02747 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Thursday, March 3, 2005 14 Sheraton Hotel, 161 Donald Street 15 Winnipeg, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 Volume 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02748 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 02749 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 02750 1 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS 2 Wayne Clifton Cross-examination by MFA 2754 3 Questions by Panel 2789 4 Rural Municipalities Questions by Panel 2823 5 Cross-examination by MFA 2847 6 Presentation by Save our Seine 2869 Dave Danyluk 7 Jules Legal Alf Poetker 8 Matt McCandless Bev Sawchuk 9 Questions by Panel 2895 10 11 Presentation by Mr. Allan Ciekiewicz 2911 Presentation by Mr. Leonard Wolechuk 2935 12 Presentation by Mr. Oborne 2948 Presentation by Mr. Cliff Dearman 2967 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02751 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 101 Presentation by John H. Morrison to 2868 CEC 4 5 102 Presentation by Save Our Seine 2910 6 103 Submission by Save Our 2910 7 Seine, entitled, "Seine River Issues Related to the Red River 8 Floodway Expansion Project" 9 104 Submission by Save our Seine, 2911 10 "Revitalizing the Seine River" 11 105 Presentation by Allan Ciekiewicz to 2966 12 CEC 13 106 Presentation by Brian Oborne; 2966 14 Future Opportunity for Watershed Based Solution, Achieving 15 inter-related Flood Control, Water Quality and other Goals 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02752 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02753 1 Thursday, March 3, 2005 2 Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 3 4 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. Can we 6 come to order, please? Welcome back to Winnipeg, 7 Mr. Clifton. We are resuming with the 8 cross-examination of Mr. Wayne Clifton by the 9 Floodway Authority. Mr. Handlon. 10 MR. HANDLON: Good morning. Since 11 last week when Mr. Clifton, if you recall, in his 12 presentation had provided a model that he had 13 submitted as part of his submission, and we had 14 some questions on the model regarding the data 15 inputs, the assumptions that were made. And if 16 you recall, there was an undertaking that was made 17 by Mr. Clifton to go back and to provide us with 18 that information. Specifically, I'll just read it 19 into the record. The undertaking at page 1625 20 was, Provide working papers re hydraulic 21 conductivity, boundary conditions, calibration 22 points, calibration sensitivity, and floodway 23 staging in respect to the model that he had 24 prepared. 25 What we received, I believe earlier 02754 1 this week, were a number of sheets, and there were 2 three pages from that that provided the data that 3 we had sought. And I have copies of the three 4 pages. And it's from the slides that he had 5 provided us. There is a group of other new 6 material but the only relevant parts were three 7 pages, pages 5, 6 and 7, and I have those pages 8 and I'll just give them to the Commission. 9 Now, Mr. Smith has some questions 10 based on the information that was provided through 11 the undertaking as it relates to the model and 12 some other issues that Mr. Clifton had spoken to 13 last week. As far as the technology is concerned, 14 we will try to put up on the screen some of the 15 documents that will be referenced by Mr. Smith, 16 and if you could bear with us on that, we've got 17 an overhead that we will attempt to use. 18 There will be some references to 19 appendix P, and I've asked Mr. Farlinger to have 20 that copy out. So I'll turn it over to Mr. Smith. 21 MR. SMITH: Just to refresh our 22 memories from last week, we had discussed the 23 regional model work at some length, and reviewed 24 the extensive database that was used there and the 25 fit on the piezometric data. And after 02755 1 considerable discussion, Mr. Clifton, you'd agree 2 that the regional model was a reasonable 3 representation of the aquifer conditions, you may 4 recall. 5 So this is one of the slides that you 6 had in your presentation, although we didn't 7 discuss it at any length, it's basically copied 8 from our report. And what it represents is the 9 1997 flood simulation mounding after 31 days, the 10 duration of the flood essentially, at full depth. 11 I just wanted to put that up and ask, would you 12 agree that the regional model simulated a 13 reasonable fit for that 1997 pressure head 14 mounding as monitored at the provincial wells 15 during the flood? 16 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, I certainly 17 accepted that as being a reasonable model. I did 18 not see the ground truthing on the individual 19 wells, on a well-by-well basis, so I didn't review 20 that. I simply accepted the model as published as 21 being a reasonable approximation of what would 22 happen from the flood. 23 MR. SMITH: Thank you. Actually, in 24 appendix N, which is a regional model, annex E, 25 there was a figure that showed the observed peak 02756 1 level, and the model predicted or simulated at 2 piezometric level. It's on figure E-2, and that 3 showed a very close fit, close to a 45-degree 4 line. So we were certainly happy with the fit. 5 It's not exact, but it's close. 6 MR. W. CLIFTON: And I agree. 7 MR. SMITH: I just wanted to move on. 8 Relative to appendix O, this is where we had most 9 of our database on the site investigations. And 10 one of the themes throughout this work that we've 11 done was that we had initially selected five 12 locations that we felt were, I guess, 13 representative of sensitive areas. And at those 14 locations, we did detailed drilling investigation 15 programs, and ultimately used those location ends 16 for all our subsequent surface water intrusion 17 modeling and assessment. 18 Now, I have a copy of those locations 19 in the drill log data. I'll just pass that on for 20 your convenience. I don't know whether you've had 21 a chance to review all that information or have 22 gone through those particular sections, but I'll 23 just -- I don't intend to go through them all, but 24 if we go to some that were of more interest, such 25 as the CPR Keewatin section, which would be 02757 1 drawing G6C, G006C, that's CPR Keewatin. 2 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 3 MR. SMITH: On that package, it would 4 be the fourth page in. So the title says "CPR 5 Keewatin" on it. In any case, does everybody have 6 that section? 7 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 8 MR. SMITH: I guess the thing I just 9 wanted to point out there, at that location there 10 was a total of 14 drill holes within the width of 11 the floodway. It's approximately 300 metres from 12 the centre line to the boundary of the 13 right-of-way. And that particular location, for 14 example, included four wells into the bedrock, 15 four wells into the till, and pneumatic wells also 16 the till, field permeability testing, groundwater 17 level monitoring. And in addition, these were 18 located at a section where there was an existing 19 provincial monitoring well that had been 20 observing, on a continuous basis, the piezometric 21 pressure and the carbonate aquifer from the early 22 1960's onward. So I just wanted to make sure. 23 Do you agree that the stratigraphy 24 and the groundwater levels are a reasonable 25 representation at this section, based on the 02758 1 information that's available there? 2 MR. W. CLIFTON: On the section, yes, 3 Mr. Smith. But as I reviewed the hydrogeology 4 components and the modeling components, the text 5 was quite clear that the section at Keewatin which 6 was represented in your figure 46-C, which I 7 believe is probably appendix N, I'm not sure? 8 MR. SMITH: That's correct. 9 MR. W. CLIFTON: It was clear that the 10 calibration was to one provincial observation 11 well. And so the data that is represented in this 12 figure did not appear to be used in the analysis 13 in the hydrogeology modeling component. 14 MR. SMITH: Well, you're jumping ahead 15 there a little bit. But the soil conditions are 16 representative at that location, to the best of 17 our available information. Detailed falling head 18 tests to define the permeability at the various 19 soil strata, and we had the, as you say, the 20 continuous record at the one well. So in a lot of 21 cases, that's probably better information than you 22 would have to do a model analysis. 23 MR. W. CLIFTON: But I was looking for 24 one very specific piece of information that wasn't 25 there, and that is what are the soil conditions, 02759 1 and what are the properties within the springs? 2 Because it is the springs and the permeability and 3 the nature of those springs that will control the 4 hydrogeology of that channel. 