29th on the topic. I, for some six 14 years, have taken the tact that Manitoba just 15 doesn't seem to want to listen to folks. I have 16 been working diligently trying to have them listen 17 up to the grievous harm that they have been doing 18 and they plan to and continue to do. 19 Further to that, I have a cut and 20 paste, I have page 89, and that's from the '57, 21 '58 report on the Royal Commission on Flood Cost 22 Benefit. And your technical advisor is Mr. David 23 Farlinger, who did a very credible representation, 24 as I had said before, on the Manitoba Water 25 Commission report. And they are cut and pasted 02586 1 for two reasons, and I'll go through that later. 2 There is an excerpt, page 89, and 3 that's just much the same but it's specifically 4 embolded "Further," and this is after it's 5 prophesied that the City of Winnipeg would top up 6 their flood protection by 4 feet. 7 "Further, if the floodway gates were 8 operated in such a way as to raise 9 water levels in St. Norbert to 3 feet 10 above the natural in any given flood, 11 it would be possible to pass an 12 additional 11,000 CFS through the 13 floodway." 14 So the way I read that, it's further, 15 as in after you do the other. And I'm going to 16 talk a little bit later on on these next two 17 pages. I'm also going to want to read into the 18 record, and I have a few less props than last 19 time. I have significantly more weight in my 20 props, but less props. 21 I have something in front of you. I'm 22 not an engineer. I can tell you what it is. 23 Would you want an engineer from the Water 24 Resources Branch to validate what you're looking 25 at or can I tell you and you will believe me? 02587 1 THE CHAIRMAN: We will accept your 2 word. 3 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. You are looking 4 at one-half length of a bridge structure of the 5 servo bridge of the floodway. This is above water 6 line, and I'm representing to you in that full 7 size model the bridge structure that has been 8 modified since the flood. And I'm going to go 9 into that in detail. On this end is the 1962 to 10 '68, I don't know exactly when it was done. There 11 was a design that was done in haste in advance of 12 the crest in 1997. That was discarded as inferior 13 engineering, and what you're saying on the other 14 end is now the current in place. And the inferior 15 engineering was done by KGS Group, and I'll talk 16 about that later. 17 I also want to reference in the 18 records a few things. And I find in the 19 transcripts of my back and forth a while ago, I 20 forget dates, that Mr. McNeil, in talking about 21 going to rule 2, he advised, and we, as in we, 22 City of Winnipeg, who Mr. McNeil was working for 23 at the time, we went into rule 2. 24 Mr. Bowering represents that the 25 action of going into emergency operation was a 02588 1 department decision. I'm going to talk to you 2 further on that very shortly. The decision that 3 was made was not made a department decision. That 4 is inaccurate. And I'll explain why. 5 The decision to go to emergency 6 operation causes grievous harm in the valley. A 7 decision at that level would never be taken except 8 at the executive level of this province, and the 9 chief executive officer, and the premier at that 10 time was Premier Gary Filmon. And Premier Gary 11 Filmon was lobbied by a lot of people, and Premier 12 Gary Filmon was specifically lobbied by his 13 Minister then of Natural Resources, Mr. J. Glen 14 Cummings. And Mr. J. Glen Cummings, previous to 15 that, had had a visit in the south of Winnipeg, 16 and Mr. Doug McNeil explained and demonstrated to 17 the Minister of Natural Resources that the City of 18 Winnipeg was at grievous risk of overtopping the 19 dykes in the south of Winnipeg. And so Mr. McNeil 20 and others lobbied the Minister, who in turn 21 advised the premier that we have to go into 22 emergency operation. That was an executive 23 decision. The man that did that on behalf of the 24 City of Winnipeg and others is now purporting a 25 project to do the very same thing again to us. 02589 1 I'm going to just step from the mic 2 for a second. This, sir, is the flood inundation 3 map, and I have this here to show you Niverville. 4 Niverville, in the Town of Niverville there's a 5 Natural Resources office. And in that Natural 6 Resources office, we have an affiliation with 7 Water Branch people. We have an affiliation, Paul 8 and Maxine, with very, very credible engineers, 9 very good Water Branch engineers, very honest 10 engineers. 11 Those engineers in 1996 told us day by 12 day what we are going to see, what's happening in 13 the valley. And they actually had a Natural 14 Resources shoulder patch on his -- and he was 15 ferrying people, because our roads were cut off, 16 he had a boat and he was ferrying people, at 17 government expense, up and down the road in 1997. 18 We had been through the drill in 1996. 19 In 1997 they staffed Niverville again. 20 We were on a first name basis and we knew this 21 time it was serious. And we talked on a daily 22 basis with the water engineer, unnamed, and say, 23 what's going to happen? Well, we're -- this is 24 after, after the operation of the floodway, after 25 they started to operate the floodway, after they 02590 1 choked the floodway inlet with ice, after they 2 tried to dynamite the ice, after they were 3 unsuccessful, after they cranked the gates, gave 4 us 10 feet in 30 hours, after that we're into a 5 flood. 6 I suppose that they set an altitude -- 7 attitude on that initial operation to half fill 8 the valley with 10 feet of water, that caused the 9 crash that we saw in the valley. But I'll get to 10 that later. 11 In Niverville, there was a gentleman 12 or two there. We would phone up on a daily basis, 13 and I would ask him, what are we going to see 14 today? You know, it's just an average sort of a 15 day. You're going to see about 8 inches in 24 16 hours. 17 So I was out there, had a sandbag 18 dyke. And you know what, 24 hours later there was 19 8 inches. 20 And then you talked to the fellow and 21 he would say, you know what, maybe another 22 8 inches. And you know the next morning, bang on, 23 8 inches. Now a sandbag, I don't know, a sandbag 24 is about 4 inches, so you got a grasp. That's the 25 way the Red River comes up, just incrementally, 02591 1 it's a long wide area, incrementally. 2 We're working away, working away. 3 What's going to happen? Well, you're going to see 4 a foot. We've had some rain in the valley and 5 you're going to see a foot, and there was a foot. 6 So here is a gentleman I've been talking to for a 7 week and a half, two weeks. And I said, what are 8 we going to see? I don't know. You don't know? 9 I don't know. The government has taken control of 10 the operation. You don't know? Well, what do I 11 do? Do you know a politician he said? I said no. 12 He said, if you know a politician, call him. 13 So I called J. Glen Cummings office, I 14 looked in the phonebook, called J. Glen Cummings. 15 He didn't take the call. Well, he's got a deputy, 16 call Mr. Tomasson. Mr. Tomasson didn't take the 17 call. About an hour later the phone rings. 18 Mr. Steve Topping, professional engineer on the 19 phone. Mr. Clifton? Yes? You had some question 20 about what's going on? And I said, yeah, what the 21 hell's going on? And he said we're operating by 22 the rules, we're holding 24.5. Rules? Geez, 23 rules, 24.5? That's where it started, 24.5, in my 24 head. Never knew there was rules. 25 I thought I needed to validate what 02592 1 this was. I do want to talk about one thing here, 2 they are called temporary thrust blocks. Okay. 3 These guys can call me a liar if I'm a liar, but 4 KGS Group was involved and they installed these 5 temporary thrust blocks before the crest in 1997. 6 And a thrust block, in an engineering sense, is to 7 stop a thrust upward. And those thrust blocks 8 were put in. When I get to explain the model, I 9 will tell you about an inferior design and why 10 they are not there now. 11 There is a facet here called emergency 12 operation. I'm going to show you what emergency 13 operation looks like in the valley. 14 15 (CBC News presentation) 16 17 MR. CLIFTON: I read the Free Press 18 about Mr. Godfrey coming to town and suggesting 19 that east/west power grid beyond. I humbly 20 believe that Canada really wants to help out. I 21 tell Maxine, this is Canada, you just work hard, 22 you be honest, and things will work out. 23 We have been at this nine years, and 24 it's not for political gain, it's not for monetary 25 gain, it's to fix it. You know, Canada can't tell 02593 1 Manitoba how to control, how to treat their 2 citizens, but I humbly believe Canada is trying to 3 help. 4 Mr. Dithers and Mr. Godfrey are 5 helping out by offering up a western power grid, 6 where we can turn some megawatts with this water, 7 we can make revenue and we can likely, through 8 some sort of monetary arrangement, fix this. 9 This is the most divisive, hurtful 10 system in place that has its limitations. And it 11 has its limitations as we saw in 1997. It's been 12 studied, studied, studied, and I'm going to go 13 into that. 14 I have never blind-sided anybody in 15 this. I have always, always, always given folks a 16 chance to try and do the right thing in advance of 17 me having to slam them. Because we can't keep 18 living like this. 19 Janet, would you read into what I 20 wrote? I wrote to Mr. Jim Volmershausen. I've 21 been having a relationship with Mr. Jim 22 Volmershausen for six or so years. Jim 23 Volmershausen is the regional director general for 24 Environment Canada. He's responsible for Alberta, 25 Saskatchewan, Manitoba and part of the territories 02594 1 as they got split however. 2 Environment Canada had an interest in 3 this, a residual interest in this. I'm dealing 4 with Canada and I'm thinking, this is not right, 5 Canada, we don't do this in Canada. 6 And initially for about five years, 7 Canada treated me as, geez, you are trouble, let's 8 hide records, you are trouble. But you know what, 9 since Mr. Dithers got in place, they are not 10 hiding records. I received two records that I had 11 been chasing for six years. 12 I get some stuff from Environment 13 Canada, and I'm looking through, looking through, 14 and there is infamous 197 and 198. I'll talk 15 about that later. Manitoba has since -- well, 16 before that shredded or got rid of their 197 or 17 198. Canada provided me 197 and 198. And before 18 he retired, Mr. Barry Tuckett, the ombudsman who 19 has been working with me for six years was trying 20 to help me fix the problem. I have to do it 21 aggressively, because it has to be done. Janet, 22 please. 23 MS. VANDERKRUYS: This letter was 24 dated January 30, 2005. 25 "Gentlemen, I need a sign or insights 02595 1 where we are at. 2 As a backgrounder, I provide the 3 attachment and I am seeking reply from 4 one of you. Or even a note from one 5 responsible minister. Nobody over the 6 last eight long years from government 7 has ever asked about my motivations or 8 my intention. I have always done in 9 life what my mother has taught me, 10 treat your friends and neighbours how 11 you would like to be treated yourself. 12 And my father taught me, you are a 13 man, a man is of his word and a word 14 is his bond. I have tried to always 15 live my life by these simple 16 teachings. 17 In the summer of 1997, having saved 18 our home during the Red River flood, I 19 was in our community with unique 20 insights to large construction 21 efforts, providing insights where I 22 could. In these travels I met Mrs. 23 Mary Lasco on St. Mary's Road. She 24 lives on the other side of the river 25 to us. Mrs. Lasco, widow and former 02596 1 market gardener was again flooded out 2 and was attempting to recover. This 3 was the same as she and her husband 4 Taras had done following the '69, '74, 5 '76, '79 and later '96 Red River 6 floods. In sitting with folks over 7 lunch break, Mrs. Lasco asked who I 8 was and where I worked. 9 I advised her of my name and where I 10 worked. She immediately asked if I 11 was an engineer. I told her that I 12 wasn't, though I advised that I worked 13 solely for engineer and with 14 engineers. She immediately asked if I 15 could help to get the engineers to 16 listen to the floodway problems. 17 I said I could likely help, wherein 18 she provided me with her late 19 husband's past floodway construction, 20 the 1968 records and documentations. 21 And this is where it all started with 22 me and all of you named above. 23 I am a military brat and conduct 24 business as one would likely do in a 25 battle, yes, a battle, because that is 02597 1 what it has been. This has been a 2 long war. Please note from the photo 3 beyond the cover of the Adobe 4 attachment file the hat badge of my 5 father, MWO H.C. Clifton. My dad was 6 a gunner, proudly serving this fine 7 country for 39 years, 29 years in the 8 artillery, and 10 years as chief 9 custodian, RCMP Training Depot, Regina 10 Saskatchewan. 11 Thus I was the gunner in my record 12 searches of the municipal, provincial 13 and federal governments. I started by 14 laying down a barrage of probing fire, 15 lobbing shells or access requests to 16 the government. In the case of Canada 17 to the PM, as he can likely be the 18 best to start things out, or find the 19 present department or agency 20 responsible for the 1962 Ministry of 21 Northern Affairs and Natural 22 Resources. As it turns out, this in 23 October and November 1997 was exactly 24 correct, though it would take me some 25 seven years to fully validate this. 02598 1 Over time, as my probing continued, 2 access requests sparked activity. I 3 would start to narrow the fire to 4 become more concentrated. 5 Folks, you can see, given your 6 knowledge of my success on record 7 searches where this is going. As time 8 went by the searches became, or the 9 barrages became more concentrated and 10 pinpointed. Artillery in battle is 11 always used to soften up the enemy 12 before the ground troops go in. My 13 ground troops as it now turns out are 14 you folks listed above, as well as 15 some remaining locals here. Most 16 locals though have been wounded by 17 your partner in Red River flood 18 protection, Manitoba, and in the names 19 of Maxine Clifton and two of the 20 longest term members of North Ritchot 21 Action Committee. 22 Thus folks, given your assistance, we 23 can still make it right in Manitoba. 24 NRAC has been the longest and most 25 reputable upstream contact, and always 02599 1 truly, unselfishly motivated to do 2 right for our fellow Canadians. 3 All of that said, when Maxine was away 4 for respite in New York State to get 5 away from our flood mess, she was in 6 the company of a dog breeder and 7 mentor. This woman, a retired aid to 8 a U.S. congressman, was questioned 9 with Maxine seeking insights into how 10 to handle big government. After 11 hearing of our plight in '98, she 12 advised, if you are to hit and hurt 13 government, the hit must be a fatal 14 blow and a final blow. Along the way 15 they, if able, will flick you away in 16 such a way as you will never recover. 17 As Mr. Vollmershausen's record will 18 show, the Manitoba engineers have 19 tried repeatedly, though as of yet 20 have not succeeded to flick Clifton 21 away. The record attached and beyond 22 my dad's picture starts with the 23 Ritchot municipality access reply, 24 wherein one record was highlighted. 25 The notes by Reeve Stefaniuk to 02600 1 respond to NRAC's community mailings 2 is attached for comparison to the 3 municipal fact sheet to counter NRAC's 4 notice of January 14, 2000. This 5 January 19, 2000 mailer printed front 6 and back was written by Manitoba's 7 director of Water Resources, Mr. Steve 8 Topping, in the RM's name and included 9 the Red River Floodway sign off sheet 10 on the report of the Red River 11 Floodway Operations Rules Review 12 Committee. These rules for current 13 and proposed expanded floodway 14 operation were as the record shows, 15 were brought by Canada through the 16 removed Manitoba director of the PFRA 17 and signed off by Minister Anderson on 18 April 26, 2001. 19 The next record, April 29th, 1998 to 20 Premier Gary Filmon was to explain to 21 Manitoba and Canada at the time 22 Clifton's personal plight. As well as 23 November 14, 1997, a letter to 24 Manitoba's Minister of Natural 25 Resources, Mr. J. Glen Cummings. The 02601 1 next page is Premier Filmon's 2 June 1st, '98 reply to us. Then a two 3 page letter to Doer and record of 4 mailing receipt strongly requesting a 5 meeting in advance of the resumed 6 wastewater hearings on the City of 7 Winnipeg sewage systems. Mr. Doer 8 declined to meet with me at that time. 9 They then even went so far as to 10 orchestrate the new Winnipeg downtown 11 arena sod turning at the exact hour of 12 my scheduled funded presentation to 13 the resumed CEC hearings on the City 14 of Winnipeg's sewage systems. 15 Why does Clifton keep coming back to 16 sewage systems for the City of 17 Winnipeg? Therein lies my issues, as 18 also found with Canada's unofficial 19 records. Winnipeg is gravely 20 susceptible to sewer backup and city 21 basement damages. A Manitoba or City 22 of Winnipeg problem? If it were that 23 simple, in the lead up to the crest of 24 the '97 flood, Winnipeg would not have 25 monitored their sewage system so 02602 1 closely, this through planned reliance 2 on the presence and counting on the 3 floodway's use for sewage relief. 4 Winnipeg's infrastructure wasn't ready 5 for a flood, which with study was now 6 well documented, so the floodway gates 7 were operated with ice still present 8 in the river proper. This early 9 operation choked the Channel Inlet 10 with ice and aggressive actions were 11 then necessary to clear the channel. 12 The gates were cranked, 10 feet of 13 river water rose within 30 hours. 14 This very action set an altitude to 15 the pending crest that could not be 16 removed. 17 This early action partially filled the 18 valley, or as the water branch would 19 declare, filled their reservoir half 20 full. Later when the perception that 21 the city basements were at dire risk, 22 the Minister of Foreign Affairs and 23 senior Manitoba Minister, the 24 Honourable Lloyd Axworthy and then 25 Premier Gary Filmon, after lobbying 02603 1 with Mr. Doug McNeil, and now 2 VP-Hydrology Manitoba Floodway 3 Authority and others advanced to 4 Floodway Emergency operation. This 5 action though accepted as necessary, 6 given the known infrastructure in 7 place at the time, actions and 8 undertakings beyond 'the 97 flood 9 emergency are not appropriate. 10 Winnipeg was well near lost and both 11 Filmon and Axworthy knew it. The 12 floodway gates became bouyant above 13 771, and the end run as planned for in 14 1962 design was no longer palatable 15 for governments and most especially 16 residents of the City of Winnipeg. 17 On or about May 1, 1997, with signing 18 of the Canadian/Manitoba partnership 19 agreement, these two named individuals 20 undertook to immediately partner on 21 Red River Floodway Expansion. This 22 despite a lack of study, sober second 23 thought, and the clear and concisely 24 thought out engineered plan for 25 Winnipeg's future flood protection. 02604 1 The politically motivated and 2 reactionary decisions made then don't 3 justify the mess we are in now, but 4 for the May 2, 1997 Red River Valley 5 artificially induced flooding captured 6 by Red Sherron and the CBC National 7 team did the true upstream valley 8 story get out. 9 I strongly believe that Canada are 10 now, through Minister John Godfrey, 11 working with Mayor Sam Katz, are 12 working for the greater good of all 13 Canadians. Winnipeg must bring their 14 infrastructure up to some acceptable 15 flood protection standard or there 16 will never be peace in the valley. I 17 have now been assigned a four hour 18 slot as the opening speaker for 19 "Public" at the Manitoba Clean 20 Environment Commission hearings on 21 Floodway Expansion, that before this 22 weekend were to happen on February 21, 23 2005. There will be no turning back 24 after that, and I don't threaten, 25 though I can assure all of you, as 02605 1 well as Prime Minister Paul Martin and 2 others, they will unfortunately again 3 see Clifton's front and centre from 4 the living rooms across this country, 5 via the CBC National News. What is 6 done is done, though you will continue 7 to help and let my infantry in, this 8 being NRAC and Maxine. Please show me 9 a sign. Canada, please show us a 10 sign." 11 MR. CLIFTON: And then 12 Mr. Vollmershausen actually replies. Janet can 13 you read the reply? Janet was to say that Canada 14 bought the sign up on the operating rules by the 15 removed director of PFRA. Read his reply, please. 16 MS. VANDERKRUYS: He replied to it. 17 As you are aware, the current 18 cooperative environmental review 19 process, which assigns certain 20 responsibilities under the Manitoba 21 Environmental Act and Canadian 22 Environmental Assessment Act is 23 proceeding as agreed to by the 24 responsible federal and provincial 25 authorities. I can only encourage you 02606 1 and others to continue to make your 2 concerns known to the review process 3 in order that the impacts of the 4 proposed Floodway Expansion Project 5 are fully understood and can be 6 addressed." 7 MR. CLIFTON: Troops! I have some guns 8 over here. I have Armstrongs, Peter and Darlene. 9 If you happen to live in southern Winnipeg, you 10 will know they grow the finest sweet corn 11 possible. Armstrongs! Room 111-80 Wellington 12 Street, Ottawa, troop! Helen and Cliff Nizol, 13 neighbours of mine. I watched their basement 14 flood. I had to phone Helen at home, at her 15 evacuated home. I had to tell Helen, your 16 basement is full of flood water. I had to tell 17 Helen, the water is an inch from the floor joist. 18 Nizol! Room 204-450 Broadway Avenue! Troop! 