5 MR. SMITH: That's correct. And 6 that's ultimately why we did a sensitivity 7 analysis, increasing the permeability by ten fold 8 and a hundred fold, to represent a more direct 9 connection through that section. 10 MR. W. CLIFTON: Certainly, and in my 11 opinion, that does not adequately represent it, 12 because the nature of the springs as reported to 13 me, and I must emphasize that I have not seen 14 them, but the nature of the springs is that water 15 can actually be observed bubbling out of the 16 ground. You do not get water bubbling out of the 17 ground in a 10 to the minus 5 metre per second 18 material. So a 2 order of magnitude -- what I was 19 looking for here, in this document, is character 20 of the springs, which could be used in the 21 analysis, the area, the amount of flow, the 22 boreholes within the area that assess the 23 hydraulic permeability of the strata, where the 24 water is coming out. I didn't see that. 25 MR. SMITH: Well, in fact, when you do 02760 1 that sensitivity analysis and you establish that 2 the surface water could reach the boundary within, 3 whatever, depending on what case we had, a half a 4 year or possibly a year. And obviously we could 5 throw a higher permeability ratio in there and it 6 would reach it a little faster. The key point is 7 that it established that that front could reach 8 the boundary, therefore, there is a need to 9 address that. And logical approach would be by 10 monitoring, to be confident, if there is a front, 11 reaching that location. 12 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, I think that's 13 an issue that you and I are in violent agreement 14 on, is that the modeling demonstrates that surface 15 water can reach the boundary. What we are arguing 16 about or debating is what -- how closely the 17 simulation represents reality in the field. The 18 method that the modelers have chosen to analyze is 19 to apply a constant permeability over the whole 20 base of the channel. And it is reported to me 21 that observations say that that's not the case, 22 that there are specific high permeability 23 pipelines in the low flow channel from which the 24 springs emanate. And we have no information on 25 those springs, so we do not know how, the degree 02761 1 of magnitude, of threat if you wish, that is posed 2 by that. How good is the communication between 3 the surface water and the aquifer through those 4 springs? That is the primary pathway that I'd be 5 interested in. 6 MR. SMITH: Yes. And if you're 7 talking about a very localized pipe of a few feet 8 in diameter or maybe a few metres in diameter 9 versus taking a section and crossing the channel 10 at 10 to the minus 3, I suggest that that section 11 will have a lot less surface water intrusion than 12 what we've modeled. However, it doesn't change 13 the bottom line. The bottom line is that, yes, 14 surface water can reach the boundary. And then 15 what will we do with it? Can we deal with it? 16 Let's move on here. I guess what 17 comes out of the studies, and we have used mod 18 flow, visual mod flow. It's based on advection, 19 as Mr. Clifton has indicated, it's basically 20 representing the average velocity of the 21 groundwater through the porous medium, which is a 22 fundamental assumption of that model and most 23 models. And in fact, that advection is by far the 24 most important transport process. 25 Maybe we'll move into that question on 02762 1 the transport modeling. The information you 2 submitted, you indicated that advection and 3 dispersion were the two main mechanisms that you 4 considered in your model C Trans, and to a lesser 5 extent diffusion which is very much a secondary 6 component -- and there is a lot of literature on 7 contaminant transport modeling. There is a lot of 8 literature on dispersion coefficients and 9 dispersivity and estimating what that is. In 10 simple terms, what it tries to do is represent I 11 guess the, rather than the average velocity of the 12 groundwater at the front, which is what the mod 13 flow gives us. It tries to identify, well, what 14 if some of the water moves ahead through the 15 centre of the pore openings, moves a little faster 16 than the front. So it gives you a feel for the 17 leading edge of the front. And in a lot of cases, 18 it could represent a 10 per cent leading edge on 19 the average front movement, some cases less, and 20 with that leading edge, it's usually more dilute. 21 I'll just maybe put up a little 22 illustration of that to help people. So at the 23 top of the diagram there, the advection only case, 24 that would represent what we simulated in mod 25 flow. And if you then just said, well, let's add 02763 1 in dispersion, and there's a longitudinal 2 component that would kick out that leading edge as 3 you see, the total there that is moving ahead a 4 little faster, and what we are looking at here is 5 distance from the source on the horizontal axis, 6 how far has that front moved? And the vertical 7 axis in this case is concentration of the 8 material. So you can see that leading toe or edge 9 in the second example, the dispersion, is at a 10 diluter concentration than the main body of the 11 flow. 12 Now, if you add in other factors such 13 as absorption or biodegradation or retardation or 14 die off, in fact, it could reverse the whole 15 process and you'll find that the front movement 16 may be slower. 17 Mr. Clifton, would you agree that 18 that's sort of, you know, it's a schematic that 19 sort of represents the different concepts of 20 contaminant transport flow? 21 MR. W. CLIFTON: That's correct, but 22 perhaps I could expand a bit on my view of how the 23 modeling works? 24 MR. SMITH: We'll get into that. 25 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, I think 02764 1 it's appropriate to allow, given that I've just 2 watched about 20 minutes of presentation from the 3 questioner on mod flow, then into this. And 4 Mr. Clifton has an explanation that he wants to 5 give regarding this, it would be appropriate to 6 allow him to continue that. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I agree. Let him 8 answer the question. 9 MR. W. CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, I agree in 10 general with the thoughts that Mr. Smith 11 presented. But the top diagram is seepage only, 12 or what we would technically call advection. But 13 basically it's the seepage of groundwater through 14 the pores in soil or channels and fractures in the 15 rock. 16 It assumes that the water moves 17 forward as a plug, and that its boundaries can be 18 defined. 19 Advection -- dispersion is a mixing 20 within the aquifer, within the porous material, 21 and it is what causes this front to move out 22 ahead. 23 And when Mr. Smith says it may move 10 24 per cent, in most instances it moves much farther. 25 The front may be hundreds of metres ahead of where 02765 1 advective model says that it is. In fact, that is 2 what I set out to explore and in fact what I 3 believe is happening in this aquifer system. Mod 4 flow tells you where this point is. The transport 5 model is needed to tell you where this point is. 6 If you're looking at health risk, then 7 certainly you must be looking at the dispersion 8 and the mixing of the surface water in the 9 aquifer. That is where we part. This area of 10 diffusion and absorption, biodegradation, I did 11 not consider because at the moment I was not 12 considering species that were absorptive or that 13 were indicated to be part of the system. What I 14 was interested in is how does the surface water 15 potentially mix in the aquifer? To do that, you 16 need two models. You need the transport model or 17 the seepage model that tells you how fast it's 18 flowing, and then the -- sorry, the seepage model 19 that tells you how fast water is flowing, and then 20 the transport model that indicates how it's mixing 21 in the aquifer. And that is the basis of the 22 comments that I made earlier in my evidence in 23 chief. 24 MR. SMITH: So you agree that the mod 25 flow did not consider either the dispersion 02766 1 component, or the retardation, absorption, or the 2 biodegradation? 3 MR. W. CLIFTON: I agree. 4 MR. SMITH: And your model also did 5 not consider absorption or biodegradation or 6 retardation? 7 MR. W. CLIFTON: No, it did not. 8 MR. SMITH: Which would slow down the 9 movement of the front. 10 MR. W. CLIFTON: Of some species. 11 MR. SMITH: Yes. And the information 12 you provided then on the model that you 13 simulated -- I guess one of the important 14 parameters, as we have discussed, is dispersivity 15 and the coefficient of dispersivity that you 16 assumed. This is the slide number 40 from your 17 presentation, Mr. Clifton. That's where you 18 showed the results of your modeling after seven 19 weeks. Is that correct? 20 MR. W. CLIFTON: I believe so. 21 MR. SMITH: It will be page 20, slide 22 40. 23 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 24 MR. SMITH: Thank you. And we 25 understand that in simulating this model you used 02767 1 the parameters that are consistent with what is in 2 our report for the CPR Keewatin section. So for 3 the bedrock, for example, we have a horizontal 4 hydraulic conductivity or permeability of 10 to 5 the minus 4, and vertical of 10 to the minus 5 6 metres per second. 7 MR. W. CLIFTON: That's correct. 8 MR. SMITH: Could you maybe just 9 explain what that difference in the permeability 10 in the bedrock means? 11 MR. W. CLIFTON: It means that the 12 horizontal permeability is larger than the, is two 13 orders of magnitude larger than the vertical 14 permeability. 15 MR. SMITH: In this case one order, 10 16 minus 4 and 10 minus 5. 17 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 18 MR. SMITH: So the flow should be 19 preferentially in a horizontal direction? 20 MR. W. CLIFTON: That's correct. 21 MR. SMITH: Now, in your model you 22 indicate that had you used a dispersivity 23 coefficient of, it is in units of 200 metres, so 24 it's a value of 200 that's used for this 25 simulation? 02768 1 MR. W. CLIFTON: That's correct. 2 MR. SMITH: I guess what I'm wondering 3 about, when I look at this simulation, is why that 4 vertical plume is there and we don't see to any 5 extent a lateral spreading? And that was a 6 question asked earlier by Dr. Webster. Could you 7 maybe comment on that? 8 MR. W. CLIFTON: It might be helpful 9 if I brought up the original slide of that. But 10 let me just say that the vertical gradient, the 11 vertical gradient, the reason for it migrating 12 downwards at a much faster rate than it is 13 spreading is that the vertical gradient is 14 strongly, much stronger in a vertical direction 15 when the channel is at flood stage. As the 16 channel dewaters and returns to low flow 17 conditions, then the horizontal gradient 18 predominates and you see the plume start to 19 spread. 20 MR. SMITH: Well, it's surprising that 21 it would have pushed down through those vertically 22 to that extent. The mod flow model that we 23 generated that would just deal with the advective 24 flow, without a dispersivity unit, does show out 25 more of a lateral spreading and much less vertical 02769 1 penetration for the same hydraulic conditions, the 2 same vertical gradient, and the same horizontal 3 permeability? 4 MR. W. CLIFTON: We did not of course 5 have all the details of your model. But there's 6 two basic issues here. One is the formulation of 7 models are quite different. You were using the 8 finite difference model, we are using a finite 9 element model. It appears the dispersization, the 10 size of the grid that is used in your model is 11 larger than the grid that is used in our model. 12 And there are, the point being, Mr. Chair, that 13 there are technical reasons in the formulation of 14 the model that would lead to differences in 15 results. And they were constructed independently, 16 each modeler has their own favourite way of 17 setting up a model. 18 Having looked at the results, I 19 believe that it's an artifact of the way they were 20 modeled as opposed to the technical inputs. I 21 don't believe, for instance, the dispersivity 22 number is taken from the literature and it's 23 within the range of values that are in the 24 literature. 25 MR. SMITH: Maybe we can just comment 02770 1 on that point. The literature that I have would 2 suggest a dispersivity value of .1 times the 3 length of the flow path. And even if we took a 4 boundary of 300 metres, .1 would be 30 metres, not 5 200. So it seems that you may be in the order of 6 a factor of 10 high on that value. 7 MR. W. CLIFTON: It's a minor 8 influence, the comparison. The flow path is 9 kilometres, it's not hundreds of metres. 10 MR. SMITH: No. In the full duration 11 of your modeling, that front movement is within 12 the boundary of the floodway. It's not kilometres 13 of flow. 14 MR. W. CLIFTON: Where we set the 15 boundary conditions on this model was a kilometre 16 east and a kilometre west. Okay. 17 MR. SMITH: That's right. 18 MR. W. CLIFTON: Sure, I would accept 19 your number, your number is as correct as my 20 number. And it's not material to the discussion, 21 in my view. 22 MR. SMITH: Possibly it may have 23 skewed your plume, because in fact the 24 dispersivity coefficient works in the direction of 25 the gradient, and it was a down gradient 02771 1 initially. Sorry, not to prolong that, I just 2 want to add another thing. 3 The model that you use, and in general 4 the contaminant transport modeling, one of the 5 fundamental assumptions is that the medium is 6 isotropic. In other words, the permeability in 7 the horizontal and vertical direction would be the 8 same. And here we don't have that in the 9 limestone. And so do you agree with that? 10 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, you can choose 11 the permeability value. We did not manipulate the 12 permeability values in any way to try to 13 accommodate that. We simply made up the simplest 14 model that we could compile in the time that was 15 available to us. And some of the technical 16 details may not be totally correct. But let me 17 just say that the transport model -- go back one 18 step. The transport model is the model that 19 controls the flow behaviour during the -- sorry, 20 the seepage model controls the flow behaviour and 21 sets the flow patterns that the transport model 22 uses. So the flow conditions in the bedrock are 23 set by the seepage model. Those velocities are 24 then used in the transport model to calculate the 25 mixing and the transport of the surface water and 02772 1 mixing of the surface water with the aquifer. So 2 the transport model in that manner is independent 3 of the permeability assumed in the bedrock. 4 Yes, it assumes one value, but the 5 velocities are precalculated in the seepage model. 6 MR. SMITH: But the fundamental 7 assumption on that coefficient dispersivity assume 8 isotropic conditions and, in fact, if that's not 9 the case, then there is inaccuracy introduced into 10 your solution. 11 I guess the point I'm making is that 12 this contaminant transport model is also fraught 13 with uncertainties and assumptions in the value 14 for your dispersivity coefficient. I can show you 15 several references that highlight that and caution 16 the user on the assumption of that. Ultimately, 17 the only way is to actually measure, as I 18 understand it, in the field and try and confirm 19 that value. Is that correct? 20 MR. W. CLIFTON: And I would be 21 interested in any modeler who has been able to go 22 to the field and definitively determine what the 23 dispersivity number is. 24 MR. SMITH: I would agree with you. 25 MR. W. CLIFTON: It's an extremely 02773 1 difficult parameter to define. It can only 2 usually be adequately defined in the laboratory. 3 And modelers typically use in their judgment what 4 is the most appropriate dispersivity coefficient to 5 apply to their model. And that is one of the 6 reasons why models are not, they are not the 7 answer. They are one of an array of answers. 8 There is a whole continuum of possible answers 9 that any one model fits into. So the model could 10 produce a number that's here, could produce a 11 number that's here, the answer could be somewhere 12 in between. 13 MR. SMITH: Exactly, I agree with 14 that, and that's my point. That is why I say, is 15 there any merit in doing more modeling as opposed 16 to putting in the monitoring at the boundary? 17 When we have identified there is this potential to 18 reach the boundary, let's monitor there and pick 19 it up. And in the real world, with all these 20 uncertainties, I don't see the merit of generating 21 more models. 22 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, I don't agree 23 with that. I think this project provides one of 24 the very unique opportunities to do a high quality 25 performance matching model to calibrate field 02774 1 programs. There is 38 years of history. The 2 mechanisms that we're talking about will not start 3 tomorrow, or start when the new project is 4 constructed. They have been ongoing for 38 years. 5 MR. SMITH: That's correct. 6 MR. W. CLIFTON: And there's 38 years 7 of history that could be modeled, using the best 8 determination of characteristics of the springs, 9 soil properties, coefficients and so on, mapping 10 where we believe, modeling where we believe 11 surface water may have intruded into the aquifer, 12 then doing the monitoring, installing the monitor 13 to confirm or disprove the results of the 14 modeling. 15 This is one of the very good 16 opportunities to performance match, calibrate the 17 parameters, and use a model that will become part 18 of the management tools used to manage this 19 facility into the future. 20 MR. SMITH: I don't disagree that that 21 is a useful tool ongoing during the operations. 