19 Another battery, Mary Lasco and her son. Her 20 husband for 22 years had tried to get the 21 engineers to listen up. Lasco! One round, 200 22 Saultaux Crescent! Professional engineer, Steve 23 Topping! Fire and report! Sir, direct hit! One 24 round, sir! Coordinates, 033, 05! Access 25 request, in your records. Please provide the cut 02607 1 list dated February 15th, a reply. The cut list 2 for these emergency components supplied to the 3 Manitoba Water Resources Branch as well as 4 purchase invoices for said components. 5 The records that you have requested 6 are not in our possession. The department 7 contracted with KGS Engineering to design and 8 construct the inlet thrust walks. KGS Engineering 9 subcontracted Shop Post to be responsible for the 10 steel cutting. Shop Post has advised that they no 11 longer have the records relating to the project 12 with regard to the steel cut list. Any purchases 13 and subsequent invoices for the material, if they 14 still exist will be at KGS Engineering and not 15 found within the files. 16 Sir, I've been digging. I have been 17 digging to try and wonder, how could it have been 18 so bad for us? How? You know, as I fired a shot, 19 I'd get a half answer. I'd fire another shot, get 20 a quarter answer. But I would put it together. 21 It's taken me seven years to put it together, but 22 I have pretty well put it together. 23 I want to credit Mr. Gary Filmon, I 24 want to credit Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of 25 Foreign Affairs at the time, senior Manitoba 02608 1 Minister, and I want to credit Mayor Susan 2 Thompson for saving the day for those folks 3 cutting a deal to flood the valley for the 4 exclusive salvation of the City of Winnipeg. I 5 want to credit those folks. I also want to credit 6 Premier Gary Filmon for having the foresight to 7 realize that they damn near lost Winnipeg, they 8 gall darn near lost it. And these engineers will 9 tell you, we will never let Winnipeg flood. We 10 will never, ever, ever let Winnipeg flood. 11 In my many many representations -- I 12 had been before the CEC, this is the sixth time, 13 sir, I have never, ever, ever suggested that 14 Winnipeg should flood. But I have always thought 15 that we need to do what's appropriate in Canada. 16 I saw a picture, I saw a picture of 17 this. Gall darn it, the picture, there's two of 18 them, I provided them to you, these things here, 19 DYWIDAG anchors. I know them, DYWIDAG anchors 20 from DYWIDAG International Systems. You know, I 21 got on their website and I contacted DYWIDAG in 22 Chicago, Illinois. I said I seen some DYWIDAG 23 anchors, can you help me out? That night they 24 sent me back -- I guess they work late -- they 25 sent back and said, you are in Canada. How about 02609 1 you contact the fellow in Vancouver? 2 So I contacted the fellow in Vancouver 3 and I said, you know, I saw some DYWIDAG anchors, 4 I wonder if you can help me? You know, DYWIDAG 5 out of Vancouver said yeah, we'll help you. It 6 sounds like a noble project. So DYWIDAG sent this 7 stuff to me. And I said, you know, I not only 8 need 10 inches of length of inch and a quarter 9 DYWIDAG, I need the top nuts. And you know, I got 10 to hold it in from below. Can you send those too? 11 And they said what about the grout tubes, do you 12 want them? Yeah, you betcha. So you know what, I 13 was off my cellular phone for about three days. 14 The bus depot is phoning me saying, Mr. Clifton, 15 your DYWIDAGs are here. 16 And you know what, that's what Canada 17 is about. And I want to tell you what Canada is 18 about, these beams. These beams are 24 inches. 19 They came from Paragon Industries Limited. They 20 are a demolition contractor. And I said I had a 21 noble project, could you help me? And these 22 things here, these H beams, it's interesting, 23 there's eight of them, this is a half model. They 24 came from Falcon Machinery Limited. And I went in 25 there and I said, is the owner here? And yeah, 02610 1 he's here. And I said, you know, could you help 2 me out? I want to make a model to demonstrate to 3 the Clean Environment Commission. He says, you 4 know, we have studied this and we have studied 5 this and we've got to do something here. We can't 6 just keep studying this stuff. And I said but you 7 know, this is a noble project. I said it's not 8 right what happens in the valley. I said this is 9 Canada. 10 And you know what, I got a call a week 11 and a half later, they are ready. And, oh, I 12 can't get there, I've got a job. Well, they will 13 be outside, you pick them up. So I picked them 14 up. These blocks here. These blocks came from 15 Brunswick Steel. They are 9 inches by 11 inches, 16 two and a half inches thick, $315. They cut them 17 up right away and had them ready for me. 18 This work here was done by an unnamed 19 machine shop. These holes were drilled in this. 20 These things here came from Drummond 21 McCall, now Russel Metals. These blocks here were 22 by P.E. Clifton. You know somebody else had five 23 feet of this stuff, and damn, the day before I 24 needed them, they dug them out of the snow and 25 made a guy's steps out of them. Shit. So I had 02611 1 $200. 2 These things here, now that is a 10 3 inch "I" beam. This is 1962 on this end. They 4 put those thrust blocks in there but they weren't 5 happy with that, that was an inferior design. 6 They went to the real dam builders. They went to 7 H.G. Acres. And I'll talk about H.G. Acres a 8 little later. Mr. Carson used to work for H.G. 9 Acres, now Mr. Carson works for KGS. 10 But you know what, this is an inferior 11 design. The engineers knew that this other thing 12 was an inferior design. So they didn't say no, 13 no, no, you stupid ass, it's stupid. The 14 engineers don't work like that, they have a 15 professional ethic. The engineers never say your 16 design is full of shit, they just change it. And 17 that is what they did, that's what they did with 18 this. 19 How am I ever going to get that in 20 here? How am I ever going to demonstrate that? I 21 had to spread the work around. 22 You know, I took these down, talked to 23 a guy in Niverville. I said, you know what, can 24 you help me? He was a young guy, Leon. Yeah, 25 I'll help you he says. So he had this done. 02612 1 You know, I went down to Rosenort and 2 I said, you know, your flood protection here is 3 not very good. One day you're going to see the 4 water coming over your dyke. Haul All, Haul All 5 did the bulk of the welding on this thing. And 6 you know, I went down to Winnipeg Castor and Wheel 7 and I said, I've got a noble project, can you 8 provide me castors to fix? Yeah. That's what we 9 do in Canada. That's what we do when we have a 10 problem. 11 In 1997, people from across the 12 country saw this. People contributed $26 million. 13 You know, the Red Cross, the Red Cross tried to 14 divie it up. They had more money than they knew 15 what to do with. The Filmon government was 16 clawing back this Red Cross money, saying if you 17 get that, you don't get some of your EMO money. 18 You know, they did the right thing to 19 save the City of Winnipeg, but we're going down 20 the wrong road now. We've got an inferior design. 21 I'm going to, I lose track of time, 22 but Janet is going to read, and I'm going to go 23 through a historic record. She's going to read 24 the cover of a book by Lieutenant General Romeo 25 Dallaire. Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire was in 02613 1 Rwanda. He didn't have sufficient peacekeepers to 2 stop a genocide. He would have liked to have 3 stopped the genocide, but he was unable to because 4 he couldn't safely do it without losing men. The 5 parallels of his book, the way I think, the way I 6 work, has got to be read into the record. 7 Would you please, Janet? 8 MS. VANDERKRUYS: The title of the 9 book is, Shakes Hands With The Devil, The Failure 10 Of Humanity in Rwanda. 11 "In the summer of 1967, when some of 12 my friends had chosen to do the summer 13 training in Montreal so they could 14 soak up the life of the city and the 15 excitement of Expo, I found myself in 16 Shilo, Manitoba, smack in the middle 17 of the Prairies. Shilo was where I 18 first confirmed my vocation as a 19 combat arms officer and gunner. 20 During my first time here in the 21 summer of 1965, they had us sit on the 22 side of the hill to watch a live 23 firing exercise. It was a splendid 24 setting with the white sand dunes of 25 the Carberry Desert, the only one in 02614 1 Canada, glistening under a clear blue 2 sky. A young officer, who had 3 graduated from the Royal Military 4 College only the previous year, 5 explained his duties to us. He was 6 responsible for the live firing of 7 heavy artillery guns and had about 90 8 people reporting directly to him in 9 the field. He was just glowing, 10 imbued with the inner excitement and 11 concentration that comes with command. 12 He had his gunners demonstrate a 13 fast-action deployment. We watched 14 the guns come from behind a hill to 15 our left and take aim at a simulated 16 Warsaw Pact target, about three 17 kilometres away. The young officer 18 stood on a truck in the middle of it 19 all, like a conductor on his podium, 20 and ordered the immediate disposition 21 of the guns, the ammunition vehicles, 22 the survey teams and the heavy, 23 mounted machine guns for self-defence. 24 When all was in place, he bellowed 25 fire. There was a colossal bang as 02615 1 the gun spat out a projectile that 2 exploded a huge plume of dust just to 3 the right of the target. He 4 immediately yelled, left 200 fire. 5 The gunners went about their tasks 6 fluidly and efficiently, barely making 7 a sound, firing to his command again 8 and again. I became consumed by the 9 noise and awesome destruction and 10 intoxicated by the smell of the burnt 11 cordite. Seeing all the raw power 12 under the command of one young 13 officer, I decided then and there that 14 this was the branch of the army I 15 would join." 16 This page is entitled My Father Told Me Three 17 Things. 18 "So when my friends went home to 19 Montreal for the summers, I went back 20 to Shilo, even though any failure 21 there would have resulted in me being 22 dismissed from military college. Each 23 summer I survived the milieu only 24 because of the help my classmates gave 25 me with the finer elements of the 02616 1 artillery fire discipline jargon. The 2 summer of 1967 was particularly 3 difficult as I was the only French 4 Canadian in a class of 40. To make 5 matters worse, our course officer, a 6 rotund artillery pilot who disliked 7 the smart ass Royal Military College 8 gang, decided to make my life 9 miserable. He paraded me in front of 10 the chief instructor, where he 11 abraided me for being flippant, among 12 other failings. I acknowledged his 13 criticism, saluted, and returned to my 14 quarters, certain that I was destined 15 to flunk. I had no idea what he 16 meant. Only at the insistence of my 17 room-mate did I decide not to cave 18 into the pressure. I even finally 19 asked my instructor the meaning of 20 flippant. Cocky he said. Bewildered 21 I carried out. 22 MR. CLIFTON: I am flippant but I am 23 driven. 24 MS. VANDERKRUYS: Back to Shake Hands 25 with the Devil. 02617 1 "When I returned to the Royal Military 2 College that fall, my future was in 3 serious doubt. My poor mark from 4 summer training and my even poorer 5 academic performance at the college 6 made my failure seem inevitable. But 7 at the last minute I locked into my 8 old habit of creating a bubble of 9 concentration and slowly and steadily 10 pulled myself out of the hole. In the 11 fall of 1968, with the election of 12 Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the 13 publishing of the preliminary report 14 on the Royal Commission on bilingual 15 and biculturalism, the language issue 16 became more and more significant at 17 the Royal Military College. 18 MR. ABRA: Can you slow down, please? 19 MS. VANDERKRUYS: Okay. 20 "In November, four of my Francophone 21 classmates convened a bilingualism 22 committee and drafted a memorandum 23 outlining the problems that 24 Francophones encountered at the 25 college. They presented it to the 02618 1 commandant which caused a minor 2 explosion. The committee members were 3 paraded in front of the commandant and 4 asked to explain themselves -- a 5 frightening experience for the young 6 officer cadets, who were being accused 7 of harbouring nationalistic 8 tendencies. But their quite logic and 9 commitment to their principles won the 10 day, and they succeeded in forcing a 11 small change. Those of us who stayed 12 in the Canadian force also resolved to 13 continue to monitor and defend French 14 rights within the army. We were one 15 of the first classes of French 16 Canadians at the Royal Military 17 College who were comfortable with our 18 cultural identity; even so, only 58 of 19 the 130 French speaking cadets who had 20 begun military college with me 21 actually graduated in the spring of 22 1969." 23 MR. CLIFTON: Spring of 1969 I 24 graduated. You know, whether you agree with it or 25 not, the Government of Canada saw as a national 02619 1 priority bilingualism. I understand they are 2 looking at the floodway as a national priority. 3 They had the Royal Commission look at bilingualism 4 and they thought this was important. 5 1958, '57, they had a Royal 6 Commission. And they looked at flood protection 7 in the Red River Valley because Winnipeg has a 8 problem. And they looked at what to do. And it 9 was a national priority. Now we got a City of 10 Winnipeg priority. How do we, as a nation, get so 11 convoluted? I presented many times and I've just 12 dug. 13 In 1969, first time they ever operated 14 the floodway in the spring, people upstream 15 suffered an adverse effect. You know, the 16 property we owned was owned by John and Ann Nizol. 17 Now John and Ann Nizol in the 50's were mixed 18 farmers like most everybody in the valley. They 19 had some cattle, they had grain. They were a 20 mixed farm. I think, Mr. Motheral, you might 21 even be a farmer. But anyway, they had cattle. 22 And in the 1950 flood, the home they lived in, it 23 wasn't low. They wouldn't live along the river in 24 a low house because they know the Red River 25 floods. But you know, Nizols brought their cattle 02620 1 up to the house. 2 Now a farmer that keeps cattle likely 3 have a fence around their home to keep the cattle 4 out. And they likely have their home on a bit of 5 a hill to keep the flood waters out. And so 6 that's what they did. But they brought their 7 cattle to the home. It's high. Going to be all 8 right, and it was all right. 9 And you know, John and Ann Nizol, they 10 ran the community store. Red River Drive used to 11 be the large Selkirk highway. It was a single 12 lane highway that took you down to Emerson and 13 down to the States. That was their home and that 14 was the main north/south highway. 15 Time goes by, time goes by, we become 16 part of St. Norbert. We're now in a rural 911 17 system and we've got a name. They needed a name. 18 Well, you know, Clifton's home, or property at 19 least, was the Howden community store. And in the 20 Howden community store was the post office. It 21 was a gathering place. And it was a gathering 22 place of people. And so now, it's inadvertently 23 flood central but there's a task to be done. 24 Other people. 25 You heard Rita Bartmanovich, and I can 02621 1 call her Rita. I don't think it was appropriate 2 Mr. Doering did but I can call her Rita because I 3 can affiliate with Rita. And Rita talked about 4 her marriage home, the home that they were 5 building in '49, '50. And the flood water came up 6 just to the floor joists. Didn't touch the floor 7 joists, didn't get the wood wet. Because if wood 8 gets wet, it gets moldy and and mould will kill 9 you. And we've learned that. We've learned that. 10 How's my time? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: We're probably getting 12 close to needing a break. 13 MR. CLIFTON: You know what, I think 14 I've brought my point of this. I presented five 15 different times. I also presented to the 16 International Joint Commission. Could I ask for 17 15 minutes? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We will gladly take a 19 break right now. 20 MR. CLIFTON: Thank you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: So 15 minutes, just 22 before half past. 23 24 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 3:12 P.M. ) 25 02622 1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will continue 2 now. 3 MR. CLIFTON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 4 I have five points for the flood 5 protection for the City of Winnipeg. One of them 6 is the flood protection infrastructure, internal 7 to the city. One of them is the inlet control 8 structure. One of them is the Operating Rules for 9 the operation, which is critically important. The 10 next one is the west dyke and this ability to hold 11 water in their supposed reservoir. And the last 12 one is the channel. 13 I have a question, if I could. I had, 14 in my submission, submitted a poster board of the 15 deviation from the natural and you see in the 16 Hansards that you're not certain whether or not it 17 is within your purview to deal with the natural or 18 deviate them. 19 I would like to enter as an exhibit my 20 question one the details of that, so at least it 21 is on the public record I did that. 22 And the other thing is -- if I don't 23 get to it -- I have nine pages of drawings. You 24 had tasked Northwest Hydraulics, I believe, out of 25 Calgary to help on the ice-jamming issue. 02623 1 The west dyke has been topped up since 2 1997. Those drawings detail that upwards of five 3 and a half feet. I propose in my demonstration 4 here to show that this structure and facility was 5 incapable of 778. It may soon be capable of 778, 6 but the intent was never there. 7 I am not an engineer and I need an 8 engineer to validate what I say. So, I don't know 9 how to deal with that, sir. 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not sure either, 11 Mr. Clifton. So, you make your comments and we 12 will consider them. 13 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. There has been a 14 lot of efforts by various people to determine what 15 goes on here and what we really do. How do we 16 come to the ultimate fix? 17 We have a document called the EIS 18 document and I read from it. It is on the 19 introduction, page one of 11. It talks about a 20 series of consultations of the public were held 21 regarding their project alternatives. They 22 included four -- I say four -- public meetings of 23 the Clean Environment Commission, in January of 24 2002, to receive input regarding the project and 25 to -- and its comparison to the alternate that has 02624 1 been considered at the time. 2 The meetings were held in Selkirk, 3 Winnipeg, Ste. Agathe and Morris. Over 1000 4 people attended the meetings and there were more 5 than 1000 submissions by stakeholders. A report 6 summarizing these discussions were provided to 7 government in February 2002. 8 I purport to you, sir, that 9 Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Filmon undertook Floodway 10 expansion because they almost lost the city. 11 There was a charade after that, that 12 all the work that happened was to validate this 13 project and also that these people are editing 14 representations to sell this project. 15 There were five meetings, sir. Those 16 meetings were all minuted in a verbatim form -- 17 no, pardon me. In a summary form, not verbatim. 18 In a summary form. 19 In the first meeting, I represent and 20 I say my submission will be in two parts: A 21 multi-media presentation and will include a more 22 complete, detailed and politically-sensitive 23 written submission. 24 I have never, without warning, slammed 25 government. I've always offered up a better way 02625 1 to do things. 2 I submitted in confidence, received by 3 Joyce Mueller, 9:00 o'clock, January 31, 2002, a 4 significant contribution to the process. It 5 didn't fall within the record. 6 It wasn't until the Wastewater 7 investigation that was necessitated by the failure 8 of the City of Winnipeg's North End sewage, that 9 it became part of the record, but folks still 10 didn't act on that. It is on Mr. Stephane Dion's 11 desk and Stephane Dion, the current Minister of 12 the Federal Environment suggested and came to 13 Manitoba and talked about initiating a national 14 environmental assessment initiative. 15 He didn't just stumble on Manitoba as 16 a federal initiative on environmental assessments. 17 He stumbled on Manitoba because he knows that the 18 environmental assessments done by Manitoba to date 19 on some, especially this particular project, have 20 not been done the way they should have been. 21 Anyway, I had cautioned Mr. Terry 22 Duguid. I said, you have an obligation under the 23 Legislative Library Act to maintain audio tapes of 24 proceedings. Mr. Terry Duguid did. About a year 25 and a half ago, I got his tapes. 02626 1 I am a little bit more technically 2 advanced now in that I was able to incorporate, 3 with the help from a dear friend here, 4 transparencies. When I presented, I presented 5 with transparencies on overhead and in audio. 6 This was a meeting number five. It is 7 going to run 50 minutes and I would like to play 8 it into the record, please. 9 10 [Audio tape played of Mr. P. Clifton's 11 presentation to the Manitoba Clean 12 Environment Commission. Chair, 13 Mr. Terry Duguid. Red River Flood 14 Protection Options for the City of 15 Winnipeg, Meeting #5, January 28th, 16 2002.] 17 18 MR. CLIFTON: We don't agree on much, 19 unfortunately. 20 This Board I am going to talk about 21 very briefly, and I am going to talk about 22 Mr. Tony Kettler. Mr. Tony Kettler, PFRA. He was 23 number three in PFRA in the dealings with a number 24 of things. 25 When I first saw Water Branch -- or 02627 1 sought funding of the Cloutier Dyke Extension and 2 they -- I sort of modified my position, the 3 Turnbull Dyke should go. But, Mr. Cloutier, they 4 farm out there and that ring dyke could likely 5 stay, the Turnbull Dyke should go and all the 6 residents in there. 7 Mr. Tony Kettler, when I went to visit 8 him, he was just in receipt of a Federal Access to 9 Information Request, that I asked PFRA to please 10 give me information relating to the review of the 11 Operating Rules of the Red River Floodway. 