22 However, we have had 35 plus years of monitoring, 23 or at least of public well use. As I say, there's 24 been nobody come forward, submit a complaint to 25 the water conservation group or submit a sample. 02775 1 We have no evidence of actual front reaching their 2 wells. So we do have that data. 3 MR. W. CLIFTON: But -- 4 MR. SMITH: And I agree that ongoing 5 we should do this monitoring -- 6 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman. 7 MR. SMITH: However, I would say -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute, 9 Mr. Smith. 10 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, I know that 11 Mr. Smith is not an attorney and I appreciate 12 that, but there is a certain decorum, as was 13 required from me, to allow the witness to answer. 14 I have heard several times on the record many 15 statements where my witness is disagreeing with 16 the statement fundamentally, attempts to answer 17 the question, Mr. Smith continues on. I'm going 18 to ask that the witness be allowed to answer. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Currie, I think the 20 witness has been given and will be given ample 21 opportunity to answer. You correctly pointed out 22 that Mr. Smith is not a lawyer. We are also not a 23 court room, we are an administrative body, and we 24 have much looser rules. Mr. Smith is -- rather 25 than cut and dried short snapper questions that a 02776 1 litigating lawyer might use -- is sharing 2 information. And quite frankly, I think there are 3 a number of people in this room would prefer more 4 of a dialogue than a cut and dried litigated 5 format. 6 I mean, I would ask Mr. Smith to allow 7 Mr. Clifton to answer questions fully, but I'd 8 also say, you know, let's just back off a little 9 bit on being too formalistic. 10 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, I have no 11 disagreement with your position, and I just want 12 it clear for the record that the issue for us is 13 that it be a dialogue and that Mr. Clifton be 14 allowed to put his dialogue as well. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I think he has 16 been allowed that. 17 MR. SMITH: Well, maybe I can just sum 18 up. I agree with Mr. Clifton that the -- well, to 19 put it into question that I can't -- the point is, 20 I agree with you that this is a unique and a 21 valuable opportunity for ongoing validation of 22 verification of what's going on with modeling. 23 However, the initial position that you had taken 24 was that the whole process had to stop until that 25 modeling was done. And I would suggest that 02777 1 monitoring is the way to go, and with modeling as 2 part of the ongoing monitoring and operating 3 program. Would you agree with that, Mr. Clifton? 4 MR. W. CLIFTON: No, not at all, not 5 at all. I have never ever, ever suggested that 6 the process has to stop until the analysis catches 7 up. I think they are coincident activities and 8 can be carried out jointly. It's not uncommon for 9 these kinds of issues to be resolved while project 10 design is going ahead, and possibly even some 11 aspects of project construction. So I would not 12 agree that it stop. I would heartily urge the 13 other side; that it proceed with all haste. 14 But the other component, a comment 15 that I was going to comment on earlier, where 16 there is no evidence that these mechanisms have 17 been going forward, I'd say absolutely, I agree 18 with you entirely. But it's perhaps time to look 19 for evidence. The reason that the evidence isn't 20 there is that this phenomenon, the phenomenon of 21 intrusion of surface water into the aquifer is not 22 a mechanism that even arises, other than in a 23 minor way, and then is discounted. 24 We're starting from different 25 positions, Mr. Smith. Your hypothesis is, based 02778 1 on your modeling and analytical work, that 2 intrusion of surface water into the aquifer is not 3 an issue. It is indicated by your modeling to be 4 a minor issue which is largely removed in 365 5 days, except for some troublesome spots which seem 6 to be more persistent. 7 My starting position is quite 8 different. My starting position, my working 9 hypothesis is that there are very abundant springs 10 within the channel that freely flow water, that 11 indicate a pathway between the surface water and 12 the aquifer. Given that that pathway is there and 13 identified, I would then be looking for, and I 14 looked for the opportunity for leakage of surface 15 water into the aquifer and an evaluation of how it 16 is mixing, because it is a health risk issue. 17 So I start from the possibility, or 18 from the hypothesis that it's a possibility that 19 needs to be evaluated. The logical way to 20 evaluate it is to model the 38 years of history, 21 identify where the plumes may be, monitor in those 22 plume locations. If there is no intrusion of 23 surface water in that area, hallelujah, then your 24 hypothesis is closer to correct than my 25 hypothesis. But there is a convergence of 02779 1 evidence that there is an interconnection between 2 the channel and the aquifer. There are tools that 3 can be used to model where that is a higher risk 4 and where it's a lower risk. 5 The monitoring then is a follow-up to 6 gather the information to field proof those 7 hypotheses and those models. And I think we are 8 very close but we depart on a significant issue of 9 working hypothesis. 10 MR. SMITH: Well, I agree we are 11 close, and I'm not sure that we depart that much 12 because our sensitivity areas, in fact, were 13 located at the abundance locations of springs. 14 But I will have to thank you, because I recall at 15 the start of this hearing there was a motion to 16 delay the process. And so I stand corrected that 17 you, in fact, weren't supporting that delay. 18 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, I wasn't 19 present at those, and that was an issue that was 20 not necessarily one dealing with my area. But I 21 will say that nothing that I have identified in 22 the work that I have done suggests anything that 23 would require -- it identified no issue that could 24 not be handled during the ongoing engineering 25 cycle that applies to this project that applies to 02780 1 this project, including getting a monitoring 2 system in place and collecting a baseline well in 3 advance of the start of construction. 4 MR. SMITH: Well, maybe I'll just 5 finish with a comment. The modeling that you had 6 submitted, Mr. Clifton, in large part does not 7 show a lot of lateral migration to the west, 8 fairly tight plume, amazing even after a 9 significant period of time. And in part, that 10 reflects a very flat hydraulic gradient through 11 that area. That's the other driver in this 12 situation, both the horizontal permeability and 13 the gradients. And so the piezometric pressure in 14 the aquifer through there -- and as you have 15 assumed in your model, it's a two metre drop 16 across 2,000 metres, and that is an important 17 factor in, you know, that the plume doesn't move 18 as fast. And so that may help to explain why your 19 model maintained such a tight plume within the 20 right-of-way of the channel. 21 I'll leave it at that. 22 MR. W. CLIFTON: I think there 23 certainly is a skew to the west, there is a 24 preferential flow to the west because of the 25 regional gradient, as you pointed out. There is a 02781 1 migration though to the east that, while it's 2 lesser, there is some migration, and under certain 3 circumstances it could come to the property line 4 or beyond. At a significantly lower 5 concentration, but it's still there. 6 When you have more representative 7 parameters for the springs and the areas in there, 8 that risk will be able to be more completely 9 evaluated. And to me, that's an essential input 10 into the project. 11 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair, again, 12 there's one area that there would be a few 13 questions. Mr. Clifton had given an example at 14 the end of last day on a situation in 15 Saskatchewan. And again, it might be helpful 16 instead of me asking the questions on this, 17 Mr. Osler, who has looked at that example, has a 18 few questions of Mr. Clifton. 19 MR. J. OSLER: Good morning, 20 Mr. Clifton. Just a couple of clarification 21 questions. I had an opportunity to talk with 22 Malcolm Ross, who is the project manager from the 23 Environmental Assessments Branch with Saskatchewan 24 Environment, on March 1st. I talked with him 25 about this boundary dam example. And I had a 02782 1 couple of questions just following up from the 2 example you provided Dr. Webster on the 23rd of 3 February. 4 The first question of course is, have 5 you had time since providing that example to think 6 about the comparability of it, and do you have any 7 additional sort of thoughts on that particular 8 example? 