12 You see, residents were completely 13 excluded from that. So, I asked through the 14 Federal Access to Information Request to give me 15 the documentation that relates to the review of 16 the Operating Rules. They had just received it 17 that day when I went in unannounced to 18 Mr. Kettler. 19 Mr. Kettler came out of his office: 20 Oh, shit, it's Clifton, and he went back in. He 21 regained his composure, he came out and visited 22 with me. We went and had coffee. We talked about 23 how could you be so stupid as to be involved with 24 the Cloutier Dyke, blocking, obstructing the 25 inlet? How? What engineer? I can't comment; 02628 1 that's Manitoba. 2 So, you know, that's fine. We sat 3 down for coffee, talked about Operating Rules, and 4 he said, it is the most economical thing to do. 5 That's all he said. It is just the most 6 economical thing to do. I didn't pin him down on 7 that. 8 Mr. Kettler is a very credible civil 9 servant. There are credible civil servants 10 around. I would suggest that civil servants -- 11 that this fellow is reporting to on the federal 12 side -- you got to do your job. If you're not 13 able to do your job, hearing the grief that these 14 folks are going to cause us, you look around in 15 your office and you find out who would likely be 16 able to move into your shoes and do the job right. 17 And you recommend to your Regional Director 18 General, if you are the feds, or Deputy Minister, 19 I can't do this job, but this guy could. I bet 20 you he could get this done right. 21 And I am going to talk about 22 peacekeepers in a bit because I understand I am a 23 military brat. World renowned peacekeepers. 24 Mr. Dithers commands the peacekeepers. 25 Mr. Dithers could have them here. 02629 1 Do you know what they would do? They 2 would come around with a personnel carrier and 3 drive down Red River Drive: There is that 4 galled Mr. Clifton. And they would stop and look 5 up our hill and would sit there in their armoured 6 personnel carrier and they would be wondering, Is 7 Mr. Clifton going to shoot at us? 8 Do you know what, I am not shooting at 9 them. I am on my elevated hill and I got my aim. 10 Every shot I fire, I can hit. Every time. And 11 they got their four to five moat. So, they will 12 procrastinate and won't listen and they will duck 13 and hide and I will shoot, and they will duck and 14 hide and I will shoot. We get nowhere with that. 15 Nowhere. 16 So, do you know what the Canadian 17 Forces would do? The fellow would get out and he 18 would stand by his armoured personnel carrier, 19 maybe see if Mr. Clifton's home. And Mr. Clifton 20 would say, geez, there is the Canadian Forces. 21 United Nations maybe. I wonder, I will go down 22 and talk to that fellow. 23 I would walk down the hill and he 24 would walk up the hill and he would say to me: 25 You got some guns up on your hill. I would say, 02630 1 Yeah. Those there are a son of a gun. I just 2 can't get them to listen. 3 He would suggest to me, Mr. Clifton, 4 why don't you get your troops to roll those guns 5 down and put the tarps on them. Do you know what 6 I would say? Troops, cease fire. Stand down. 7 Back'em up. We got to talk. 8 And he would talk to me and sit down 9 in my kitchen and say, you know, it has been a 10 long road, hasn't it, Mr. Clifton? I would say, 11 Yeah, can I get a coffee? It has been a long, 12 long road here and I don't know what is wrong with 13 those people. They just don't understand and we 14 cannot do this again, but they feel they have to. 15 Do you know, this is Canada, isn't it? 16 This is not a third world country. We don't do 17 this. If they got to do that, why don't they be 18 honest? 19 You know, why don't they say that in 20 1997, in the lead up to the flood, they stopped 21 operation because our gates we were not sure of. 22 We put in a thrust box so that we can go higher 23 than 771. We know that the gates are buoyant. 24 There is a function in there to say 25 the gates are raised hydraulically from the 02631 1 cylinders, the Servos, that lift these gates. 2 There comes a point when the gates become buoyant. 3 They talk about buoyancy. I asked them in the 4 supplementary file to explain buoyancy and I 5 haven't got an answer. 6 But, I know this isn't the be all and 7 end all. This isn't the smoking gun. This just 8 makes it better so we don't flood Winnipeg. But, 9 I never said flood Winnipeg. I never said that. 10 I said give me due consideration and, please, I am 11 not a special interest. I am a Canadian. Come 12 out and talk to me. The facility is there to 13 bring the peacekeepers in. 14 We are going to be back and forth and 15 back and forth and, you know, I got four copies 16 "Living With The Red". In the Federal Court of 17 Canada, if you want to bring a claim against 18 anybody, you have to provide four documents of 19 what you are doing. 20 So, if I claim damages against the 21 Government of Manitoba and the Government of 22 Canada -- because they built this and partnered 23 with this thing -- I have to provide four 24 documents and I will. I will solicit funds from 25 my friends and neighbours -- north and south now 02632 1 as it turns out -- and we will go to the Federal 2 Court of Canada and we might even tack on, 3 $250 million damages claim on that too. 4 You know, that's is not what an 5 environmental assessment is all about. We solve 6 stuff, we talk like gentlemen, we quit shooting at 7 each other and we sit down and fix it. 8 I want to show the chronological 9 thing. 10 You know, Mr. Doer, he inherited this. 11 Mr. Doer inherited this mess. Mr. Doer has done 12 far worse than Mr. Filmon. Mr. Doer has 13 brutalized the families. 14 The insurance companies that 15 underwrite the province are saying, hell, it is 16 not my fault. You have a dam in the river, you 17 flooded those people, it is not my fault, it is 18 your fault. 19 So, Mr. Doer and his executive have 20 allowed the affected families to have to go tooth 21 and nail with the lawyers for the insurance 22 companies. There is two sets of them. We are 23 just going to slug it out and slug it out. Do you 24 know what, it will delay whatever project we 25 ultimately build. 02633 1 Here, Operating Rules: First prepared 2 in 1970 as part of the original flood. '62-'68, 3 we are going to build a floodway. I am going to 4 be the Government of Canada and one-third I am 5 going to contribute to you because I'm the 6 Government of Canada. It is an international 7 waterway, it comes from the States, I'll 8 contribute the second third. And you know what, 9 Manitoba, you pick up the last third and pick up 10 the cost overruns. Yeah, we'll build this thing. 11 So, they go to build it. There was 12 problems right from the start. 1969, they are 13 complaining. They complain to Jim Richardson. 14 The late James Richardson, Minister of 15 Environment. They said, you know what, in the 16 Schreyer Government, I tried to go to the 17 Ombudsman and the Ombudsman, he's not listening 18 and not helping me. 19 Okay, time goes by, times go by, '74, 20 '76, gate errors. When they talk about gate 21 errors, they commission the Manitoba Water 22 Commission in 1980, and they went to Northwest 23 Hydraulics and said, you know the people in the 24 valley have a problem, they think your '74 Water 25 Commission Report is a piece of garbage. So, they 02634 1 asked and commissioned review of operational 2 problems in the Red River Floodway. They will 3 tell you the Floodway is a perfect system. It 4 works. It was only to protect the City of 5 Winnipeg. It wasn't. 6 The Federal Government required that 7 you provide me a program of operation, tell me how 8 you will operate it before you finish it. They 9 finish in '68. '69 they flooded people. They 10 complained and the Federal Government wrote to 11 Manitoba and said, by the way, we have a contract. 12 They weren't nasty about it, but actually Manitoba 13 hasn't complied with the contract. So, they are 14 in breach of contract. 15 Anyway, a year later -- a year and a 16 month -- 13 months later, they provide it. First 17 program of operation, it has emergency operation 18 in it. They have a brochure out. 1972 is the 19 first time ever they identify emergency operation. 20 That wasn't Canada's deal and that's why the 21 Federal Minister didn't sign it off. 22 So, then time goes by, time goes by. 23 Seventeen dry years. I know we are not supposed 24 to talk about the City of Winnipeg's 25 infrastructure, but I will touch on it real brief. 02635 1 They haven't maintained their 2 infrastructure and they are at significant risk of 3 flooding from the sewers backing up. They call it 4 basement flooding. They haven't seen basement 5 flooding, Mr. Chair. They haven't seen it. 6 Federal approval in 2000. That's not 7 correct. This is what they are telling the 8 people. That's not correct. Environment Canada 9 and PFRA sat on that, two representatives, meeting 10 number 10 -- no residents went to this meeting. 11 Meeting number 10, all committee members say, I 12 don't represent the department that pay my salary, 13 I am just an informed citizen working on the 14 Operating Rules. 15 So, Environment Canada is saying, it 16 is not me signing this. PFRA, which is 17 Agriculture/AgriFood Canada, that's not Government 18 of Canada, it is just me, okay. 19 In the meantime, what is going on? 20 It's a very august agency the International Joint 21 Commission; a very, very august agency. They 22 listen. They are independent of Manitoba and they 23 report. 24 They report that these people in the 25 valley have a legitimate concern. On page 29 of 02636 1 the report, the City of Winnipeg's infrastructure 2 is inferior and should be looked at. They 3 reported that in November of 2000. 4 April of 2001, Paul Clifton in a 5 different representation, representation 197 and 6 198. A different 197 and 198, I might say. A 7 different one. 8 But, they think that your question, 9 Mr. Clifton to Mr. Oscar Lathlin about your 10 concerns is noted and they are suggesting that 11 this might mean that Manitoba is going to advance 12 your request for federal approval. 13 Do you know what, I sort of took that 14 as a personal slight, thinking if I hadn't asked 15 the question, would they have still signed it? 16 You know what, I tell you, I tell you, I tell you, 17 Canada knew we almost lost Winnipeg. John Godfrey 18 in the paper said: We can never, ever lose 19 Winnipeg. I have always said we could never, ever 20 lose Winnipeg. But, do you know if we don't solve 21 this, we are going to lose Winnipeg. We have to 22 work at solving this. 23 I want to talk about -- I want you to 24 read, please, Janet, April 26th. I confronted 25 Mr. Doer and I said, Mr. Doer, 2001, April, you 02637 1 are flooding us again. You are flooding our 2 community again and you shouldn't be doing that. 3 Good thing I wasn't working that week. 4 Anyway, I said, Mr. Doer, you are 5 sheltering records. Mr. Doer, please don't do 6 that and do you know, within a month, I get nine 7 out of 11 records. The nine out of the 11 records 8 come from Environment Canada because Mr. Doer said 9 release those records to Mr. Clifton. 10 They might not have told -- Water 11 Branch might not have told -- I've got two more -- 12 they might not have told them that and I don't 13 think this man really knew, Water Branch was 14 trying to fix it, but they were trying to shelter 15 records. 16 So, anyway, nine records come. When 17 Environment Canada gave it to me, they don't cover 18 off and say, here you go, and I am holding these 19 other two for this clause in the Access to 20 Information Act. They just say here's your nine 21 records. The nine records, each and every one of 22 them, related to operation; how do you operate. 23 Each and every one of them related to operation. 24 And the last two -- 197 and 198 -- they didn't 25 have any more. 02638 1 I went to Suzanne Hurtubise, Deputy 2 Minister of Canada and I said, Suzanne, the 3 engineers, the Water Resources engineers, the 4 National Association, they say that the 1997 flood 5 flooded 2000 square kilometers of inhabited area. 6 And I said, Miss Hurtubise, the 7 Government of Canada is partnering with the 8 Government of Manitoba to shelter records. And I 9 said, Miss Hurtubise, please don't do that. 10 So, Suzanne Hurtubise, through her 11 aid, wrote back and said, Mr. Clifton, I can't 12 give you those records. Manitoba want those 13 records retained as confidences. So, I think I am 14 going to phone Mrs. Hurtubise and I'm going to ask 15 is this what she really means? 16 I wrote a letter and I said, let's 17 have three options. One option, you sit on the 18 record. Second option, you submit the records to 19 Manitoba and they give them to me. Third option, 20 you say nothing. They always, always, always have 21 undertaken to flood us. 22 They didn't have an agreement for 23 emergency operation. They don't even have their 24 own records. They shredded their records. That 25 197-198 is paginated records from the Government 02639 1 of Canada. 2 Baseline. I talk and talk and talk 3 about baseline. But, I will let Janet read in 4 what I suggested. It is an unpublished letter to 5 the Winnipeg Free Press and, you know, I am just 6 ahead of them or just behind them. I still think 7 I'm just ahead of them. It is dated April 25th, 8 2001 and it is signed off April 26th, 2001. 9 MS. VANDERKRUYS: 10 "Truth and reconciliation before 11 enhanced Floodway protection of 12 Winnipeg. Manitoba's Premier is 13 committed to the enhanced Floodway 14 option as to how best protect the 15 province from a major flood. This is 16 dated April 24, 2001. Doer firm on 17 bigger Floodway." 18 Mr. Clifton comments: 19 "Let me comment as to the necessity 20 for full truth, reparations and 21 reconciliations before any increased 22 flood protection for Winnipeg is 23 funded and implemented. The present 24 Red River flood protection for 25 Winnipeg is conceived and built with 02640 1 Manitoba and Canada selling a bill of 2 goods to residents south of the 3 Floodway as a project that will 4 protect you from the Red River floods. 5 The same community that were assured 6 of no more than natural levels in the 7 operation of the works. This promise 8 to the upstream landowners was not 9 kept in 1974, '76 and 1977 Red River 10 floods and cannot and will not be kept 11 upstream of the Ste. Agathe Detention 12 dam or upstream of the bigger floodway 13 for moderate or large flood events. 14 The dam across the bridge at the Ste. 15 Agathe as identified by the 16 International Joint Commission would, 17 when in operation, adversely affect 18 those living upstream. This option 19 would necessitate the purchase of 20 flood easement and implementation of 21 flood damage compensation agreements. 22 The bigger Floodway is and can only be 23 for the exclusive benefit of the City 24 of Winnipeg, and by any design cannot 25 and will not provide the best 02641 1 protection for the province. The 2 enhanced Floodway option as identified 3 by the Task Force to the International 4 Joint Commission would require the 5 existing Floodway, west dyke and 6 familiar Brunkild Dyke be extended and 7 elevated in the valley. This 8 extension to block an end run around 9 the structure and elevated from at 10 least two or more feet above the 11 maximum operating level of the 12 existing works so not to be overtopped 13 because of expected wind set up across 14 the Red Sea. The need to increase 15 Floodway flow by creating a slope on 16 the water across the valley will 17 remain and the water back up in the 18 forebay area will still occur. This 19 sloping or surcharging of the Floodway 20 was one of the options identified in 21 the 1950 to 1953 study of the Red 22 River flooding and would have 23 necessitated additional costs for 24 acquisition of flood easements and 25 compensation agreements. This was not 02642 1 condoned by the Floodway designers. 2 However, this is precisely what 3 occurred to our community four years 4 ago. For major floods, the forebay 5 area water level could be over four 6 feet higher than most newly elevated 7 and rebuilt homes that were wiped out 8 in 1997. 9 Mr. Doer is quoted as saying, 'It is 10 sort of anti-Manitoban to have one 11 community benefit at the expense of 12 other people.' 13 To date, there have been no flood 14 easements or flood damage compensation 15 agreements provided for affected 16 residents upstream of the existing 17 Floodway. This very community flooded 18 for the exclusive Red River flood 19 protection of Winnipeg, are now forced 20 to seek remedy through the courts as 21 indicated in your article. 22 The Government of Canada in 1962 23 cost-shared the construction of the 24 present Floodway. The same 60-40 25 cost-shared model is what Premier Doer 02643 1 is now proposing for enhanced Red 2 River flood protection. 3 The 1962 agreement required that the 4 Federal Ministerial approve be granted 5 for a program of operation or any 6 revisions for operation and 7 maintenance of the works. To date, 8 the programs of operation in use for 9 all Red River flood control of 10 Winnipeg since completion in 1968, 11 including the 2001 Floodway operation, 12 has not been approved by the Federal 13 Minister. 14 Manitoba Senior Federal Cabinet 15 Minister, Mr. Duhamel, is quoted: 16 'There has been no buy-in from the 17 people who would be affected by the 18 Ste. Agathe dam.' 19 We would say to Mr. Duhamel and 20 Premier Doer that there has been no 21 buy-in from the residents within the 22 existing Red River Floodway forebay 23 area. 24 To the contrary, the three Manitoba 25 Water Commission studies conducted 02644 1 after the 1974-'79, and '97 Red River 2 floods have all heard of the 3 devastation and hardship experienced 4 as a result of exclusive City of 5 Winnipeg flood protection. 6 To date, the Government of Canada, 7 through its Minister of Environment 8 Canada, has not bought in by approving 9 the program and allowing ponding and 10 river detention and by association, 11 uncompensated losses to those 12 affected. 13 Where do we go from here? Firstly, 14 and simultaneously, we will allow the 15 ongoing, unhindered study of the two 16 identified, enhanced provincial flood 17 protection options. 18 Secondly, Manitoba must reconcile the 19 shortfall in minority losses from that 20 of the disaster Financial Assistance 21 Program to that of true compensation 22 within the valley from the 1997 Red 23 River flood. 24 Thirdly, we must undertake a full, 25 truthful and an independent study of 02645 1 the natural Red River levels as 2 recommended by the 1997 Manitoba Water 3 Commission to be used as a basis of 4 valley flood easement and flood damage 5 compensation agreements for Winnipeg's 6 flood protection. 7 Fourthly, a fully inclusive and 8 transparent process to establish a 9 program of operation for whatever 10 works are undertaken to ensuring 11 involvement of affected residents 12 prior to the finding of the new works. 13 Yours sincerely, Mr. Clifton." 14 MR. CLIFTON: I have an about 15 15 minutes left. I am going to run through a few 16 things. I'm not going to be able to show you it 17 all. 18 Can you go with it? 19 Next. 20 Next. 21 The Royal Commission on Flood Cost 22 Benefit. Next, please. 23 The men behind the Floodway 24 representing the Government of Manitoba and the 25 Government of Canada. Next, please. 02646 1 Mr. Bob Clarke. R.H. Clarke. The 2 last I hear, Mr. R.H. Clarke is in a personal care 3 home, he doesn't necessarily know his name and he 4 doesn't know where he is necessarily. 5 He was commissioned by Chuck Howard 6 and Associates and Mr. Clarke was representing the 7 Government of Canada. He came out after the 1997 8 flood. He was moved by what he saw because this 9 is what -- he never envisioned this system as it 10 presently is -- it would do. It was not to 11 provide any adverse effect. 12 Next please. 13 I want to show you 89 of the Royal 14 Commission on flood cost benefit and 15 Mr. Farlinger's excellent report. The parallels 16 are very much the same. I am sorry, I don't have 17 a pointer. Is there a pointer? 18 Anyway, it could be expected on 19 average that 76,000 c.f.s. would flow through 20 Winnipeg with the Floodway about one foot atop the 21 existing dykes. Actually, if you look here, 22 77,000 was going through there. Okay. 23 And then they talk about 66,000 -- 24 some 66,000 would flow through the channel. We 25 had about 60,000. We also talk about actual 02647 1 elevation was this. Okay. 2 In my previous slides -- and I don't 3 have time to do it -- they envision 768. These 4 folks haven't explained the difference between 768 5 and 770.25. They need to do that. The parallels 6 are very much the same, but the difference is up 7 here. They say that the City of Winnipeg would 8 top up its primary dykes because it assumed that 9 all the dykes between the primary dyke and the 10 secondary dyke would be all the homes between the 11 primary and secondary dykes would be lost. They 12 needed to move water, there were going to be 13 losses and they envisioned losses would be in the 14 city. Next one, please. 15 Next one. Keep flipping. 16 This is the pictures -- keep going 17 quick and I will tell you to stop. 18 Next one, please. 19 Two more. 20 There. Stop. Maurice Sydor and 21 Richard Bowering. Richard Bowering was the 22 chairman of the Operating Rules Review Committee 23 and Mr. Sydor was representing Environment Canada. 24 It said in here we have not done that 25 and he states that we have never, ever gotten 02648 1 federal approval. This was in reply to Mr. John 2 Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada. I didn't know 3 who to write to. Who is responsible for Northern 4 Affairs and National Resources? I thought I would 5 send it to the top. That's the way we military 6 brats are. Next page, please. 7 It says we have made the point that 8 the Operating Rules are really guidelines. Well, 9 how can we live with guidelines? We can't live 10 with guidelines. They are saying now the rules 11 are the rules are the rules. Residents have never 12 had any input to the rules. 13 An engineer would be irresponsible 14 knowing that they allowed Winnipeg to flood 15 because he originally holds to the rules. That's 16 why they done this. This hasn't enhanced much, 17 but has given them assured protection. 18 771 is what they thought they would 19 see or better. They put in an inferior design by 20 KGS. That was beefed up later when they had 21 common sense prevail. These are DYWIDAG anchors, 22 as I said before. What they call them is 23 supplementary anchors. They say it hasn't changed 24 the operation. They go back to 1962 documents and 25 say it was always designed for that. 02649 1 I submit to you, sir, that if you were 2 to look at these nine pages, they were incapable 3 of going 778 because the west dyke wasn't there. 4 Even the Brunkild Dyke expansion, it wasn't tall 5 enough. 6 They were working at it. They were 7 working at it with federal money and working at it 8 with provincial money, without license as Mr. Web 9 would validate. Five and a half feet without 10 provincial license, I suspect federal dollars, and 11 we are still working on the feds to prove that. 12 The supplementary anchors are quite 13 significant. C-10-20. C-10 means "C", channel; 14 "10", 10 inches; "20", 20 pounds per foot. They 15 are saying that, you know, on average it weighs 20 16 pounds per foot. 17 The thing that Paul Clifton bought is 18 the metric size now, because we've got all metric, 19 is C3-10-45. So, what that equates to in an 20 English measurement is 12 inches, 30 pounds per 21 foot. So, these things here are half an inch 22 thick. These are gussets to stop this thing from 23 folding. What it is doing is it's holding the 24 gate. It's holding the gate as it becomes 25 buoyant. 02650 1 They talk about buoyancy. They might 2 have to put baffles or something in there to pump 3 it full of air. They haven't fully explained 4 that, but they need to put that in the future. 5 They drill four and a half inches, 6 13 feet or so. They put these fabulous DYWIDAG 7 anchors in here and they tension them and then 8 they fill them full of grout. They are saying we 9 did that because there was some road salt on these 10 bolts and these bolts were a little suspect. 11 That's all that was about. That may be. 12 I talked to an engineer who was a dam 13 expert, retired now. He said that's not the 14 smoking gun, that's part of the smoking gun, but 15 it's moving towards it, if we didn't need it. 16 They put the thrust blocks in because 17 they knew, they knew, they knew they needed to 18 save Winnipeg and to do that, they knew, they 19 knew, they knew they had to flood. It wasn't a 20 department decision as Mr. Bowering put it, it was 21 an executive decision that Mr. Gary Filmon had to 22 do. We all recognize that. He had to do that. 23 We don't have to spend $660 million denying what 24 happened and saying this is the way it has always 25 been. It hasn't always been that way. 02651 1 Back up, one. Sorry, we are going 2 slow. These are key points that needed to be 3 addressed. The public represented four things to 4 Mr. Terry Duguid and he reported very clearly, 5 with the exception these folks, Manitoba, were 6 editing my representations. Terry Duguid said, my 7 job in this is not to "recommend" to government, 8 my job is to "report". I said this document is a 9 1962 document, I guess -- I didn't know. It is 10 not dated. 11 In that transcript -- pardon me. The 12 summary transcripts, they say 1972. Those folks 13 are editing it. They are making this thing more 14 accurate to suit their purposes. It says whether 15 or not to rely on raising the water levels above 16 the state of nature at the floodway when forced to 17 be necessary by extreme floods is acceptable to 18 Manitobans. It is not to me, it is not to my 19 neighbours. 20 Next one, please. Comparisons, they 21 can't afford to operate the floodway if they have 22 to pay an easement upstream. They can't afford 23 it, so they haven't factored in -- they say 24 impacts are incremental to those experienced with 25 the existing Floodway. That's what is going to 02652 1 hang me up with the feds. The feds are not going 2 to like that and the feds are listening. 3 Next one, please. I represented to 4 Selkirk they had the wastewater incident in the 5 North End. They said, you know, there is $50,000 6 participant funding, does anyone have any issues? 7 I put my hand up and said, I have some issues. 8 They said, Mr. Clifton, your issues are flood 9 issues, they are not wastewater issues. I said, 10 you know what, as the Red River goes up, I have 11 problems out here. I went before an independent 12 board, I said your point is to fund the little 13 guy. I am the little guy. If you don't fund me, 14 I am silenced. They funded me $4000. It gave me 15 a chance to put all my records together with Janet 16 and others. 17 Next one, please. This is used to 18 offset the city's infrastructure. They don't have 19 anymore new lift pumps. As they move into 20 St. Vital, south St. Vital, that's the low part of 21 the city and they need flood pumps. 22 Next one please. Damage. They 23 damaged our roads and they say to us through 24 summer operation that that's natural, that that 25 was going to happen anyway. They suggest to our 02653 1 municipal council, you should look at buying up 2 land with your municipal dollars to move the roads 3 away from the river. 4 Next one please. Elm trees don't grow 5 like that. They don't grow like that. 6 Again, now, I represented and then 7 this is a few months later -- again -- again. 8 Mr. Doer, you have to take executive 9 responsibility for this. 10 Next one. Okay. April 26th, I submit 11 a confidential submission earlier in 2000. It 12 wasn't published. I resubmitted it and it didn't 13 even get considered. 14 Next one, please. This is the 15 problem. These folks here are able to load up the 16 dyke, load up -- pardon me -- the riverbank with 17 the secondary dykes because it is frozen. We have 18 these real dreadful winters. This is frozen. 19 They can put that sort of load on the frozen 20 riverbank, but if you fluctuate the water level 21 through the summertime, you saturate that and 22 cause the collapse of our riverbanks. The systems 23 are tied together and they don't want to talk 24 about that because that is a big expense. It is a 25 big expense to fix that. 02654 1 Next one, please -- next one. 2 According to the Operating Rules Review Committee 3 December's report, this is that one residents were 4 excluded from. 5 Next one. This went to the CEC, the 6 sewers and land drainages are dependent upon 7 gravity flow. Water flows down hill, so does 8 shit. Excuse me. 9 Next one. Without the flood pumps, 10 the pumps, the combined wastewater and land 11 drainage accumulate behind closed gates often to 12 over the prime dykes. This combination of 13 surcharges could back up to basements. This risk 14 still exists if rain storm runoff exceeds the 15 design. So, their flood lift pumps can pump 16 one-fifth to one-third of inrush, one-fifth to 17 one-third, and that is four-fifths to two-thirds 18 small. 19 Let's go. Next one. Environmentally, 20 this would be a disaster if you get wastewater and 21 sewage into the basements. 22 Let's go. Issues of adequate sewer 23 and wastewater have been so openly dealt with by 24 the media, it could lead to public outcry. They 25 get mad if you get sewage in your basement. 02655 1 Next one. Given the reported weakness 2 of the system, the short term licence might be -- 3 they didn't listen to this. 4 Next one, please. Currently, the 5 sewer systems in Winnipeg protected are at 24.5. 6 They don't comply with the legislation flood 7 protection level. Legislation, legislation, we 8 have to follow legislation. 9 You know, if the City of Winnipeg, 10 they want to drive -- if the premier wants to 11 drive down Number 1 Highway, I have a real 12 important thing -- I am doing 140 in a 100. He 13 gets stopped, the RCMP says, You are the premier, 14 I will let you go today. But, he does it again 15 and he does it again and he does it again. I even 16 went 93 in a 60 to get to this meeting today and 17 they didn't let me off. I got a speeding ticket 18 getting to this meeting. Rules are rules for all 19 of us, premier and who else. 20 Next one, please. Clearly, the 21 current sewer systems are at least 1.3 feet 22 deficient. 23 Next one. 2.3, if you follow the 24 Royal Commission. 25 Next one. There is a need to improve 02656 1 the east embankment West Dyke -- this is from the 2 International Joint Commission November 2000, page 3 29, sewer and land drainage systems. 4 Next one, please. Next one. Maintain 5 the natural until James reaches 24.5. I asked 6 Mr. Bowering, is that possible to exceed 24.5, 7 other than spring? He said, no, it is not. It is 8 impossible to ever get the water that high unless 9 it is spring. 10 Next. Rewrite the Operating Rules 11 until natural, unless water surface elevation 12 reaches 25-- these are rules that are not in 13 agreement. We don't agree with them. We had no 14 party to them. But, they are not allowed 15 summertime operation. In 2001 and 2004, they 16 breached the rules. They were speeding. 17 Next one, please. Mr. Anderson's 18 letter. In granting approval, I strongly 19 recommend as advocated by the International Joint 20 Commission -- because you see it is dated April 21 26, 2001, and this is November 2000. So, this 22 came first. This very august agency listened to 23 the people in the valley. They suggested 24 strongly, strongly, the Federal Government telling 25 Manitoba, I strongly recommend that you do this. 02657 1 Mr. Godfrey can't fund this thing if you don't 2 treat Canadians better. 3 Next one, please. June 18th, we are 4 operating by the Operating Rules. The City of 5 Winnipeg wants offsetting operation. They are 6 saying that the water is going to the channel 7 unnaturally, so give me offsetting operation. 8 That's not in the rules. 9 Next one. 10 Next one. The promise. It says can 11 the Floodway be used to prevent basement flooding? 12 No. That was in Mr. Filmon's days, now Doer. 13 Let's go. Next one. KGS completed a 14 report. The following photographs were taken. 15 Let's go. You are going to note they 16 are travelling down the centre of the river and on 17 the next one you are going to see at a fairly high 18 rate of speed. They are doing a survey from the 19 centre of the river. 20 If you get out of the boat -- next 21 one, please. If you get out of the boat and take 22 a look at the damage, there is significant damage. 23 Move your roads away from the river. We 24 complained to Mr. Doer and said, Mr. Doer, you 25 know -- pardon me, Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton, can we 02658 1 study riverbanks to build these or not? We get a 2 letter back saying, you know what, riverbank 3 stability is an expensive undertaking. It is 4 something which we do not have a budget for -- 5 Let's go. 6 One more. Down the river, further 7 down the river. 8 Let's go. Now, this is another road. 9 This is a road I suggest where they buy up 10 property and move away. Power line to power line. 11 Do you know how many feet between the power line? 12 Well, this whole thing is sliding. 13 Next one, please. You see the crack? 14 This is a crack on the other side of the road. 15 This whole road is -- that's the river. It's 16 going. 17 If you didn't operate in the 18 summertime, maybe we could say it's natural. But 19 by operating in the summertime, you have to study 20 this. Poor Mr. Baird. You heard Mr. Baird here 21 talk very articulate, beautiful yard and that. 22 You fluctuate the water up and down in 2002, and 23 he is in the court against the province saying you 24 did this to me. 25 Next one, please. Look at his 02659 1 riverbank. They are saying it is natural and if 2 you don't like that answer, prove it. Prove that 3 we did this. KGS's study didn't go this far 4 south. This is south of the village of Ste. 5 Agathe, and the damage is farther south. 6 Let's go. The price of land is 7 determined by its location, square footage, but 8 how can a dollar value be assigned to land that 9 has been eroded away in an attempt to save 10 property downstream? The stability of the Red 11 River channel has been shown historically so that 12 this could increase -- pardon me, slow down. The 13 stability of the Red River channel has been shown 14 by historic records. So, this increase in erosion 15 must be due to the artificial flooding in the Red 16 River Valley. 17 The emotional and financial cost to 18 the residents and the permanent cost to the 19 riverbank ecosystem cannot be calculated. This is 20 environment. We are dealing with environment. 21 The Government of Manitoba originally 22 agreed, and Canada, not to raise water levels of 23 the Red River artificially, unless there is a dire 24 emergency. A dire emergency. We are going to 25 lose Winnipeg, let's flood the folks upstream. We 02660 1 could live with that likely, but let's talk with 2 the peacekeepers and sort it out. 3 Now the primary dykes being 4 overtopped, and equal consideration, equal, that's 5 what the International Joint Commission said, 6 equal. Clearly, it is important to protect 7 Winnipeg, but equally clear property owners 8 upstream. 9 Next one. Clearly -- I sort of jumped 10 the gun, page 30. Clearly, the protection of the 11 City of Winnipeg must be given high priority, but 12 it is equally clear, equally clear, the proposal 13 for additional flood protection for the city or 14 alterations to the Operating Rules. 15 You see, they went through and they 16 wanted to change all this stuff beforehand. Let's 17 change this thing and we will call it baseline. 18 Floodway must take account of the full economic, 19 social and human costs, it is deep in the heart. 20 These people through policy are heartless. You 21 can't reach in and tear their heart out because by 22 policy, they have got no heart. 23 A transparent process of open 24 consultation must be established to ensure 25 residents of such areas have an opportunity to be 02661 1 an integral part of any decision making. Don't do 2 it behind my back, let's talk about it. 3 Next one, please. The Commission 4 recommends that the city, province and Canadian 5 Federal Government should cooperatively develop 6 and finance a long-term -- this may take 15 years, 7 I am proposing to you that there is not an 8 immediate hurry. This thing has been done, the 9 west dyke has been topped up illegally. We have 10 this chart here that shows this. We have got 11 time. 12 I asked in my supplementary filing, 13 what is the flood frequency protection now for the 14 City of Winnipeg? They didn't get a chance to 15 answer yet. Mr. Doer cites the IJC report at the 16 risk. It is not that any more, it is much better. 17 The City of Winnipeg is not as great a risk. They 18 have done a lot of work. These engineers will not 19 let Winnipeg flood. 20 Floodway expansion is not intended to 21 offset the City of Winnipeg's wastewater 22 collection. I know it's not in the scope, but 23 maybe in the Canadian Environmental Assessment 24 Review it will be in scope. Clearly, the 25 integrity of the system's storm sewers, storm 02662 1 water, floodwater must be maintained and enhanced. 2 It is also clear that the integrity 3 and professionalism of the city, and Province of 4 Manitoba, and Government of Canada engineers in 5 this endeavour must not be misguided or 6 misdirected. 7 Next one. Discussions need to be held 8 in a far more complex issue than that the City of 9 Winnipeg can reasonably be expected to pay in 10 order to protect the environment and the city. 11 Next one. It needs to be done without 12 further instance of demonstrated misconduct and 13 breach of the public trust found within my written 14 record. It is on Stephane Dion's desk. He says 15 we have to look at a national environmental 16 assessment program because he can't tell Manitoba 17 what to do, but they are sure going to have 18 trouble funding it. 19 Fundamental democratic rights. I 20 don't have the right as a Ritchot citizen to say 21 what the hell the City of Winnipeg does, nor 22 generally do I care. But, I have the right to go 23 to my council, which many of us have en masse, and 24 say don't sign off on the Operating Rules that are 25 hurtful to us, please don't do that. I have the 02663 1 right, democratic right to do that. And the IJC 2 recommends all processes involved in flood control 3 measures be carried out in a transparent manner. 4 Presently, there are 54 Federal 5 Cabinet confidences. There are 54 pages in 6 Environment Canada's file to deal with floodway as 7 a Federal Cabinet confidence. 8 And do you know what, when I went to 9 Anthony Kettler, the day I received the access 10 request, two lines on my access request, just to 11 get records of what you people talked about in the 12 Operating Rules, were withheld as Federal Cabinet 13 rules. I know this is a Manitoba process, but 14 there is a guy back in the back recording for 15 Canada. 16 Next one, please. Transparent 17 process, the testament of what we must expect. 18 Barry Tuckett recommends in his report -- and I 19 had talked about it very early on -- that it was 20 unfortunate the tapes were inadvertently 21 destroyed. But, what is done is done. 22 But, what Mr. Barry Tuckett talks 23 about -- I know I am running late here. As 24 society has become more complex, governments have 25 developed increasingly elaborate bureaucratic 02664 1 structures to deal with social problems. The more 2 government power becomes diffused through 3 administrative agencies. However, the less 4 traditional forms of political accountability, 5 such as elections and the principle of ministerial 6 responsibility are able to ensure that the 7 citizens retain effective control over those that 8 govern them. 9 The over-arching principle of access 10 to information is to facilitate democracy. He 11 says because the issue is so fundamental, I 12 emphasize the public's right to know, including 13 the right to know what information the government 14 holds, it instills democracy. That is what Canada 15 is about. It should be able to pass the test of 16 scrutiny. 17 Next one. I want to get into the 18 pictures. 19 Next one. Given a recently announced 20 approval, sure, they said they are approving, the 21 money is there, you have to get it licensed. That 22 is what it is about now, we have got to get it 23 licensed, we must keep in mind the International 24 Joint Commission's recommendation to implement a 25 valley wide flood protection. 02665 1 The Government of Canada, City of 2 Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba -- pardon me. The 3 city, province, Canada, because of known 4 deficiencies repeatedly undertake to offset the 5 shortfalls within the City of Winnipeg wastewater 6 system by the use of the Red River Floodway. The 7 desire for the summertime floodway operation may 8 have become a reality because of the city system's 9 shortfalls. In doing so, Manitoba and Canada have 10 put both the upstream and downstream environments 11 at risk. 12 We have also undertaken these desired 13 projects circumventing democratic rights -- we 14 don't do this in this country, this is Canada -- 15 property owners in the Red River Valley. 16 Let's go. I want to thank dearly 17 Janet Vanderkruys and Richard Sherring for helping 18 me. I know I have run late. They will ream me 19 out after. Thank you, sir. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clifton. 21 I don't think anyone has any intentions of reaming 22 you out. I think we all found your presentation 23 to be illuminating, interesting and particularly 24 when you were giving orders to your troops, even a 25 bit startling. So, we thank you for your 02666 1 presentation. 2 It is time for our supper break. I 3 will canvass my colleagues and the Floodway 4 Authority to see if anybody wishes to ask 5 questions of you. I am not sure when we will fit 6 that in. 7 Immediately after supper, we have a 8 number of public citizens or members of the public 9 who wish to make presentations. 10 MR. CLIFTON: I am presently working 11 at Slave Falls. As I articulated earlier, I leave 12 at 4:30 in the morning and I get back at 8:00 at 13 night. If you give me a day's notice -- I am sure 14 these guys have questions for me -- I will get 15 here. I would ask that potentially it be involved 16 in my closing -- the same day as my closing. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: We could do that, we 18 could certainly facilitate that. 19 Just one administrative question of 20 you: The tape from the January 2000 Clean 21 Environment Commission proceedings that you played 22 during your presentation, will that be available 23 to us as an exhibit? 24 MR. CLIFTON: Yes. We had some 25 technical difficulty. You can build this stuff 02667 1 very nicely on the computer, but getting it on to 2 a format where you can distribute it -- it will be 3 made available to you. 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask that because of 5 the sound quality, the reporter was not able to 6 take it all down, so it may not appear in the 7 transcript. But, if you can provide it to us at 8 some time, it will become part of the record. 9 MR. CLIFTON: I will do two things. 10 Mr. Duguid or Rory Grewar provided it in a tape 11 form, I will provide that as well. 12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 13 Mr. Clifton and your colleagues. 14 We will take a break now and come back 15 at 7:00 o'clock. I would like to start sharp at 16 7:00 because we will probably fill the two hours 17 with the evening presenters. 18 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, before we 19 break, could we add Mr. Clifton's presentation as 20 Exhibit 94 and his submission, "We Are All In It 21 Together" as Exhibit 95, please. 22 23 (EXHIBIT 94: Mr. Clifton's 24 presentation to CEC) 25 02668 1 (EXHIBIT 95: Mr. Clifton's 2 submission, We Are All In It Together) 3 4 MR. CLIFTON: Can I just seek 5 clarification? I wanted to enter my question 6 number one and it relates to the historic 7 deviation of the natural. That has never been 8 read into the record. It was referenced on 9 February 17th and it is critical. Mr. Sargeant 10 might not be able to deal with the natural, but 11 historic flooding upstream has been more frequent 12 than that. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: If you provide a copy 14 to the secretary, we will enter it as an exhibit. 15 16 (Proceedings recessed at 5:16 P.M. and 17 reconvened at 7:00 p.m.) 18 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Sir, 20 you are not up yet so -- we have other people that 21 will be using that table. 22 We have a half a dozen people who have 23 requested to make presentations tonight. We have 24 two hours in which to do it, so it works out to 25 about, with a little bit of time in between during 02669 1 change overs and setting up technology, 15 to 20 2 minutes each. And I will be fairly strict on that 3 time because I would like to let all six people 4 have their say tonight. I suspect that many of 5 them may not be able to come back at another time. 6 I will read off the names of the 7 people that we have so far, Stuart Manness -- not 8 so far, but the people in the order that they will 9 present, Stuart Manness, Doug Ford, Bill Kocay, 10 Susan Goyer, Dave Woytowich and Ross Hadden. I 11 understand there may be a change in the order for 12 Mr. Doug Ford. So I would ask Stuart Manness to 13 come forward, please, up at the front, please, 14 sir. 15 I will, just before you begin, 16 Mr. Manness, I will just mention that all of the 17 presenters will be sworn in. You won't be subject 18 to any questioning from the Authority or the 19 general public, but members of this panel may have 20 questions of clarification. Would you please 21 state your name for the record and I will have the 22 Commission secretary swear you in. 23 (STUART MANNESS: SWORN) 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Manness, could I 25 ask you to just pull the mic a little closer to 02670 1 you. Thank you. You may proceed. 2 MR. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman and 3 members of the Commission, I first of all would 4 like to thank you for this opportunity to I guess 5 present what this proposal looks like to us. 6 Our homestead is half mile south of 7 the west extension of the floodway dyke on highway 8 330, that's about eight miles west of Ste. Agathe. 9 My wife and two sons operate a third generation 10 grain and hog farm there. I also manage and I am 11 part owner, I am an investor for a barn feeder hog 12 operation which is on the same section and it is 13 three-quarters of a mile south of the dyke. Our 14 farm experienced flood water in 1950, about six 15 inches in the yard, and in 1997 about three feet. 16 I have attended meetings in Ste. 17 Agathe and Domain put on by the Winnipeg Floodway 18 Expansion Committee to learn about the proposals 19 for the expanded floodway and what that will mean 20 for us. I have sent letters to the Provincial 21 Government, our MLA, Mavis Tailleau, our 22 councillor, Doug Dobrowalski, and to Mr. Ernie 23 Gilroy, explaining the impact these changes will 24 have for us and our operations. So I again would 25 like to thank you for this opportunity again 02671 1 tonight. 2 The part of the proposal that I would 3 like to address recommends raising the west 4 extension north of our place by an additional five 5 feet. Where will all of the material come from 6 for this construction? The EIS report, chapter 5, 7 section 6, subsection 3, subsection 2, subsection 8 2, states, 9 "Borrow materials of the west dyke 10 will be taken from the adjacent 11 ditches resulting in increased ditch 12 capacity." 13 Does this mean that this project will not require 14 additional farmland? If farmland is going to be 15 used, why was it not mentioned in this part of the 16 report? The proposal that we were presented with 17 in Domain last June was projecting to use about 18 30 acres per mile. This proposal raises the 19 following problems for us: Stripping 30 acres off 20 of our home section means that to replace it we 21 have to cross roads, railway tracks, et cetera 22 with farm equipment. And we would have to 23 purchase a larger portion because farmland is not 24 sold in 30 acre lots but by the quarter section. 25 So for us the cost is somewhere around $120,000 to 02672 1 $160,000. This land, along with the parcel on the 2 adjacent section is part of our development 3 agreement with the RM of Macdonald for spreading 4 rights for the hog operation that I mentioned 5 before. This 60 acres has caveats attached for 6 spreading manure for the lifetime of the hog 7 operation. To find a landowner who will allow us 8 to attach a caveat is not easy, not all of them 9 want it. But to find one for spreading manure 10 means we will have to travel further distances for 11 spreading. Who bears these costs? 12 The grade on 305 to Brunkild has been 13 very poor in wet weather since the reconstruction 14 after '97. To go through this again with 15 increased height is going to make it worse. This 16 is the only all weather truck road to our nearest 17 grain delivery point at Brunkild. 18 Since the increased height in '97, I 19 have noticed a snow fence effect which layers in 20 deeper snow and is causing delayed spring runoff 21 which affects seeding dates on the affected 22 fields. So an increase in height again amplifies 23 this problem. 24 We are told that the reason for 25 raising the west extension dyke five feet is to 02673 1 accommodate a one in 700 year water event, coupled 2 with a one in 100 year wind event. The height of 3 this dyke might be needed once in 70,000 years. 4 Our operations will be faced with these 5 adjustments every day. I don't see any benefit 6 for us. Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Questions, Barrie or 8 Wayne? 9 MR. WEBSTER: Not for clarity, but I 10 have a question. Mr. Manness, in the '97 flood, 11 back in the '97 flood when there had to be 12 excavations from adjacent farmlands for the dyke, 13 were those people properly compensated, or fairly 14 compensated or -- 15 MR. MANNESS: Well, if you asked them 16 they would say no. The difference between this 17 proposal and what happened in '97, in '97 the 18 borrow material is taken from the dry side of the 19 dyke. This proposal is all for land on the wet 20 side. 21 MR. WEBSTER: Do you agree with the 22 figure of 30 acres per mile as a reasonable figure 23 for the use of that land? Does that work for you 24 in terms of the amount of material that's 25 available to make that -- to raise that dyke? 02674 1 MR. MANNESS: Well, I wouldn't know. 2 I'm just going by the presentation that we saw at 3 the meeting in Domain, and it was suggested that 4 something like 300, to 300 to 400 feet, which 5 would work out to 30 acres a mile. 6 MR. WEBSTER: I'm just asking you 7 whether in fact that figure is something that you 8 agree with, or whether you have actually done any 9 calculations yourself? 10 MR. MANNESS: I haven't calculated 11 that, no. But I know this much, to raise that 12 dyke five feet is going to take a lot of material. 13 MR. WEBSTER: And that's because it is 14 not just built on top, it has to be built up right 15 down to the toe of the dyke. 16 MR. MANNESS: Right. 17 MR. WEBSTER: So, is your suggestion 18 that material be brought in from somewhere else? 19 MR. MANNESS: My suggestion is that 20 the rest of the design is for a 700 year event, 21 not a 70,000 year event. 22 MR. WEBSTER: So you don't want it 23 raised at all? 24 MR. MANNESS: Yes, that's from my 25 perspective, yes. 02675 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 2 Mr. Manness. 3 Is Doug Ford ready to go now? Okay. 4 Mr. Kocay, could you please state your name for 5 the record? 6 MR. KOCAY: My name is William Kocay. 7 (WILLIAM KOCAY: SWORN) 8 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 9 MR. KOCAY: I have a very sore throat 10 and my voice might give away. I would like to 11 start by saying we view this process as seriously 12 flawed. All of the really important issues like 13 artificial flooding and better methods of flood 14 protection have been carefully excluded from the 15 terms of reference. This makes it appear that the 16 main purpose is to approve a government project 17 that should never have been planned in the first 18 place. 19 Several years ago KGS Engineering was 20 hired at a cost of $2 million to study all methods 21 of flood protection. In fact, they only studied 22 two options. One was a retention dam at Ste. 23 Agathe. This was a terrible plan as it would only 24 be used in floods of 1997 proportions or larger, 25 it would back up water into the U.S.A. and it 02676 1 would flood the Roseau Reserve. Basically, it was 2 a straw man whose purpose was to be knocked down 3 so that approval could be given to the bigger 4 ditch concept. 5 Right from the beginning the engineers 6 who planned this have been blinded by their vision 7 of a ditch. They can not see that there are 8 better ways of protecting Winnipeg. The expand 9 floodway, when duly approved, will be used by the 10 province in a way that brings great harm to 11 thousands of people. It will used to turn 12 people's yards into a reservoir, to back up water 13 from the river into a reservoir with water six 14 feet higher and more than natural levels. It will 15 be used to destroy homes. 16 It is a form of violence to send a 17 wall of water into people's yards, threatening 18 their homes and property. It is a form of 19 terrorism, for every spring we must live in fear, 20 not of natural floods, but in fear of what the 21 province is going to do to us this year. 22 So the CEC is being asked to approve a 23 project that's going to be used to cause great 24 harm to thousands of people, eventually destroying 25 their homes. The entire project should be 02677 1 discarded. There are better methods of flood 2 protection. 3 Winnipeggers need to be told the truth 4 about flood protection and what this project is 5 all about. The Floodway Authority was created to 6 manage the project and to sell it to the people. 7 They publicized a mixture of baffle gab and white 8 wash to make people believe how good it would be. 9 For example, in telling how good it would be for 10 us in Ritchot, what they really meant was that in 11 moderate floods it would harm us not quite as much 12 of the current floodway. There would be slightly 13 less artificial flooding, until a large flood 14 comes. Then watch out because it really get ugly. 15 If the 1950 flood were to reoccur, the 16 water would be three to four deeper that occurred 17 in 1950 because of artificial flooding and altered 18 natural water levels. 19 Artificial flood is not a good thing, 20 and to present it as a good thing is a deception. 21 Artificial flooding has become the official 22 standard mode of operation of the floodway. 23 Whatever happened to the program of operations 24 that promised never to create artificial flooding, 25 and had to be approved by the Federal Government? 02678 1 The changes to the program of operations requires 2 an environmental assessment, yet it was changed 3 unilaterally and no environmental assessment was 4 ever done. And the people that it affects the 5 most were refused meaningful input to the process. 6 They never told Winnipeggers about 7 better methods of flood protection, methods that 8 are more economical, more equitable and more 9 effective. They never told Winnipeggers about the 10 thousands and thousands of people and millions of 11 animals who are going to be seriously harmed by 12 this project. They never told them about the 13 homes that are going to be destroyed by naturally 14 high flood waters. They never told them about the 15 health risks that it will expose our families to 16 on an annual basis. 17 The Floodway Authority sent its 18 committee around to local communities in a public 19 relations exercise, to publicize the project and 20 build support for it and to hear residents' 21 concerns. 22 Despite the baffle gab and white wash, 23 we could see through it. They promised to use the 24 floodway to flood us, to flood us boldly, and to 25 go on flooding us at levels well beyond natural 02679 1 levels. They promised to flood us in the 2 summertime to keep the Forks walkway dry. 3 We told them they didn't like their 4 plans. They were furious. You have to see public 5 relations like this to believe it. We gave them 6 proposals for better methods of flood protection. 7 They wouldn't look at them. As previously said, 8 they have a vision of a ditch. 9 They invited us to a meeting downtown, 10 more public relations to sell us their floodway. 11 We asked them to use their software to model a 12 diversionary channel for comparison with the 13 ditch. They refused. Their media representative 14 came into the room to take charge. He told the 15 engineers that they are not allowed to think of 16 other possibilities. He told us that the expanded 17 ditch is the only way to go and other proposals 18 are definitely not welcome. 19 In the summer of 2004, with Canada Day 20 approaching, the province declared a false 21 emergency and flooded our lands to keep the Forks 22 walkway dry. We were told it was for the greater 23 good. But they didn't finish the sentence, they 24 meant the greater good of the Forks. 25 The standing water created ideal 02680 1 breeding conditions for clouds of millions and 2 millions of mosquitoes, some of them carrying West 3 Nile virus. So they exposed our families to the 4 threat of West Nile virus for the greater good of 5 the Forks. 6 They trample on landowner's rights and 7 store water on their lands, thereby also causing 8 the riverbanks to cave in. They make us feel like 9 criminals for living where we do and for objecting 10 to this use of the floodway. 11 So the floodway will be used for 12 actions that are illegal. This is the province 13 playing the big bully. 14 Engineers who were planning this 15 project are all bound by the provincial engineers 16 code of ethics. Article 2 of the fundamental 17 cannon states, 18 "Each practitioner shall regard the 19 physical, economic, and environmental 20 well-being of the public as the prime 21 responsibility in all aspects of 22 professional engineering and 23 profession geoscientific work." 24 Notice that this article does not say it is 25 permissible to bring harm to thousands of people 02681 1 for the benefit of others, or to expose them to 2 health risks, or to threaten their homes with 3 artificial flooding. 4 Articles 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6 further 5 state that each practitioner shall, 6 "2.2, guard against conditions that 7 are dangerous or threatening to 8 health, life, limb or property in 9 engineering or geoscientific work for 10 which he or she is professionally 11 responsible, and notify his or her 12 employer or client and the appropriate 13 public authority, including the 14 association..." 15 that's the Professional Engineers Association, 16 "...if the practitioner's judgment is 17 overruled or disregarded in 18 circumstances that may endanger life 19 or property." 20 Creating artificial flooding to convert people's 21 yards into a reservoir and to create breeding 22 grounds for West Nile virus mosquitoes, and to 23 cause riverbank collapse, are all actions that are 24 dangerous and/or threatening to life, health, or 25 property. 02682 1 "2.5, not knowingly associate with or 2 personally endorse an enterprise of 3 questionable character." 4 This proposed floodway is definitely of 5 questionable character. It is clearly harmful to 6 thousands of people, and will be used annually to 7 illegally store water on people's yards and to 8 create artificial flooding. 9 "2.6, not issue statements on 10 engineering or geoscientific matters, 11 or provide criticism, or argument, or 12 allow any publication of his or her 13 reports or any part of them in a 14 manner which might mislead." 15 The public relations meetings were intended to 16 mislead us into believing that artificial flooding 17 is good for us. When they raised the floodway 18 control dam, the water very quickly rises several 19 feet to their new official natural levels. If it 20 weren't for the floodway, Ritchot would suffer 21 with water several feet below the so-called 22 natural levels. Changing the natural levels into 23 unnatural levels is misleading and unprofessional. 24 This planned floodway is a direct 25 violation of the code of ethics. Every engineer 02683 1 involved with this project should give the code of 2 ethics some serious thought. 3 The floodway works by backing up water 4 and storing it in a reservoir, and then gradually 5 draining the reservoir through a ditch. It does 6 not divert the river into a different channel, as 7 is commonly believed. It backs it up to create a 8 reservoir which then feeds the ditch. 9 The reservoir is formed by dykes, as 10 can be seen from the following diagram of the 1997 11 flood. The only way they can get significant 12 water to flow in the ditch is to have very deep 13 water in the reservoir, very deep, six feet deeper 14 than the great 1950 flood is required to get 15 60,000 CFS to flow in the floodway ditch. They 16 want to put us six feet under and more, and they 17 want to call this natural water levels. And they 18 get upset when we object, we are spoiling their 19 plan, we are ruining the collegiality, we are 20 delaying the floodway. I think we have a right to 21 be opposed to this plan, and I know we are in the 22 right. 23 As mentioned previously, the floodway 24 will be used in a way that is harmful to many 25 thousands of people, eventually destroying their 02684 1 homes. The people who live south of Winnipeg, up 2 to and including Ste. Agathe, and the people who 3 live north of Winnipeg, including Lockport and the 4 City of Selkirk, the Canadian Charter of Rights 5 gives all of these people equal rights. Why then 6 does the province have the right to bully them? 7 Try backing water up into the U.S.A. and see how 8 far you get. 9 Two weeks ago Prime Minister Paul 10 Martin was speaking in the House of Commons about 11 the protection given to homosexuals by the Charter 12 of Rights, and how we must respect their rights to 13 get married. He was demanding that homosexual 14 rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights be 15 respected. Where is the Charter of Rights in 16 Manitoba? Apparently it has been washed down the 17 river. 18 So how can we better protect Winnipeg 19 from the big floods? Consider this, when nature 20 has a river that floods, she creates a delta at 21 the river's mouth, the river breaks into many 22 channels. She doesn't create a ditch that flows 23 back into the same river. All the ditch can do is 24 flood people who live upstream and downstream 25 because it is fed by a reservoir. 02685 1 Nature has given us the solution. We 2 build another channel direct to Lake Winnipeg. 3 Oh, but that was studied by the IJC, that would be 4 too expensive, dot, dot, dot. We have heard the 5 objections. They are empty. A diversionary 6 channel has not been properly studied. Ste. 7 Agathe is on a high point of ground. The 8 topography tends to create a natural reservoir 9 south of Ste. Agathe. A wide shallow channel 10 could be built to Lake Winnipeg from south of Ste. 11 Agathe. One possible routing is shown in the 12 diagram. This would be a very wide channel, 13 perhaps a mile or more wide, with small to 14 moderate embankments along its sides. It would be 15 very shallow and only carry water during spring 16 floods or heavy runoff. But at those times it 17 would carry a lot of water. 18 It would likely cost less to build 19 than the floodway expansion. No dams would be 20 necessary. No bridges would have to be demolished 21 and rebuilt. It would carry 140,000 CFS of water 22 in a large flood, more than the planned floodway 23 expansion. The existing floodway would still be 24 there for additional protection. The combination 25 of a diversionary channel and the existing 02686 1 floodway offer far superior protection for 2 Winnipeg than the expanded floodway, almost twice 3 the protection. 4 It would not be necessary to destroy 5 and replace 13 bridges over the current floodway, 6 as the plans call for. Most roads could go over 7 the embankment and across the channel crossing the 8 bottom over a culvert. Only highways, 1, 15, 44 9 and 59 would need bridges. The farmland that 10 passes through could still be used as farmland, 11 whether for grazing or crops. 12 The Floodway Authority has the 13 software to set up a computer model of such a 14 diversionary channel, to test it out by computer 15 under various simulated flood conditions. The 16 only thing stopping it is their vision of an 17 expanded ditch. 18 What is going to happen to Winnipeg 19 when the floodway control dam on the Red River 20 fails, the underwater dam that people have been 21 led to believe is a gate that can be opened to let 22 water into the floodway? There are no gates to 23 open, there is an underwater dam on the river that 24 is raised to create a reservoir. 25 There is another serious problem with 02687 1 the reservoir and dam method of flood protection. 2 It is putting all of your eggs in one basket, it 3 is preparing a disaster for Winnipeg. What would 4 happen to Winnipeg if the underwater dam on the 5 Red River failed at the height of a flood -- 6 because that's when dams fail. What would happen 7 if an earth tremor occurred during a flood? Oh, 8 earthquakes can't happen here. Well, North Dakota 9 has had a number of earthquakes in the last 100 10 years. Earthquakes can also happen here. The 11 province has the obligation to study the 12 alternatives. A diversionary channel would 13 continue to function after an earth tremor. 14 We applied to the CEC for funding to 15 hire an engineer to study a diversionary channel. 16 Upon the recommendation of the Floodway Authority, 17 the application was denied. There is a major 18 conflict of interest here. The Floodway Authority 19 should have no input whatsoever into which 20 projects are funded. They have a very strong 21 bias. Independent technical advisors should have 22 been hired. 