9 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, one of the 10 things that the chair had asked me to do was to 11 identify any other circumstances where an existing 12 project -- correction, where an extension to an 13 existing unlicensed project was being processed 14 and how those were being handled. And I 15 subsequently had discussions with the regulators 16 in Alberta and Saskatchewan. And the two that we 17 identified was the Boundary Dam Ash Lagoon 18 extension, which was a 1950's project currently 19 where an extension is being applied for, and 20 Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting in Flin Flon where 21 the 1929 tailings area, an application is before 22 the regulators to expand that. 23 And in both instances, the same 24 techniques or the same rationale is being applied, 25 and that is that the baseline from which the 02783 1 project starts is a 2005 baseline, or current 2 baseline, whatever year the application was made. 3 And that the regulators will judge the project as 4 future effects are evaluated. The proponent is 5 expected to evaluate future effects and identify 6 if there's, somewhere in the future operations if 7 there is a threshold point at which adverse 8 impacts are identified. 9 So that perhaps adds future, or adds 10 some additional information to the information I 11 brought to the Commission when I was here on 12 Thursday. 13 MR. J. OSLER: When you were here last 14 Thursday, your example, quoted, "That the project 15 had been bounced back in the regulatory system on 16 the basis the system could not be expanded from a 17 regulatory perspective because it did not exist." 18 And that was the example you provided Dr. Webster. 19 And the clarification you provided just now 20 suggests that my review of the project, and my 21 discussion with Malcolm Ross was that, in fact, 22 the Boundary Dam project had been advanced to an 23 environmental assessment phase, not because it 24 didn't have a previous licence, in fact Mr. Ross 25 informed me that the project itself had predated 02784 1 legislation, as you have explained, and it wasn't 2 subject to section 16.2 of the Environmental 3 Assessment Act which makes for changes, 4 accommodates for changes in the approved 5 development. So that's accurate. 6 MR. W. CLIFTON: I think my original 7 statement is correct, if the project had existed 8 and had a current licence, that it could have been 9 treated as an expansion. The expansion 10 application would have proceeded. The fact that 11 it did not hold a current licence means that it 12 could not be treated as an expansion and the 13 application could not proceed under their 14 regulations. So it had to be licenced as an 15 entire project, not as an expansion under their 16 act. 17 MR. J. OSLER: I also had an 18 opportunity to look at the project specific 19 guidelines. It references a project proposal that 20 was prepared by Clifton Associates. And it refers 21 to the fact that it's not applicable to the 22 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There was 23 a particular reference I wanted to read back to 24 you. 25 Are you still involved with this 02785 1 particular project, sir? 2 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes I am. 3 MR. J. OSLER: Have you had a chance 4 to look at the draft project specific guidelines? 5 MR. W. CLIFTON: In fact, they have 6 now been issued in final. I have reviewed them. 7 I think they are word for word with the draft, so 8 I think the draft would be accurate. 9 MR. J. OSLER: It's explicit in terms 10 of the definition of, the baseline data has to 11 accurately describe the existing environment that 12 may be affected by the project as proposed. And 13 that's within the guidelines themselves. 14 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 15 MR. J. OSLER: And particularly when 16 we look at project specific impacts contained 17 within those guidelines, it says that they, and I 18 quote from page 13, which is section 7.3 of the 19 project specific, draft project specific 20 guidelines, 21 "The EIS should document project 22 related impacts on land resources and 23 ground and surface waters and discuss 24 their significance." And it goes on 25 to say, 02786 1 "The EIS should evaluate whether 2 project related impacts would add to 3 existing contaminant loadings 4 dispersed in surface and groundwater 5 systems and result in a significant 6 change to the levels of ground and 7 surface water quality." 8 So that would be consistent now with 9 your understanding of the environmental assessment 10 process for that particular project, and also for 11 the other example you cited with Hudson Bay Mining 12 & Smelting tailing expansion project? 13 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. The approach is 14 that you start from current baseline, the baseline 15 that exists at the time of application, and 16 evaluate the impacts from there forward. 17 MR. J. OSLER: So you have no issue. 18 And I had a point here that in talking to Mr. 19 Ross, he was quite clear that the environmental 20 assessment processes both for the Boundary Dam and 21 the Hudson Bay Mining project, it is required to 22 impacts compared to the baseline and he said that 23 the baseline was what will occur today and in the 24 future without the project. 25 MR. W. CLIFTON: No, the baseline has 02787 1 always been very clear, the baseline is what 2 exists today at the time of application. The 3 evaluation of future is very clear, it's future 4 operation of the expansion on top of today's 5 baseline. So it speaks nothing to the effect of a 6 future baseline without the project, it speaks to 7 the environmental impacts that will occur on top 8 of today's baseline. 9 MR. J. OSLER: Sir, the reason why 10 this project, my understanding is, has been deemed 11 a development under the Saskatchewan Environment 12 Act is under section 2, 4 or 6 that cites that the 13 concern raised by Saskatchewan Environment was it 14 was extending the period of time that this 15 facility would be operating and, therefore, could 16 be extending the period of time that substantial 17 environmental effects could occur. That the 18 baseline itself is, as Mr. Ross explained to me, 19 what will occur today and in the future without 20 the project, therefore, the project is the 21 expansion. 22 MR. W. CLIFTON: That comes back to 23 exactly what I said earlier. The methodology they 24 are using is, will project as it currently exists 25 plus the expansion create an undesirable threshold 02788 1 of impact at some time in the future? That's the 2 question that has to be answered on both of those 3 projects. 4 So I don't think we are saying 5 anything different. 6 MR. J. OSLER: No, the project is the 7 expansion of this Ash Lagoon, the project is 8 expansion. 9 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yeah, starting from 10 today's baseline. 11 MR. J. OSLER: That's all the 12 questions I had, thank you. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 14 Mr. Handlon. 15 MR. HANDLON: That would be our 16 questions, thank you. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I know that 18 at least one of my colleagues has a question or 19 two or three. I have one, and I'll just ask it 20 now, I may have one or two more later. And it 21 just sort of takes off from the final dialogue 22 between you and Mr. Smith. I am just wondering 23 whether or not there is in place sufficient data 24 to do 38 years of modeling that the two of you 25 talked about? Are you aware, Mr. Clifton? 02789 1 MR. W. CLIFTON: No, there's not. 2 There needs to be significant additional data 3 collection. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: To do the 38 years of 5 modeling? 6 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it possible to 8 collect that data at this point? 9 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes, I believe it is, 10 and in a timely fashion. One of the key pieces is 11 one that I spoke to in my presentation in chief, 12 and that is the characterization of the springs. 13 Where are they? How big are they? How much are 14 they flowing? Because that's an essential input 15 to all the analysis and the evaluation of 16 solutions. So it's a principal input that's 17 needed, both for analysis and for future design. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Barrie, do 19 you have some questions? 20 MR. WEBSTER: Dr. Clifton, we have 21 focused largely on the difficulties associated 22 with the connections between the bedrock aquifer 23 and the floodway, and the possibility of 24 contamination through those connections. We did 25 touch last time you were here on how that 02790 1 difficulty might be addressed. And you talked 2 about the possibility of somehow using pumping at 3 that area to use that water rather than letting it 4 flow down the floodway. But I'd like to go a 5 little bit more into remediation, which is part of 6 your second recommendation. 