23 In the 1950s there was a plan to twin 24 the Red River from the border to Lake Winnipeg. 25 It was rejected as too expensive, and we were 02688 1 given the reservoir and dam protection of the 2 floodway instead. If the twinning had taken 3 place, all of the suffering and expenses caused by 4 the floods and the use of the floodway would have 5 been avoided. The project would have paid for 6 itself many times over, and the current hearings 7 would be unnecessary and would not be taking 8 place. 9 Now, they plan to compound the harm 10 created by the floodway by making it twice as big 11 and the reservoir deeper. They now have an unique 12 chance to do the right thing and build a channel 13 direct to Lake Winnipeg. Instead, they refuse 14 even to consider it. 15 The province wants to keep the Forks 16 walkway dry in the summer. That's a great idea, 17 we all like the Forks, it is a wonderful location. 18 But they plan to do this by illegally storing 19 water on people's yards and creating clouds of 20 mosquitoes and a West Nile threat, and riverbank 21 collapse resulting from increased erosion. Why 22 insist on being a bully when there is an easy 23 solution? 24 When summer runoff causes the river to 25 rise, a moderate size lift station at the floodway 02689 1 entrance could pump excess flows into the floodway 2 channel, the Forks walkway can stay dry and no one 3 is harmed. The solution is a no-brainer, but they 4 won't consider it because of a case of floodway 5 thinking. Any competent hydraulic engineering 6 company could design a lift station to handle the 7 flows in question. Oh, but the IJC studied this 8 and rejected it, dot, dot, dot. This is the kind 9 of objection they give. But the IJC did not study 10 this, and KGS used the excuse that pumps are not 11 reliable. This is nonsense. Every person whose 12 house has a basement uses a sump pump. Floodway 13 thinking would say, don't use pumps, wall off part 14 of the basement as a reservoir, let the water rise 15 there until it can flow out by natural means 16 through a channel into the back yard, because that 17 is how the floodway works. Pumps are a better 18 solution. Just maintain them properly and have a 19 backup. One great advantage of a pumping station 20 is it can start as a small to moderate size 21 installation and can be expanded in the ensuing 22 years. But they wouldn't even study it. 23 A lift station would also be a great 24 advantage during a flood. As the water begins 25 rising, the pumps would begin operating to prevent 02690 1 a flood from accumulating. The result will be 2 significantly lower peak levels during a flood, 3 benefiting everyone. 4 We have contacted the manufacturer. 5 The pumps required are available at a cost of 6 about $1 million each. Approximately 10 pumps 7 would be needed. The cost of building a complete 8 lift station would likely be around 25 to 9 $50 million. 10 The entire floodway expansion project 11 needs to be discarded and started again from 12 square one. A proper environmental study would 13 include the effects of the proposal on people, on 14 the thousands of people who will be harmed by this 15 project. The importance of people has been 16 totally ignored by the environmental study. How 17 do you count people in your benefit to cost ratio? 18 They have been assigned a value of zero. They are 19 of no consequence. Take them into account and you 20 will see how outrageous this entire project is. 21 This is a project that will impact the lives of 22 thousands of people in a terrible way, eventually 23 destroying their homes, causing misery and 24 suffering and annual health risks. The engineers 25 are breaking their code of ethics at every step of 02691 1 the way. 2 Better solutions are available. Our 3 recommendations are: 4 1) The project should be rejected, as 5 the alternatives have not been researched. There 6 are good reasons to believe that other methods of 7 flood protection are more effective, more 8 equitable, and more economical. 9 2) The project should be referred to a 10 federal environmental review. The province has 11 intentionally excluded all of the really important 12 issues from the terms of reference. This project 13 needs to be studied in total, not incrementally. 14 Its effect on people must be taken into 15 consideration. The issue of artificial flooding 16 has been totally ignored, yet it is the key issue. 17 Three. 18 3) The province should be required to 19 do an engineering study of a wide shallow, 20 diversionary channel direct to Lake Winnipeg. An 21 out-of-province engineering firm should be hired 22 for this to protect from provincial bias. The 23 process should be completely open to the public. 24 The Red River Valley group can provide some 25 initial recommendations. 02692 1 4) The province should be required to 2 do an engineering study of a lift station at the 3 floodway entrance to control summer flows. This 4 should also be done by an out-of-province 5 hydraulic engineering firm. The process should be 6 completely open to the public. The Red River 7 Valley group has been in contact with the 8 manufacturer of the pumps required. 9 5) Summertime use of the floodway 10 should be expressly forbidden. The province has 11 no right to store flood waters on people's yards 12 or to expose their families to health risks. 13 6) The Red River rating curve should 14 be restored to its original 1960s form as 15 established by the engineers who built the 16 original floodway. They knew the river. This is 17 the rating curve that was used when they promised 18 never to cause artificial flooding. The province 19 has no right to create new natural levels. 20 I would like to finish with two 21 questions for the CEC. One, on what authority 22 does the province give itself the right to create 23 artificial flooding and store water above natural 24 levels on people's lands? And two, why does the 25 Province of Manitoba have the right to trample on 02693 1 the Canadian Charter of Rights? Thank you. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Kocay. 3 Any questions? 4 MR. WEBSTER: A couple of questions. 5 You have proposed a channel from upstream of Ste. 6 Agathe to Lake Winnipeg. Wouldn't a channel of 7 that proportion, with a width of up to a mile, 8 wouldn't that create problems for other people? 9 MR. KOCAY: There is absolutely no 10 question it would. I have given that considerable 11 thought. If you do a study of the habitation 12 along the route, you would have to try to pick out 13 a route that has the right topography for drainage 14 and minimizes the impact on the people who live 15 there. 16 Now when you consider that farmland is 17 sparsely inhabited in comparison with the Red 18 River Valley, I think you will find that the 19 number of people that it impacts is vastly smaller 20 than the number of people that will be impacted by 21 the expanded floodway. 22 MR. WEBSTER: So you are basing it on 23 the places where people live rather than on the 24 land? 25 MR. KOCAY: I truly believe that the 02694 1 land could still be used. You would start by 2 bringing in bulldozers and scrape off the top 3 soil, put it off to the side, a long row where you 4 are digging. Then you would scrape out the 5 channel with the bulldozers, scrape out the clay, 6 and you would calculate exactly how much earth you 7 have to haul according to how deep you are making 8 this channel, and how big the embankments have to 9 be, and you use the earth that you scraped out to 10 build the embankments. And then you take the top 11 soil and you put it right back into the channel, 12 and you cover up the exposed clay, with the result 13 that that land is still a perfectly good farmland. 14 You know, we grow a garden in our yard 15 at home. We have very bad soil because we live on 16 a mound of clay that was hauled in for flood 17 protection. So we had some topsoil hauled in, it 18 can't be more than six inches deep, but the plants 19 grow very, very well in it. So I'm sure if you 20 scrape off the top soil and you are careful about 21 restoring it, that the farmland will not be harmed 22 in any serious way. 23 MR. WEBSTER: Are you involved in 24 agriculture yourself at all? 25 MR. KOCAY: No, I'm not. As I say, it 02695 1 requires an engineering study and it needs to be 2 done. 3 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. My other point is 4 that in your recommendation four, you talk about 5 the control of summer flows using the floodway. 6 In number five you say that the use of the 7 floodway in the summertime should be forbidden. 8 Can you reconcile those two statements? 9 MR. KOCAY: I mean, the use of the 10 floodway dam to store water on people's land, I am 11 sorry, it is a misinterpretation of what I have 12 written. I perhaps didn't spell it out quite as 13 clearly as I meant. The floodway works by storing 14 water in a reservoir. Okay. If they want to pump 15 water out of the river into the floodway channel, 16 that's not using the floodway to back water up 17 into a reservoir, that's just using the channel to 18 flow the water away. Do you know what I mean? 19 MR. WEBSTER: I understand what you 20 mean but that's not what you said. You are 21 talking about the floodway control structure, the 22 actual entrance gates? 23 MR. KOCAY: Yes, the underwater dam 24 should not be used to create a reservoir during 25 the summer, because it is blatant artificial 02696 1 flooding, it breaks the Carter of Rights, it 2 exposes people to health risks, and it is illegal 3 because they have no right to store water on 4 people's lands. 5 MR. WEBSTER: So if I can correct 6 this, with your agreement, summertime, number 5 7 would be summertime use of the floodway inlet 8 control structure should be expressly forbidden? 9 MR. KOCAY: Yes, please do. 10 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 12 Dr. Kocay. 13 MR. KOCAY: Thank you. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ford. 15 MR. FORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm awaiting 16 an overhead projector and I'm quite happy to wait 17 until it is here. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We will put you at the 19 bottom of the list. Apparently it is here. 20 MR. FORD: Fair enough. 21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and sorry for 22 the delay on the technicals. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine, Mr. Ford. 24 Could you just -- could I have order in the room, 25 please? Could you please introduce yourself for 02697 1 the record and the secretary will swear you in. 2 MR. FORD: Yes, my name is Douglas 3 Ford. In terms of my background, I'm an 4 agricultural economist, a former professor at the 5 University of Manitoba Agriculture Economics 6 Department. I have also in my other life a farm 7 where I farm some 3,000 acres in southern Manitoba 8 between Letellier and Dominion City. So I have 9 been involved with the Red River Valley for some 10 time, and it is on that basis and perspective that 11 I'm going to give my presentation today. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you just wait and 13 let the secretary swear you in, please. 14 (DOUGLAS FORD: SWORN) 15 MR. FORD: I'm part of the Red River 16 group Bill Kocay spoke of eloquently today on 17 behalf of our group. I'm here to support some of 18 his comments. As a group we are primarily 19 concerned with maintaining property values, and by 20 doing this we are supporting our businesses that 21 are -- that we have developed in the Red River 22 Valley. And we also want to protect our property, 23 because it gives us long term financial and 24 personal security. Those are the primary tenets 25 of our group. 02698 1 And how do we do that in the flood 2 protection business? We do this by several means. 3 One is we should improve and have improved access 4 of our rural roads, municipal roads to our 5 property so we can continue to either flood fight 6 or continue to operate our businesses during the 7 time of a flood. We also will flood proof our own 8 homes, which is also so important, that will also 9 maintain value. 10 We also need improved flood protection 11 from the province in terms of what it does to 12 fight and prevent floods from the Red River and 13 also the Assiniboine. 14 And in failing that, we also are 15 concerned about having a flood agreement between 16 the province and the municipality of Ritchot, and 17 perhaps other municipalities to the Red River, to 18 the border of U.S./Canada border. And that would 19 entail giving rights for flooding our lands and, 20 therefore, compensation if we do allow that to 21 happen. 22 In reviewing the documents that were 23 submitted by the Floodway Authority, the three 24 documents, there is a technical document, the 25 general economic overview and the supporting 02699 1 document that related to the various meetings that 2 were held from Ste. Agathe up to Selkirk. 3 I have attended those meetings. I 4 have also reviewed the technical documents and 5 reviewed the economic documents. What I found 6 interesting when I have reviewed the documents is 7 that it is not so much what was in the documents, 8 which is very extensive, but there are 9 deficiencies in the documents of what was not in 10 the material. 11 One of the first areas that I was 12 concerned about was when I saw the area of study 13 for the social, economic and the environmental 14 aspects of the work that the Flood Authority did. 15 And I was interested -- it came to me when I was 16 looking down to Montcalm and to the municipality 17 of Franklin, which are adjacent to the Red River, 18 that that wasn't included in the study. Then I 19 thought, really, should we not have a study that 20 encompasses the Red River Valley as opposed to 21 just the municipalities adjacent to the river? We 22 have to look at the Red River Valley and how we 23 handle the water, manage the water in a more broad 24 context. Having it to supply to a specific 25 project that is right into Winnipeg is not 02700 1 sufficient. So that was one deficiency that I saw 2 in the study. 3 The other deficiency was there are two 4 projects that were analyzed before the province 5 decided on the expanded floodway project, and that 6 was what was called the Ste. Agathe detention 7 facility -- which detention I think is a misnomer, 8 I think it should be retention -- and the floodway 9 expansion itself. I would have liked to have 10 seen, and I'm sure others would have liked to have 11 seen the benefit cost ratios, and all of the 12 discussion associated with that, as to how that 13 decision was made to decide between Ste. Agathe 14 retention centre or facility and the floodway 15 expansion. I think that would have been 16 enlightening. All I saw in terms of the reason 17 for approving or opting for the expanded floodway 18 was, one, that the province would have to enter 19 into a floodway agreement or some form of 20 agreement with the Roseau Reserve, which is 21 actually just east of Letellier on the east side 22 of the Red River. The second reason was that 23 perhaps we would have to enter into an agreement 24 with the United States. 25 Now, I'm not necessarily --I don't 02701 1 know if those are really good reasons to decide 2 one project over the other, if you have to enter 3 into agreements. Because it is exactly the type 4 of agreement that we want to enter into with the 5 government in the RM of Ritchot, and perhaps other 6 municipalities further south. 7 As to the agreement with the United 8 States, yes, it can be difficult dealing with the 9 United States from time to time, but, really, if 10 we are going to solve the issue of preventing, 11 mitigating floods from the Red River, we really 12 have to involve the United States in some way or 13 capacity. So I would have liked to have seen in 14 the material that was made public, to have 15 actually have included this benefit cost study. 16 As I went further into the work and 17 looking at the technical documents, I came across 18 a table 5A.1. You might recall this flow chart 19 indicating the floodway as it exists and to 20 explain how our floodway system works. On the 21 flip side of this chart is an actual table which 22 indicates and outlines the results of a model 23 which indicates various flood levels at the 24 various locations in this flow diagram. 25 I would have liked to have seen more 02702 1 detail again, and I'm sure my colleagues would 2 have liked the same, on the model and the 3 assumptions that were used to arrive at the 4 various flood flows and locations, at the various 5 locations, so that we would understand better how 6 the model works, and having that understanding, we 7 would then be able to have some, maybe some 8 confidence, maybe no confidence in how that's 9 going to apply to the Compensation Act that's 10 been -- I don't think -- it has been passed, but 11 not proclaimed -- that will presumably compensate 12 us for any overflooding that may occur with the 13 expansion of the floodway. 14 So those are the deficiencies, and 15 there may be others, but those are the three main 16 deficiencies that I saw as I read through the 17 material. 18 Now, one of the things that I was 19 impressed with, when I look at the floodway system 20 and the information that was supplied in the 21 table, is that the Shellmouth dam and the Portage 22 diversion are incredibly powerful systems to help 23 divert floodwaters away from the City of Winnipeg. 24 Not only that, the benefits that accrue along the 25 Assiniboine River is shared for the City of 02703 1 Brandon, City of Portage la Prairie, and of course 2 all of the residents adjacent to the river as it 3 approaches into Winnipeg. But then once it gets 4 to Winnipeg, the benefits are not shared with the 5 RM of Ritchot, which is just south of the floodway 6 inlet. And in fact, they use the benefits that 7 accrue from the Shellmouth and the Portage 8 diversion to actually create this reservoir that 9 Bill Kocay talked about, that's created south, 10 immediately south of the floodway inlet. 11 So, I then just want to -- one of the 12 concerns that we raised at one of the hearings was 13 what is going to happen in a 700 year flood event? 14 From looking at this information and analyzing and 15 reading the technical documents, the plan is to 16 raise on the inward side of -- and I guess 17 hopefully on the outward side, but it looks like 18 more on the inward side, towards the side that 19 Winnipeg is on and then the floodway. That at the 20 floodgates, in order to have a semblance of 21 protection for a one in 700 year flood event, that 22 the floodway inlet itself would have to be closed 23 off, although there is indication that there will 24 be flows over the floodway. But I'm having 25 difficulty understanding how that's going to 02704 1 happen, and whether or not there is going to be 2 physical space for water to flow under the gates 3 which are at 778 right now -- sorry, the road that 4 goes over the gates at 778, without some form, 5 other form of dam design such as a spillway to 6 allow water to enter into Winnipeg. 7 So there is a concern then that as we 8 approach a 700 year flood event, that the floodway 9 will actually look more like a dyke around 10 Winnipeg than a floodway. So those are 11 observations that I saw as I read the material. 12 Now I wish to go to this table. You 13 can't read it clearly, but I have taken -- what I 14 have done in these two transparencies, because I 15 did this today and I didn't have time to get it 16 word processed, is that I -- this table gave me 17 some information but it didn't give all the 18 information that I wanted to see to make it clear 19 in my mind as to how the model works and how the 20 floodway works. So what I did is I -- I did two 21 things, and I will just set up these tables to 22 show you. 23 The first thing I did was, taking the 24 information that's in that table I showed you, 25 starting from James, backing up, backing up to the 02705 1 Shellmouth dam, and including the flow around the 2 Red River, I came across numbers that became quite 3 interesting to me, and I would just like to view 4 the transparencies. 5 The top line, the table is set up just 6 like the table that you saw from the presentation, 7 and the top line shows across the way the various 8 levels at the floodway inlet. The second line 9 shows the flood flow, the flood water flow which 10 is natural at James, which is 163 for a one in 100 11 year flood event, 174 for a one in 120 year flood 12 event, and 207 for a one in 225, and for the one 13 in 700 year flood event, 270,000 CFS. 14 And then I wanted to arrive at what 15 actual flow would occur at James. And I took off 16 the Shellmouth dam contribution, I took off the 17 Portage diversion contribution, and then of course 18 the contribution that flows around through the 19 floodway as well. So I then come to a number that 20 is actually the flow at James. Then I compared it 21 to what the model was predicting of the flow. And 22 as you see, there is a differences that becomes 23 quite significant when you go to the 700 year 24 flood event. The numbers, when you do this, show 25 that the flow in a one in 700 year flood event at 02706 1 James would be 93,600 CFS, which is about 20 to 2 23,000 CFS higher than 24 and a half James. 3 However, the model shows a different picture of 4 much lower levels of water flow. 5 Then in addition to that there were 6 some adjustments that I thought were necessary to 7 make. In terms of the upstream flow from the 8 floodway inlet, there were differences between the 9 A and the B, that is the existing floodway and the 10 expanded floodway. And it indicated that the 11 flows actually were higher for the B, that is the 12 expanded floodway. Therefore, I took those 13 numbers off. They happen to be 604,000 for the 14 one in 120, 4,000 for the one in 225, and then 15 7,000 for the one in 700 year flood event. 16 And the other aspect, and this is 17 where it is necessary to see the assumptions of 18 any particular model, is that the -- it shows in 19 the documents that the capacity of the Shellmouth 20 dam is 7,000 CFS, however, the model that's been 21 used to generate the numbers for the Shellmouth 22 dam are much higher than that. If you look 23 across, from 5,000 to 9,600, to 10,500 to 11,900. 24 So I suppressed the numbers by taking off, or in 25 this case adding the fact that these -- that the 02707 1 capacity is only 7,000, then how can we actually 2 get up to, you know, 11,900? So I took those 3 numbers off. 4 In addition to that, the capacity of 5 the existing floodway, and say in the one in 225, 6 is actually exceeded, because in the documents 7 again it says that the capacity is 90,000 CFS. It 8 was originally built as 100,000 CFS facility, but 9 because of the bridges, it slows it down to 90. 10 And that, as the documents say, is not even 11 dependable. That's why we are expanding floodway. 12 So I took those numbers off because the model was 13 exceeding the capacity of the floodway. 14 And then in the last analysis there is 15 a 3,000, because it shows at the top there, 16 143,000 CFS, which is 3,000 CFS higher than rated. 17 So when I do that, then the numbers 18 become even worse. What happens at James is 19 108,500 in one in 700 year flood event. So the 20 question that's raised from this is, how well is 21 this project going to protect the city, when using 22 this assessment, that the flow appears to be 23 108,000, when you are trying to maintain the flow 24 at somewhere around 75,000 or 24 and a half James? 25 So I have a question, and I'm sure maybe there is 02708 1 a good answer that will come from the engineers 2 who are involved in this particular model. 3 So, that's that table. If I can just 4 show -- 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you took both 6 of them over the first time. 7 MR. FORD: I then did the analysis the 8 other way. I started from -- I started from, in 9 this case upstream from the floodway inlet and 10 used the flows that were in the table that was 11 submitted with the schematic on the floodway 12 system. And then I added or subtracted the 13 various flows that would bring me up to James. 14 So, the numbers that I come up with were for 164, 15 700 to 256. Now, initially the numbers that are 16 in the submitted table, 163 and 164, are similar 17 in the 100 year flood event, but there is a great 18 divergence when we get to a one in 700 year flood 19 event. Again, I did the various adjustments, 20 coming out to an even greater divergence between 21 what the table showed and what the actual model 22 generates. 23 So, in conclusion, this information 24 suggests that either the model is overestimating 25 what is natural flow, or it is underestimating 02709 1 what will actually come down the pike once we have 2 a one in 700 year flood event. 3 By way of conclusion then, I must say 4 that I agree with all of the comments that Bill 5 Kocay came up with, and his conclusions that this 6 flood project gives us no protection whatsoever 7 south of the floodway, and that we should be 8 searching for, in combination of this project 9 maybe, or an additional project that will address 10 what I see coming down the pike in terms of the 11 fact that this project may not be sufficient to 12 protect us in the one in 700 year flood event. I 13 am talking about the City of Winnipeg. It is 14 certainly not going to protect us. In fact, it is 15 going to actually flood us. 16 And there is an additional table which 17 I won't show here, but it shows -- you might be 18 familiar with it, I will just show it. This table 19 here is a very revealing table where it shows the, 20 you know, what is the natural rating curve, and if 21 you follow it up, that people south of the 22 floodway, if we didn't have a floodway, it showed 23 that we would be protected to a one in 9,000 year 24 flood event. After all, we are 40 feet or so 25 higher than Winnipeg, and Winnipeg is actually the 02710 1 flood plain. So I think we have some serious 2 thinking to do about this project, and I hope my 3 comments may have been of some help. Thank you 4 very much. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 6 MR. WEBSTER: Mr. Ford, could you give 7 us the table, number of the table that you just 8 referred to, please, the last table? 9 MR. FORD: The table -- the actual 10 table number? 11 MR. WEBSTER: Yes. 12 MR. FORD: It is table 5A.1, that's 13 the submitted table. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: No, the last one that 15 you held up, the one that shows the curves and 16 things. 17 MR. FORD: Sorry, the figure actually, 18 it is 5.3-4. 19 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? 21 Thank you very much, Mr. Ford. Susan Goyer. 22 Please introduce yourself for the record. 23 MS. GOYER: My name is Susan Goyer, 24 I'm a previous resident of the municipality of 25 Ritchot. 02711 1 (SUSAN GOYER: SWORN) 2 MS. GOYER: As I said, I'm a citizen 3 of the Province of Manitoba and I currently reside 4 in the City of Winnipeg, so I have a foot in both 5 camps. 6 I'm here to talk about the value of 7 the people that live so close to the floodway. 8 During the flood of 1997, I lived on the Red River 9 on Marchand Road in the Municipality of Ritchot. 10 I lived approximately one mile south of the flood 11 control structure. 12 So I'm here today to tell you about 13 some of the consequences that our community 14 upstream of the control structure experienced post 15 flood. As a citizen of Ritchot, I am a flood 16 survivor as well as a flood recovery worker. I 17 was also appointed executive director of North 18 Ritchot Restoration Community Committee post 19 flood. I became a flood recovery worker at the 20 request of my municipal official and at the 21 pleading of my neighbors to represent them post 22 flood as a result of the initiatives that I showed 23 during the floods of 1996, as well as 1997. 24 We discovered early in this process 25 that God helps those who help themselves. And I 02712 1 subsequently spent two long years educating myself 2 and others, including provincial workers, in 3 disaster recovery, fighting for the rights of my 4 community, and less frequently, fighting for 5 myself. 6 I was perceived as capable of coping 7 and was basically denied payment, flood 8 compensation to fix my home, the home where I 9 lived with my three children, until government 10 officials, Shelly Napier and Nancy Heinrich from 11 the trauma team, visited my damaged home in 12 November of 1997. That's quite some time after 13 the actual flood event. Money soon started to 14 flow after they saw the conditions in which we 15 were living, albeit it flowed very slowly. 16 The Provincial Government at that time 17 had very little understanding that survivors 18 experience grief, loss, and guilt post disaster, 19 and that that trauma impairs not only individuals, 20 but also our collective coping abilities as a 21 community for years to come. 22 You may refer to the Ernst & Young 23 report for further information. To date I have 24 only seen the executive summary and I was not 25 privileged to read the full report. I do know, 02713 1 however, from the reactions of the Colorado 2 Disaster Centre, which I did not hear about until 3 November 1997, and the Ontario Red Cross, as well 4 as the British Columbia Justice Institute, that 5 the flood recovery efforts here in Manitoba were 6 to say the least inadequate. 7 I struggled long and hard against the 8 system, both as a homeowner and as a disaster 9 worker, to ensure that not only were the real 10 needs of this community identified, but they were 11 also met on as many different levels as possible. 12 Today I would like to offer you some 13 realistic insight into this community with a 14 constructive analysis of our experience. I 15 recently read in the New England Journal of 16 Medicine, February 3, 2005, that while the longer 17 term recovery and rehabilitation needs of the 18 recent tsunami are more poorly understood than the 19 short term needs, the longer term needs may be 20 even more important. This is very critical for us 21 living in the valley. 22 From experience, my experience during 23 the 1997 flood, and 1996, I believe that longer 24 term recovery, socially, medically and 25 economically, that this is an even more important 02714 1 investment. 2 While the large relief agencies have 3 substantial capacity for both relief, and in our 4 case a limited recovery, the transition from 5 relief activities to sustainable and meaningful 6 reconstruction is neither simple nor 7 straightforward. Challenges in the long term are 8 strategic. To meet these challenges, our 9 Provincial Government officials must rise above 10 their individual perspectives to work with the 11 local communities and the governments in 12 reconstruction as well as the re-establishment of 13 not only the municipal services and health 14 systems, but also the livelihood of our taxpaying 15 citizens. We pay taxes, just like the citizens of 16 Winnipeg. 17 To put it simply, we are more valuable 18 to this province as healthy productive workers, 19 earning salaries at what we are trained to do, and 20 spending monies on recovery, and paying taxes, 21 than spending our dwindling energies and 22 hard-earned dollars, while eroding our short-lived 23 health on fighting the personal prejudices of 24 system. As someone who has both worked in and 25 outside the system, I can assure you it got very 02715 1 personal, and that many government workers suffer 2 from a lack of knowledge, experience, and insight, 3 while suffering from post traumatic stress and 4 compassionate fatigue themselves. They directly 5 contributed to the compounding grief experienced 6 by Manitoba citizens in the municipality of 7 Ritchot, with an unmanageable and unforgiving 8 system that continues to exist even today. Where 9 was the compassion? And why was the "other" 10 golden rule the rule of choice? It was not "do 11 unto others," but rather it was "he who has the 12 gold rules." I don't know which one you teach 13 your children, but I didn't teach my children that 14 last one. 15 This situation is still very 16 paternalistic and authoritarian. It feels like we 17 were children once again, struggling against the 18 wishes of our parents who do not want to listen to 19 us, yet they always know better than we do. In 20 reality, time has proven that this province has 21 not only benefited financially from this flood, 22 but would have made more in taxes at the various 23 levels if it decreased the red tape and encouraged 24 us to recover, to spend our funds on re-building, 25 and to return to our regular employment. And that 02716 1 has been proven time and again. Speak with 2 anybody, any economist. 3 Too much time and money is still being 4 spent eight years later, after this flood, 5 fighting the system, and to what end? Do the 6 math, and it is easy to see that offering 7 residents adequate financial compensation or 8 reasonable buyouts to relocate is less expensive 9 than flooding them out. 10 Why are those taxpayers living closest 11 to the floodway control structure more in debt 12 than in any other jurisdiction? I agree with the 13 New England Journal of Medicine, that people need 14 to regain their ability to work and generate 15 income, and that this is a complex and poorly 16 understood dynamic. 17 This perspective may seem harsh, but 18 we have all lived it, and many of us continue to 19 live it today. People need to regain control of 20 their lives, not only to work and have an income, 21 but in the years that follow, to minimize the 22 psychological distress of being survivors. As 23 survivors we experience grief at the loss of our 24 homes, our belongings, our history, our neighbors, 25 our community, and most importantly our health. 02717 1 We suffer self-imposed guilt as well as that 2 imposed by the judgments of our provincial 3 representatives. Would have, should have, could 4 have. 5 Psychological trauma impairs 6 individuals and community coping abilities for 7 years to come, maybe even life times. You have 8 seen the proof of this at these hearings. 9 As an experienced health care worker, 10 I recognized the signs early, and lobbied at the 11 beginning of May 1997, shortly after I was flooded 12 out of my home under 12 feet of water. I lobbied 13 for a trauma team to provide support, not only for 14 the community but also for the government workers 15 the caregivers. It took until the end of July to 16 get a working team in place, three months. And we 17 knew that this flood was coming some time in 18 February. 19 I spent precious time advising this 20 team about compassionate fatigue, post traumatic 21 stress, and compounded grief, including medical 22 references. I know for a fact that at least three 23 key members of this team suffered traumatic 24 breakdowns post flood, resulting in at least one 25 hospitalization for an extended period of time. I 02718 1 also know -- I think also one attempted suicide. 2 I also know that workers suffered from blame the 3 victim syndrome, and this is a sure sign of 4 caregiver burnout. And while tea and sympathy was 5 a nice quick treat that we really needed, but what 6 we really needed was an advisory committee of 7 architectural and engineering experts to work with 8 us to analyze whether or not recovery of our 9 properties was even feasible, and also a financial 10 counselor to assist with realistically evaluating 11 our options, earlier rather than later when our 12 savings were gone. This program would be of even 13 more value today in order to make constructive 14 decisions with regards to the impacts of floodway 15 expansion on individual homeowners. 16 I asked for this during the flood 17 recovery and we never got this. It just -- it 18 would have made so much more sense. 19 In the middle of June, when we finally 20 had Mel Knott coming through my little filthy 21 trailer to come and assess the situation, I gave 22 him a list of 42 homes that I felt should be torn 23 down and never inhabited again. He told me as a 24 provincial worker, that he only spoke with 25 homeowners, and I tried to inform him that I was a 02719 1 homeowner, and I know about construction, it took 2 me eight years to build my house. And a year 3 later, after hundreds of volunteers and homeowners 4 spent the time and energy to clean these houses 5 out, clean out the muck, wade through the debris 6 and the mold, and suffer from respiratory diseases 7 for the rest of their lives, all of those homes 8 were ultimately destroyed. And it was a sad 9 summer the next year when the volunteers from 10 across Canada and the U.S. came back to see all of 11 their hard work cleaning out those basements and 12 cleaning out those homes was gone for not. 13 I could give you a substantial list of 14 examples of other initiatives, but they are 15 outlined in my contributions to the Manitoba Water 16 Commission and other submissions, as well as a 17 report requested by the International Joint 18 Commission. The bottom line is that we had to 19 help ourselves before, during, and after this 20 tragedy. We have had to fight not only mother 21 nature in all of her fury, but we had to reinvent 22 the wheel. 23 There was a wealth of experience 24 available both nationally and internationally to 25 help us clean up after the flood, but we learned 02720 1 that the provincial workers, with their limited 2 experience, knew what was best for us. And I 3 learned that they turned down a lot of credible 4 help from across Canada. And also, as I said, we 5 never contacted the disaster institute in the 6 States. I realized later, of course, the 7 Mississippi River floods lots, they would know 8 what to do. 9 Today, eight years later, many of us 10 are still paying for the short-sighted decisions 11 while we continue to fight for our rights. My 12 file is one of several that was never closed. I 13 am still owed money for expenses incurred during 14 flood recovery, and I am still fighting the 15 system. I fought long and hard for two years, 16 phoning Glen Cummings weekly to negotiate a buyout 17 of my home, which was built on a fault line after 18 I obtained a Province of Manitoba building permit. 19 This is to say, the fault line was there first and 20 then I got the building permit. 21 I learned this from engineer Dean 22 Gould, who has been a consultant with the 23 province. Pre-flood in 1997 he told me, when we 24 were trying to analyze my dyking options, that 25 there was a fault line running through my property 02721 1 on Marchand Road, and that this was known well 2 before I ever applied for a building permit. In 3 fact, in the Manning report of 1967 -- I think it 4 was 1967, I'm sure somebody here can correct me -- 5 the recommendation was made at that time that 6 Marchand Road should be left as green space in 7 anticipation of further upstream flooding in 8 proximity to Winnipeg's floodway. 9 Years later, in June of 1998, a year 10 later in June of 1998, I was in my home sitting on 11 25 piles, 55 feet to bedrock, when 30 feet of my 12 next door neighbour's riverbank let go due to high 13 spring water. And as the land slumped into the 14 Red River, I felt the earthquake sitting in my 15 home. And those of you who know what my home 16 looks like, you know that it was fairly 17 substantial. 18 Had the Provincial Government done its 19 job, I would have not bought that property, and I 20 wouldn't have built my home on it only to lose it. 21 I would not have had to spend over $100,000 of my 22 money and the province's money, your taxes, to 23 repair it in 1998 and 1999, only to finally win 24 the fight to have it bought out in 1999 for less 25 than it cost to build. And that didn't include 02722 1 the price of the land. 2 The question remains, why were we 3 given a building permit in 1981? And that's a 4 valid question, because today in the municipality 5 of Ritchot, a mile south of the floodway, which is 6 now under discussion, there are new residents 7 buying land and building new homes. Why have we 8 not learned from these past lessons, and why are 9 we not making more informed choices this time 10 around? Why are other landowners who did not live 11 in this area before the flood of the century, why 12 are they being given provincial building permits 13 today? Why is land still for sale in this area 14 adjacent to the floodway? Is it not enough that 15 we must deal with buyouts for long term residents 16 who lived here pre-1997, why are we compounding 17 the problem further? No one even knows how high 18 to build flood proofing in this area, so why is 19 new building allowed? 20 I initiated contacts with PFRA and the 21 Institute for Sustainable Development to try and 22 get some common sense into the building of these 23 dykes and hills. Money was at one point thrown at 24 homeowners, mainly city people who new nothing 25 about this, and there was no supervision of how 02723 1 these monies were spent, and a lot of this was 2 very false economy. 3 I fought for two years to get a buyout 4 for my home, and it was simply not realistic for 5 me as a homeowner to build a quarter of a million 6 dollar temporary dyking system that was guaranteed 7 not to work, but was guaranteed to load the 8 riverbank and send it sliding downstream. 9 Today, eight years later, I am going 10 to court, after exhausting all avenues to reach an 11 amicable solution, for receiving $71 per square 12 foot for my home, when my immediate next door 13 neighbour on the same riverbank received $107. 14 Apparently the Manitoba Government does not agree 15 with my lawyer that it was illegal for a 16 Provincial Government manager to sign his initials 17 to a legal document instead of my estranged 18 husband during our divorce. The province also 19 felt that I was voluntarily transferring my land, 20 so I was not entitled to the rights of 21 expropriation. What does it take to be offered 22 fair expropriation in this province? I am going 23 to court because I agree with the ombudsman when 24 he says that the provincial government does not 25 appear to have a culture of openness. I still do 02724 1 not know why there was such a significant price 2 difference in our homes, and I don't know why 3 promises were made that were never kept. I do not 4 know why my appeal was repeatedly turned down. I 5 have never received an explanation. 6 I felt that Barry Tuckett was speaking 7 directly to me in the Winnipeg Free Press when he 8 called for a clear statement from the highest 9 level of government to send a message to civil 10 servants to follow both the letter of the law and 11 the spirit of access and privacy laws. It took us 12 more than nine months to get over a thousand pages 13 of miscellaneous numbered documents. 14 I have recently received a patronizing 15 letter from the land value appraisal commission, 16 not the land management services as stated here, 17 saying that it was okay that a provincial staff 18 person signed his initials to the acknowledgment, 19 consent, and waiver of notice, instead of my 20 estranged husband. He also stated that no real 21 purpose would be served to have a hearing simply 22 to confirm under oath the genuineness of the 23 unsigned appraisal report, with a significant 24 different property value that was less than the 25 other signed appraisal that had two, not one, but 02725 1 two appraisal prices. I won't go into the 2 significant discrepancies. After all, I 3 volunteered to get bought out, notwithstanding my 4 financial and physical inability to flood proof on 5 a known fault line that existed prior to a 6 provincial building permit. And luckily I did 7 force this buyout, because with the new floodway 8 operating rules, my health would deteriorate even 9 further from the added stress. 10 I suffer, as many of my previous 11 neighbors still do, from high blood pressure, 12 psoriasis, depression, chronic cough, loss of 13 taste and smell, and most recently a hip 14 replacement. I'm waiting for a second hip 15 replacement as we speak. Now, are these stress 16 related illnesses, or is this just coincidence? 