7 This intrusion is a legitimate 8 cumulative effect and that it must be remediated. 9 And the question then is, in some more detail, how 10 do we do that? 11 We have had some suggestions in a 12 qualitative sense in other evidence that you may 13 or may not have been here for earlier. But I'd 14 just like to start off by asking you what your 15 recommendation is for remediating that particular 16 difficulty? 17 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, Dr. Webster, 18 there is three basic mechanisms to address flow in 19 the subsurface. There is the law called Darcy's 20 Law which says that the flow is proportional to 21 the permeability, the hydraulic gradient, and the 22 area of flow. And when evaluating potential 23 solutions, you look at influencing permeability, 24 which commonly is done by grouting or by clay 25 liners or positive clay cutoffs, something of that 02791 1 nature. Influencing the gradient which is 2 reducing the gradient at the water level between 3 two points. That is typically done by pumping or 4 an arrangement of pumping, or it may be done by 5 injection. There is a well-known principle used 6 in mining and in waste management which is 7 called -- which is hydrodynamic containment. And 8 it's exactly that. It's pumping to create a 9 groundwater barrier so groundwater can't flow by. 10 So perhaps a solution may be in local areas around 11 the springs, which is why it's very important to 12 know where those springs are and how much area 13 needs to be contained. That you create a mound of 14 groundwater outside the right-of-way by injecting 15 clean groundwater and not allowing the other 16 groundwater, the surface water into the aquifer. 17 I mean, that's a technique that's used in waste 18 management, it is used in mining. 19 From time to time when conditions are 20 correct, the pumping, selective pumping to harvest 21 the groundwater and keep the surface water in a 22 local area, not allowing it to spread. So maybe 23 during a time of flood, you pump vigorously near 24 the floodway for a short period of time and 25 collect any surface water that is intruding and 02792 1 discharge it back into the floodway. 2 Those are active measures. The 3 passive measures of liners and so on, we talked 4 about that Peter Hayes put on the table. All of 5 those liner ideas of course need to be considered 6 at the same time you consider the aspect of 7 buoyancy. You need to control, the water pressure 8 below the liner needs to be controlled at the same 9 time so the liner doesn't simply blow out and lift 10 off in the way the original geologic liner did. 11 There is an array of solutions that 12 are available. So the other one is either perhaps 13 expanding or reducing the area of the springs. Is 14 there an area that the -- is there some areas 15 where the springs can be killed by various means, 16 grouting, whatever, without impacting. These are, 17 you know, these are issues that skilled hydraulic 18 engineers deal with on a regular basis and where 19 solution can be defined, or they can be designed. 20 But you need fundamental input data to assess the 21 efficacy of those solutions. 22 MR. WEBSTER: Let's go for a moment 23 into these techniques one by one so we understand 24 what's involved. 25 In each case, I understand that the 02793 1 location of the spring and the flow from the 2 springs, each one needs to be identified. That's 3 your recommendation? 4 MR. W. CLIFTON: Right. 5 MR. WEBSTER: So that given that 6 identification of the location or the area where 7 that spring is, it would be possible, for 8 instance, to take water from the aquifer, or from 9 the other aquifer, that is the sand and gravel 10 aquifer, and essentially pump it into the ground 11 in the vicinity of the floodway during a flood 12 event to maintain the pressure of the springs such 13 that the flow was always out into the floodway. 14 Is that correct? 15 MR. W. CLIFTON: That's correct. They 16 are called soldier wells. You put a series of 17 guard wells out that create a mound of groundwater 18 that minimize the flow of surface water into the 19 aquifer. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Just to give us some 21 concept as to how many wells are required, 22 supposing you had an area of springs along the 23 floodway that was, let's say for the sake of 24 argument, over a space of between 20 and 50 metres 25 along the bottom of the floodway. Is that a 02794 1 realistic sort of scale? 2 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes, I would expect 3 the springs to be, to measure in tens of metres 4 rather than hundreds of metres, yes. 5 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, that's what I was 6 visualizing. Tell me what number of wells, again 7 we're talking ranges, what sort of numbers of 8 wells for injection would you visualize being 9 necessary under those circumstances? 10 MR. W. CLIFTON: Several on the east, 11 several on the west. Again, this is an area where 12 modeling is extremely useful, where modeling can 13 predict the inflow rates and the spacing of wells, 14 pumping rates and so on. I mean, there are 15 rationale design methods to assess those kind of 16 facilities. 17 MR. WEBSTER: And what typically is 18 the sort of injection rate that would be required? 19 MR. W. CLIFTON: It would be 20 comparable to or above the withdrawal rate of a 21 typical well in the aquifer. And that's possible 22 because a well in the aquifer may have 20 metres 23 of available drawdown, but perhaps you can get 40 24 metres of mounding pressure just by injecting 25 under pressure. 02795 1 MR. WEBSTER: I guess where I'm going 2 with this is, you were trying to create a mound of 3 water in that area? 4 MR. W. CLIFTON: Right. 5 MR. WEBSTER: That would imply that 6 you'd have to take the water from somewhere else, 7 you couldn't just take it from the same location? 8 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 9 MR. WEBSTER: So that requires a 10 purpose built system that would take water from 11 somewhere else? 12 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 13 MR. WEBSTER: That's not that 14 sensitive to contamination? 15 MR. W. CLIFTON: That's true, that's 16 true. It could incorporate some of the monitoring 17 wells, for instance, but it would be preferable to 18 have a purpose built system that can be mobilized 19 when it's needed in times of flood. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Would that typically be 21 kilometres or tens of kilometres away from that 22 location? 23 MR. W. CLIFTON: No, it would 24 typically be hundreds of metres. The closer to 25 the -- there is engineering considerations that 02796 1 need to be paid attention to, such as the 2 stability of the floodway. You can't build a 3 mound of groundwater under the slopes in the 4 floodway or you may well precipitate landslides on 5 the slopes, but sufficiently far inland that the 6 floodway is not impacted, and that you can 7 create -- you can create the desired effect. 8 The modeling that has been presented 9 in the EIS that Mr. Smith referred to this morning 10 says that a mound perhaps of one metre within a 11 kilometre of the floodway may be sufficient to 12 isolate those springs. That's not very much. 13 It's still a considerable amount of water. But 14 the beauty of that is that you are taking water 15 from somewhere and you are creating the mound, 16 that water stays in the aquifer after you stop 17 pumping. Some of it clearly will discharge to the 18 floodway, but that's the trade-off against 19 allowing intrusion of undesirable water later on. 20 Now, those wells could also be used, 21 if need be, be used as a purge well later on if it 22 were found that surface water had intruded up to 23 the line of the guard wells. 24 MR. WEBSTER: But the difficulty that 25 you have implied then in this technique is that 02797 1 you would have to control that pumping to create 2 the mound very carefully, so as not to increase 3 the problem of breaching the aquifer under the 4 floodway. 5 MR. W. CLIFTON: But the technology is 6 available. 7 MR. WEBSTER: The technology is 8 available and can be done. 9 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes, it can be 10 applied and it can be applied with a high degree 11 of confidence. 12 MR. WEBSTER: That's important. Thank 13 you. 14 I'd like to go then to the question of 15 grouting. I think when you were talking to us 16 before, we almost got into this area and didn't go 17 too far. But I would understand that if you were 18 going to grout an area around a spring, which is 19 of the order of tens of metres along the bottom of 20 the floodway, that you would have to dewater that 21 area before you grouted it, would that be correct? 22 MR. W. CLIFTON: I don't believe so. 23 A portion in the channel would have to be 24 dewatered. But even that -- I mean, there's many 25 grouting programs have been carried out 02798 1 underwater. And most of the floodway is 2 dewatered, most of the working area would be 3 dewatered except for the portion in the low flow 4 channel. And within the low flow channel, some 5 provision would be required to facilitate grouting 6 from, either from ice surface or from barge or 7 whatever. But, no, I think it's possible. 8 MR. WEBSTER: And would that be a job 9 that would be done once and then it would 10 basically be in place? 11 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. But, again, it 12 must be accompanied by careful monitoring, because 13 mother nature is very efficient at creating an 14 alternate route for that water. And blocking off 15 one exit may well cause a spring somewhere else. 16 And monitoring of the heads on the low flow 17 channel is a very important function, very 18 important input into this whole process. 19 MR. WEBSTER: Would you visualize it 20 being feasible to grout the bedrock aquifer in the 21 vicinity of all the spring intrusions into the 22 floodway? Is that something that could be done 23 sufficiently well along the length of the floodway 24 and it would fix that problem? 25 MR. W. CLIFTON: I don't know the 02799 1 answer to that because I don't know the character 2 of the springs. Hence, they need to be 3 investigated. But perhaps grouting needs to be 4 accompanied by pump wells on the east side using 5 some of that potable water, while at the same time 6 reducing the gradient in the area of the springs. 7 I mean, it's probably not a one-size-fits-all 8 solution. 9 MR. WEBSTER: I think one of the 10 concerns that I have in asking this question is 11 that I gathered from our conversation before that 12 the top of that aquifer is fractured limestone, 13 which means it's not a firm base. And I suppose 14 you would try to create something that was, you 15 would try to do it in a broad enough fashion that 16 you would create a firm base that wouldn't 17 basically become unstuck. 18 MR. W. CLIFTON: In fact, the drilling 19 shows that there's a significant zone of rubble, 20 of limestone rubble on top. And it may be a 21 combination of different solutions. It may be 22 that the easiest way to contain the limestone 23 rubble is to put a positive cutoff, which is 24 basically a clay wall below through that, and 25 grout below it. I mean, the subsurface conditions 02800 1 will dictate the approach that's used. But these 2 are not -- there are adaptations of existing 3 proven technology that are going to be predicated 4 by conditions at each site and by construction 5 conditions at each site. 6 MR. WEBSTER: Could you tell us where 7 else a technique like this has been used, and I am 8 not thinking specifically of channels but I am 9 thinking in the construction industry? Where else 10 would grouting into rock of this nature have taken 11 place? 12 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, it's used very 13 routinely in this province. I mean, the 14 conditions on the Nelson projects require grouting 15 routinely. Certainly, in the mining industry of 16 North Manitoba, Northern Saskatchewan, grouting is 17 a tool that's used almost on a day-to-day basis to 18 support their operation. So there's quite a good 19 skills base in the industry for those kinds of 20 operations -- and for that matter, for ground 21 water control. I mean, the engineers that design 22 and construct the major dams are highly skilled in 23 these processes. So this is not, this isn't a 24 long bow, this is pretty routine stuff by now. 25 MR. WEBSTER: And you'd visualize that 02801 1 one or a combination of these two techniques might 2 be sufficient to prevent the kinds of 3 contamination of groundwater that we have been 4 concerned about relating to health issues from 5 groundwater contamination? 6 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes, they can be 7 applied, of that I am certain. 8 I would like to say one thing about 9 the proposal on the clay cut-off wall on the Oasis 10 Road site, because there's been discussion of the 11 efficacy of that wall to cut off flow from the 12 channel to the wells. I believe that's an area 13 that needs special attention because there's 14 pretty clear indication that there's also an equal 15 flow path from the bedrock up into the sand and 16 gravel aquifer. There certainly is a demonstrated 17 flow path downward. There is likely an upward 18 flow path as well. So that is a case where a 19 combination of techniques may well be required. 20 The positive cutoff, which is the compacted clay 21 wall, will handle the sand and gravel. But there 22 also must be a concern with protection of the 23 wells from flow through the bedrock to prevent an 24 upwelling, because it's my understanding that the 25 East St. Paul wells remain pumping during flood, 02802 1 that they don't have an alternate supply, and must 2 maintain those wells pumping to maintain the 3 community water supply during flood conditions. 4 MR. WEBSTER: So it's your 5 understanding that there is in fact a direct 6 connection between those two aquifers at that 7 location? 8 MR. W. CLIFTON: It appears so. And 9 the stratigraphy that's represented shows the sand 10 and gravel sitting directly on the limestone or 11 the carbonate bedrock. And if that is the case, 12 then the wells must be protected from upward flow 13 as well as lateral flow from the channel. 14 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. I wanted to 15 finally go into this area of liners. We talked 16 about it last time. You talked about it being 17 perhaps, or maybe, certainly impractical. But I'd 18 like to explore that a little bit, because the 19 concept of liners was mentioned by Mr. Hayes. And 20 without get into the engineering aspects of the 21 installation, except for saying that in fact this 22 business of it floating away was something that 23 would destroy it if it weren't held down properly. 24 Let me just ask a general question to 25 begin with, to get us back into the subject. 02803 1 Would you visualize that liners could be installed 2 along the areas where there are springs? Is it 3 something that could be done? 4 MR. W. CLIFTON: It could be done, but 5 it must be combined with measures to control the 6 water pressure under the liner. Mother nature 7 blew the original liner out of there, when I say 8 blew it out, lifted it, cracked it, made it 9 permeable. Unless the water pressure in the 10 bedrock is controlled, the same result would 11 happen with any new liner that is placed. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Would you visualize that 13 the bedrock aquifer would have to be dewatered in 14 the local area to install a liner? 15 MR. W. CLIFTON: I'm sorry? 16 MR. WEBSTER: Would it have to be 17 dewatered in that area to install a liner? Would 18 you have to dig down into the base to do the 19 installation of the liner? 20 MR. W. CLIFTON: Not necessarily. I 21 mean, the existing channel has been naturally 22 deepened. My reading of the profiles provided, 23 the existing channel is up to a metre and a half 24 deeper than the original design. So it depends on 25 the detail. If it incorporates a granular base, a 02804 1 granular filter that would accommodate that flow, 2 that could be placed in conditions where water is 3 flowing, it's been done before. But certainly, 4 any measure with a liner needs to accommodate the 5 existing flow of water, both in quantity and in 6 the head in the water, the water pressure acting 7 upward. 8 MR. WEBSTER: Given the situation that 9 we're faced with, with the fact that the floodway 10 is already in position across those sensitive 11 areas, and given the choice that we've talked 12 about this morning, which you would see as being 13 the most feasible to install and the most 14 effective at giving the kind of protection that 15 you are advocating? 16 MR. W. CLIFTON: I would certainly be 17 evaluating the hydrodynamic protection as a first 18 go-around. But I would again, number one, the 19 details on the springs, where are they, how big 20 are they, how much flow, how difficult are they 21 going to be to handle? And it may be a 22 combination of something to slow down the springs 23 a bit, at the same time creating hydraulic 24 conditions which prevent the ingress of water into 25 the aquifer. But by and large, considering that 02805 1 the floodway needs to operate only a few weeks 2 every few years, it may be that that combination 3 of wells and other measures to upgrade the springs 4 is feasible. Because at the same time, those 5 wells, when they are not being used for flood 6 protection, could be used for community water 7 supply for instance. 8 So I think with some innovation, with 9 some -- you have got a crew of very skilled 10 engineers. It's a true value engineering 11 proposition, we are looking at what needs to be 12 achieved and the alternatives to achieve those. 