17 We will never know, because in spite of my 18 lobbying for longitudinal health and psycho-social 19 studies, none were ever done. Again, another 20 missed valuable opportunity in a small contained 21 community with a stable population. I could not 22 get anyone interested in committing to a long term 23 multi-generational study to document the effects 24 of post disaster stress on the health, finances, 25 and psycho-social impacts on children, taxpayers, 02726 1 and the elderly who built their communities in our 2 province. I know that my children continue to pay 3 for the effects of this flood, the same as the 4 children of my neighbors do. 5 I ask you to please consider the 6 information from those who have survived, not only 7 the flood, but also the decisions of bureaucracy, 8 and make your decisions so that they are as fair 9 as possible to all tax paying provincial citizens 10 impacted by this expanded floodway. 11 On Monday night I heard Doug McNeil 12 say on TV to the citizens of Ritchot, just trust 13 the government. Well, Doug, as a formal 14 provincial employee and a former executive 15 director of a flood restoration committee, and as 16 a homeowner who has been trying to resolve my own 17 claim, my reply to you is, not a chance. 18 I realize that the Floodway Authority, 19 according to the Free Press, considers inadequate 20 past compensation for people like me irrelevant to 21 this expansion project. But as taxpayers living 22 in Manitoba, Canada, it seems only fair that all 23 of our families have an equal opportunity to 24 survive the last flood, and the next, without 25 mortgaging our future to save yours. 02727 1 And I know that you consider the 2 capital cost of a redesign of the floodway too 3 expensive, but what about the economically 4 feasible ongoing costs to adequately compensate 5 the approximate 5,000 citizens living upstream of 6 the control gates? The province recently passed 7 legislation to provide ongoing compensation to 8 anyone flooded out by the operation of the 9 floodway, but many of us are still waiting for 10 compensation from eight years ago. 11 I remember sitting in Niakwa Pizza 12 with Gary Doer, leader of the opposition, 13 discussing our flood options. I can't remember 14 who called that meeting, but I think it may have 15 been us. I will read you a quote from the 16 Winnipeg Free Press, 1997, Mr. Doer hit the nail 17 on the head when he said, 18 "None of the victims has ever said 19 that saving the majority of the 20 population wasn't the right decision. 21 What they object to is the fact that 22 they have been fingered by the 23 government to carry the majority of 24 the costs." 25 Today, eight years later, I respectfully request 02728 1 that the members of the CEC report our current 2 concerns and fears to Premier Doer, as we wait 3 once again to carry the majority of the costs, 4 financial and otherwise. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 6 Ms. Goyer. We have no further questions for you. 7 MS. GOYER: I would just like to make 8 one more point, that with all of the talk of 9 artificial flood levels post flood, it is my 10 understanding that the small area of Ritchot, a 11 mile south of the floodway, that we were the first 12 to raise the artificial level question and fund 13 raise and lobby and hire Charles Howard & 14 Associates to prove that case. Thank you. 15 One other thing. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: We are running out of 17 time, and there are a lot of others that want to 18 have their say. 19 MS. GOYER: A lot of money was spent 20 building the dykes, many of which are now useless, 21 and I hope that people do their homework into 22 hydra seeding and correct construction and 23 accurate survey levels before they continue with 24 this process. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 02729 1 Mr. Woytowich, would you please introduce yourself 2 for the record? 3 MR. WOYTOWICH: My name is Dr. Dave 4 Woytowich. I'm a civil environmental engineer. 5 I'm also a property owner and resident in the RM 6 of Ritchot. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you stop and we 8 will have the secretary swear you in? 9 (DAVE WOYTOWICH: SWORN) 10 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 11 MR. WOYTOWICH: We are going to have a 12 Power Point presentation today, and I do have some 13 copies of the Power Point presentation as an 14 exhibit. That will last about eight minutes. And 15 then we will have a video presentation that's 16 going to quantify for you what it was like to the 17 socio-economic impacts of the existing floodway 18 situation. And then we are going to follow up 19 with ending the presentation with hopefully some 20 questions. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: We don't have that much 22 time, Mr. Woytowich, we have another person after 23 you. 24 MR. WOYTOWICH: 15 minutes I think we 25 have. 02730 1 THE CHAIRMAN: 15 minutes is fine. 2 MR. WOYTOWICH: I would like to stand, 3 it is part of my instruction thing. 4 What we are going to look at today in 5 this presentation is an introduction, and we are 6 going to look at the scope of the particular EIS. 7 I had the opportunity to review all of the 8 transcripts in the last three days before I 9 presented. I understand totally what the EIS is 10 all about, and I want to focus the presentation 11 primarily on the review and evaluation of the 12 socio-economic impacts, following up by a great 13 job done by Susan Goyer, who I didn't know was 14 presenting this. What we will reviewing is for 15 the people located immediately upstream of the 16 floodway inlet, up to Ste. Agathe. 17 We are going to talk about concerns of 18 Health Canada, I found that very interesting in 19 the transcripts, that they also were unable in the 20 EIS to establish whether or not any subpopulations 21 within the study area or watershed will be 22 adversely affected. 23 In fact, Mr. Osler had a lot of 24 conversations or discussions that, Mr. Chairman, 25 you asked him to clarify, which I found was quite 02731 1 deficient. 2 Uncertainty and stress; we are going 3 to talk about that, Susan mentioned that, due to 4 artificial flooding equals fear, anxiety and 5 mistrust. Of course mistrust doesn't pertain to 6 socio-economic impacts, but let me assure you 7 gentlemen and ladies present, the stress and 8 anxiety does. It also equates to poor health. It 9 is very clear that this floodway expansion will be 10 evaluated on any increase in stress and anxiety 11 that could result in poor health. Then we are 12 going to look at some conclusions that I'm going 13 to leave with the Commission. 14 Should a voluntary buyout be offered 15 to mitigate residual effects due to reduction in 16 health and well-being for residents located 17 immediately upstream -- let's call that the 18 forebay, what it really is. Also, if not, and it 19 is proved that it is deficient, will in fact then 20 this Commission recommend to the Federal review 21 panel that they evaluate this in lieu of proper 22 compensation for the buyout. 23 A little bit about myself. I have 25 24 years experience in civil environmental 25 engineering. Three of those years with the Water 02732 1 Resources Department. A lot of my friends are 2 here, good engineers. And rest of my time was in 3 wastewater treatment specializing in environmental 4 management systems. I taught my students about 5 EISs and EIAs. 6 And after going through this I learned 7 a lot more about cumulative effects. I also 8 learned a lot more about ambiguity, defining 9 things, uncertainties, what is existing, what is 10 not existing, things I never heard before in any 11 other EIAs. 12 Then I developed an environmental 13 management program for the Manitoba Heavy 14 Construction Association. I won the Sustainable 15 Development Award of excellence. I'm presently an 16 instructor at Red River College. I provide 17 instruction to municipal technologists on 18 hydraulics. I also teach water and wastewater 19 treatment to the environmental technologists. I 20 have developed the Manitoba operator training 21 program in Manitoba. We have now trained over 22 1,000 operators that reach certification 23 requirements. I successfully assisted in the 24 Centre for Applied Research in Sustainable 25 Infrastructure at the Red River College that 02733 1 brought in a million and a half dollars. I was 2 also chair of the Manitoba operators training 3 program. And if you look at the back I was a 4 member of the Clean Environment Commission for 5 three years, so I understand how the Commission 6 works. 7 But I'm here today before you as a 8 property owner, I am not here as an engineer, a 9 property owner in the flood study region, a 10 survivor, as Susan said, who fought the flood and 11 understands what socio-economic effects are, 12 truly. 13 I would like the Commission -- before 14 I go any further, I have to tell you that I had a 15 hard time making a decision if I was going to do 16 this presentation. In fact, I only made it today. 17 I reviewed all of the transcripts, I was up until 18 three in the morning understanding what was going 19 on. But one thing that stuck in my mind that I 20 wanted to help you, the Commission, was to review 21 three basic principles of sustainable development 22 which is based for any project in Manitoba. 23 The first one, integration of 24 environmental and economic decisions, these are 25 adopted by Manitoba. Economic decisions should 02734 1 adequately reflect environmental -- and I 2 bolded -- human health and social effects. Number 3 2, stewardship, the economy, human health and 4 social well-being should be managed for the equal 5 benefit of present and future generations, not 6 only the City of Winnipeg. Thirdly, prevention, 7 Manitobans should anticipate and prevent or 8 mitigate significant adverse economic, 9 environmental, human health effects and social 10 well-being, having particular careful regard to 11 decisions where impacts are not entirely certain. 12 This is the case, there is a lot of uncertainty 13 here. We will talk about that, I read it through 14 the transcripts -- but which on reasonable and 15 well-informed grounds appear to pose serious 16 threats to the economy, the environment and here 17 again, human health and social well-being. 18 Let's look at the information, I think 19 it is pretty clear. This is just a quick summary 20 that I summarized. We had a 1997 flood based on 21 90 years, peak of 163,000 CFS. I wanted to 22 quantify this because I wanted to give you an idea 23 of benefit cost. I did this work when I was at 24 Water Resources. We are looking at a 1826 flood, 25 40 per cent larger than 1997, 228,000 CFS, 290 02735 1 year return. Existing floodway, over the years we 2 have avoided $8 billion worth of damage. There is 3 a 38 per cent risk that Winnipeg can be flooded 4 within the existing floodway, real risk. Floodway 5 expansion represents protection to a 700 year 6 level, and an elevation of 778 at the floodway 7 inlet. That represents I believe a flood 8 magnitude greater than 1826. Good. 9 Net benefits, unbelievable, 10 $12 billion. This is a key number. Annual 11 average benefits are between 50 to 75 million. We 12 are saving the City of Winnipeg 50 to $75 million, 13 that's a 12 year return on investment. 14 Unbelievable. $600 million, you are going to get 15 it back in 12 years. 16 What are we doing for the people 17 upstream? Let's talk about that. Let's review 18 and evaluate the socio-economic impacts of people 19 located immediately upstream of the floodway 20 inlet. This is in section 8 of the EIS. 21 We talked about this, Susan Goyer 22 talked about it, all of these people came up and 23 talked about this to the Commission. They 24 experienced stress and anxiety, resulting in poor 25 health, mental and physical, socio-economic, when 02736 1 artificially flooded in 1997, and told by 2 government officials and experts only 0.5 feet. 3 I would like to use the transparency 4 machine for a second. I was one of the 5 individuals that wrote the terms of reference for 6 Chuck Howard to prove it was more than .5 feet, 7 and I will tell you why I did. I will show you 8 the first graph that I have ever done to show all 9 of the models to verify that. 10 This, ladies and gentlemen, is a 11 simple profile, a simple profile. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: If you don't speak into 13 the microphone, we can't record your message. 14 MR. WOYTOWICH: This is a sample 15 profile, this is great work. But if you take the 16 water level at the high mark, and we have got the 17 green, which I believe was 19-- it is attached to 18 the presentation, the two bottom floods are 1979 19 and 1995. What do you see there? What do you see 20 in the water levels? They are pretty close to 21 each other, aren't they? Right? And what happens 22 in 1997 when you put up the levels? It is two and 23 a half feet, it is a back curve. It is artificial 24 flooding. It is not .5-foot -- it is six inches. 25 It is two feet. You see? If you project it up 02737 1 further, you will see the 778 mark. See the 778 2 mark up there? That's 6.6 feet higher, or 3 6.65 feet higher. Look at the forebay. Look at 4 the risk. We are going to see a video right away 5 what happened at 761.3. I want you to envision, 6 the Commission, to see what is going to happen 7 when it is six and a half feet above that. 8 At this point in time I want to show a 9 video, and then we will move to the rest of the 10 presentation if that's okay with you. Because I 11 want to quantify in this video for you the 12 socio-economic benefit of what happened there. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: How long is the video? 14 MR. WOYTOWICH: It is only eight 15 minutes. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: You are going to be 17 vastly over 15 minutes, so let's move quickly, 18 please. 19 MR. WOYTOWICH: I will. We are going 20 to give us a chance -- I will just play the video. 21 It is very important because this talks about the 22 benefits. You will see, it will quantify the 23 benefits and see what is happening in the existing 24 situation. 25 (VIDEO PLAYED) 02738 1 Again, the purpose of that video was 2 to give you the socio-economic impacts that 3 happened to us. What I want to do now is build 4 on, go back to the original presentation, and it 5 will only take me a few minutes if I could do 6 that. 7 So, yes, we do experience, we can see 8 that we can experience stress. And it is 9 interesting, you know, when I first presented this 10 video -- 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you, 12 Dr. Woytowich, just stick to your presentation and 13 not the asides, and we will be out of here much 14 more quickly. 15 MR. WOYTOWICH: The present SEIA does 16 not address the residual effect of uncertainties 17 in the new rating curve that was presented, in 18 quantifying the effect of artificial flooding for 19 greater floods. We are talking about 20 environmental SEIA related to artificial floods. 21 As presented by Mr. Shumuk from the 768 22 Association, he indicated that at flows of 200 CFS 23 it can vary between minus 0.1 and 0.3 feet, and 24 also between minus 1 feet and 0.8 feet, so there 25 is uncertainty. 02739 1 These are all the uncertainties, I 2 will summarize them for you. Uncertainty of the 3 new federal operating rules, they keep changing. 4 Uncertainty of the new rating curve, how it will 5 be used to resolve compensation issues. 6 Uncertainty of potential groundwater, potential 7 summer operating rules, potential bank stability 8 problems, backup gates, future compensation of 9 major floods, effects of west dykes, uncertainty 10 of environmental baseline, uncertainty in the 11 model used to calculate erosion potential, 12 uncertainties that the consultation process which 13 was taken by Manitoba Flood Authority was not 14 adequate for these upstream residents. 15 So let's look at the reduction in 16 health and well-being, and let's look at the EIS, 17 that's why we are here. When we look at these 18 impacts, the first thing I want to talk about are 19 the concerns of Health Canada. Health Canada, 20 when they reviewed this, were unable in the EIS to 21 establish whether or not any subpopulations, well 22 within the study area, will be adversely or 23 significantly affected. They had concerns about 24 this. That was addressed by Mr. Osler. Because 25 of these concerns, okay, we now get to the 02740 1 situation where we have uncertainties. All of 2 these uncertainties are going to create stress due 3 to the potential artificial flooding that's 4 coming, six and a half feet above what you saw 5 there, potentially, in that video. So what is 6 that going to give us? Fear, anxiety, mistrust, 7 well, we can't call that -- mistrust is not 8 considered under an EIS to be related to an 9 environmental effect, so we have to neglect that, 10 but we don't have to neglect stress and anxiety 11 because that can result in poor health. If we get 12 these artificial floods at higher than what we are 13 seeing at this existing flood, it is going to 14 create poor health. It means these homes are 15 going to have to be rebuilt again, and they are 16 going to go through it again, again and again. 17 Let's look at the residual effects, 18 the review of the residual effects. I looked at 19 table 8.62, Mr. Chairman and the Commissioners. I 20 consider them deficient. They are not adequately 21 addressed in SEIA. And that's for the health and 22 well-being under the -- and I do have a table 23 there that I could present to show you that. All 24 they addressed was one issue, concern for 25 increased potential of non-compliance with an 02741 1 evacuation order. That was all that was 2 addressed, that one issue, not the stress, not the 3 anxiety, nothing else. Because they say it would 4 be the same, you have the same flood coming. 5 Well, you don't. It also addresses only the 6 potential benefit due to health by raising the 7 level for flood protection. That was mainly 8 attributed to the City of Winnipeg. 9 So here is the conclusions. If the 10 SEIA supposedly is deficient in regards to the 11 human health and well-being of upstream residents, 12 this is what the Commission has to evaluate, 13 should this EIS be reviewed by a federal panel to 14 determine adequate mitigation through 15 compensation? Mr. Chairman talked about this in 16 the transcripts. 17 The next question we have to ask the 18 Commissioners is, should a voluntary buyout be 19 offered to mitigate, as a mitigation measure? 20 That wasn't addressed. 21 The residual effects due to reduction 22 in health and well-being for residents immediately 23 upstream, again I'm talking about the floodway 24 expansion folks. Mr. McNeil, you indicated on 25 February 15 in the transcripts, 02742 1 "The province is looking at voluntary 2 buyouts as requested by some of the 3 owners in the area upstream." 4 Does that apply to everybody? Is it divide and 5 conquer? 6 When I worked for Water Resources we 7 looked at flood risk mapping. One of the options 8 was no building in that area. As Susan Goyer 9 said, when we get to six and a half feet it is 10 going to be a serious problem and this is all 11 going to happen again. This Commission and this 12 body would be remiss in not looking at a buyout of 13 all residents as a mitigation measure to reduce 14 these potential health effects, health and 15 well-being. I would consider that. That ends my 16 presentation. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Questions, Barry? 18 Thank you very much, Dr. Woytowich. We have no 19 further questions of you at this time. Mr. Ross 20 Hadden. 21 MR. HADDEN: I'm Ross Hadden. 22 (ROSS HADDEN: SWORN) 23 MR. HADDEN: Just to make a point of 24 reference. I predicted the flood in '97, 25 February 3rd. So it was in the Free Press paper, 02743 1 if anybody wants to check it out. 2 I wrote a little bit up. Is the flood 3 a Cinderella story this reverse? Winnipeg gets 4 $723 million. Those north and south of Winnipeg 5 on the Red River get nothing. If we want to get 6 the best for the dollars spent on the floodway, we 7 should have to have a 700 year flood every year. 8 Since this happens only once every 700 years, we 9 are not getting our money's worth. 10 The benefit for Winnipeg of more water 11 going through the floodway at the 750 feet above 12 sea level with the floodway exit made twice as 13 wide will cause flooding in both the north end of 14 Winnipeg and East Selkirk. 15 Those south of the floodway will get 16 no benefit at all. 17 There could be some benefit for those 18 south of Winnipeg if either of the following was 19 done: Take out the seven foot dyke at the 20 entrance to the floodway. This would allow the 21 water to enter at 743 feet above sea level and 22 take some of the pressure off the dyke and the 23 floodgates. 24 Large pumps, approximately six foot 25 wide, this is second, large pumps approximately 02744 1 six foot wide put at the entrance of the floodway 2 could keep the water at a lower level and make it 3 safer for Winnipeg. 4 Three, if the north end of the river 5 was dredged and ice broken up by a large 6 hovercraft, the water could flow into the lake 7 sooner. Ice on the Red River holds back the water 8 on the river and on the lake. Thank you. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 10 Mr. Hadden. Any questions? No, we don't have 11 any. Thank you very much for your presentation. 12 Mr. Hadden was the last presenter for 13 this evening, so that brings us for a close today. 14 We will be back here tomorrow morning at 9:00 15 o'clock. 16 MS. JOHNSON: First we have to enter 17 all of the presentations as exhibits. Number 96 18 is Mr. Manness' present, 97 is Dr. Kocay, 98 is 19 Ms. Goyer's, and 99 is Mr. Woytowich, and 20 Mr. Hadden is 100. 21 22 (EXHIBIT 96: Presentation of Mr. 23 Manness to CEC) 24 25 (EXHIBIT 97: Presentation of Dr. 02745 1 Kocay to CEC) 2 3 (EXHIBIT 98: Presentation of Susan 4 Goyer to CEC) 5 6 (EXHIBIT 99: Presentation of Dave 7 Woytowich to CEC) 8 9 (EXHIBIT 100: Presentation of Ross 10 Hadden to CEC) 11 12 (Proceedings adjourned at 9:15 p.m.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02746 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