13 MR. WEBSTER: If it were used, if 14 those wells were used for community water supply, 15 as you suggest, and a flood did occur, it would 16 require then that the community water source be 17 temporarily suspended while the water was used for 18 the protection of the aquifer; is that not 19 correct? 20 MR. W. CLIFTON: Perhaps, perhaps, or 21 it could have capacity either way. But there 22 would be an operating schedule, a set of operating 23 rules set out for the wells exactly in the way 24 that there is a set of operating rules for the 25 conveyance system for the floodway. 02806 1 MR. WEBSTER: And this would also be 2 affected by the extent to which that aquifer was 3 used for domestic water supply, there would have 4 to be sufficient water supply in the aquifer to 5 maintain the springs? 6 MR. W. CLIFTON: And would require a 7 comprehensive monitoring system to ensure that 8 water quality isn't compromised. 9 MR. WEBSTER: So I want to ask you the 10 final question, and that is, how would you design 11 a monitoring system along that area of the 12 floodway? What would you require? How frequent, 13 where would you put the wells. 14 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, I'd be starting 15 with modeling the existing system, trying what I 16 called earlier performance matching of the 17 existing floodway and predicting where water may 18 intrude. And then using that, plus my knowledge 19 of the character and nature of the springs, 20 getting the best inputs into the model that I 21 could, making the best approximations of where the 22 more sensitive areas are, and I'd be focusing on 23 those, right from the floodway right-of-way, from 24 the crest of the slope towards the receptors, 25 towards the users. And it would be intensive. 02807 1 MR. WEBSTER: And I would like you to 2 tell me approximately how many in one location, 3 how far between, to the extent that you can? I 4 mean, I recognize you put a number of caveats on 5 this by telling us we should figure out where we 6 should monitor first, but can you expand on that a 7 little bit? 8 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, certainly every 9 major spring area needs to be monitored both up 10 gradient and down gradient, both east and west, 11 and from the lowest level that monitors can be 12 maintained within the floodway. In other words, a 13 metre or two -- as close to the bottom of the 14 channel as you can get, and maybe even some 15 monitors within the base of the channel. But 16 let's start with the crest of the floodway at each 17 major spring location, both east and west, and 18 moving back at least a kilometre, maybe two 19 kilometres, maybe two lines of monitoring. 20 Because the velocities that seem to be indicated 21 in here could be in the kilometre per decade kind 22 of range. And this is a very long-term problem. 23 This isn't something that's going to be picked up 24 a month after the flood event. In other words, I 25 wouldn't expect surface water to show up at the 02808 1 edge of the right-of-way a month after the flood 2 crest. It would be unusual if it did. But once 3 the regional gradients start taking over and 4 moving that farther inland from the floodway, 5 there needs to be sufficient monitors to track the 6 progress of that front. So that's at least, in my 7 mind at least three lines of monitors. One at the 8 crest, a kilometre back, two kilometres back, 9 approximately. 10 MR. WEBSTER: And at each location 11 would you put in more than one well? 12 MR. W. CLIFTON: Anywhere that there 13 is sand and gravel in the surface, I would be 14 looking at that well, at multiple wells, or where 15 there is pervious layers the till. First focus 16 bedrock, that's the primary pathway because, as 17 Peter Hayes said, and Mr. Palmateer, that a few 18 metres of transmission, or a few tens of metres in 19 a gravel, even in gravel takes out most biological 20 agents. But the bedrock pathway is much more 21 open, a much more open pathway and velocities can 22 be higher. So I would be focusing very heavily on 23 the bedrock pathway, with the exception of where 24 there are users in the surface sand and gravel. 25 Then I'd be focusing equally on the sand and 02809 1 gravel aquifer and on the bedrock aquifer. 2 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clifton, just 4 following on your response to Dr. Webster about a 5 monitoring process. I'd just like to sort of take 6 us back to the step before that, or maybe more 7 than one step before that. But what do you feel 8 would be necessary to develop the baseline, or 9 what steps do you think would be necessary to 10 develop the baseline to build this monitoring 11 system on? 12 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, one of the 13 things that struck me as I looked at the available 14 data is how many gaps there were in the system. 15 Data collection would be very solid for a while 16 and then be not there for a while and then again. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Are these gaps 18 chronological or spatial along -- 19 MR. W. CLIFTON: They are spatial, 20 where the data hasn't been collected or entered 21 for a period of time. 22 The second striking issue is that the 23 monitoring network focused very heavily on water 24 level, which was natural, that was the principal 25 area of concern as the original facility was 02810 1 constructed. 2 The third thing was the near absence 3 of biological information. The third thing was 4 the few analyses that I did see, that they focused 5 largely on common ions and were not -- the species 6 that we currently track in drinking water systems 7 did not seem to be represented, heavy metals, 8 biocides, just, you know, there is a dearth of 9 information there. And any comprehensive 10 monitoring system that is accepting runoff from 11 agricultural industrial land needs to monitor the 12 species that might be generated in that runoff. 13 Biologicals, there was microbial 14 monitoring that Dr. Palmateer spoke of, certainly 15 heavy metals, herbicides and pesticides, and a 16 comprehensive scan is what would be required in 17 that monitoring system as a primary line of 18 defence, as a primary line of defence to see if 19 there is intrusion and what is the quality of that 20 intrusion. That is a basic, basic input to health 21 risk assessment. That's a basic input to the 22 health risk assessment. Out of those components, 23 you must have a comprehensive water quality as a 24 basic input to the health risk assessment. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: In one or two of your 02811 1 responses to Dr. Webster in particular, you were 2 talking about the character of the springs. How 3 would you go about investigating the particular 4 character of the springs? How is that done? 5 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, I agree with 6 Mr. Smith, it's difficult. But it's also 7 important. It may require progressively 8 dewatering segments of the low flow channel, 9 sector by sector, and mapping them for flow 10 seepage. Visual inspection is important, but also 11 getting a drill rig right over on top of them and 12 putting some holes right down through them, and 13 measuring the permeability of the sediments that 14 are on top of them, collecting samples. 15 I would be more confident in accurate 16 mapping of the area and the flow from each of 17 those springs, and then again performance matching 18 the models, taking the numerical models and 19 matching them to determine what in fact is the 20 permeability, the probable permeability or range 21 of permeabilities of those springs than by 22 obtaining small diameter samples. 23 But basic information, what is the 24 nature of the cover of the sediments that are 25 between the floor of the low flow channel and the 02812 1 top of the bedrock? Is it highly fractured and 2 broken up till? Is it clay? Is it broken 3 bedrock? Just having that basic information 4 allows knowledgeable people to make judgments as 5 to the properties of them. But basic area, 6 stratigraphy, flow, an idea of permeability, I see 7 no way other than going in that low flow channel 8 and getting your feet wet. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should ask 10 this of the authority, but you may know the 11 answer. How many springs are we talking about? 12 MR. W. CLIFTON: I don't know. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. 14 MR. W. CLIFTON: I don't know. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Wayne. 16 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. 17 Dr. Clifton, my original question was quite 18 simple. I was going to ask how many, or what 19 would have to happen in mother nature to increase 20 the possibility of contamination? But I thought 21 rather than doing that, I would just ask one 22 general question. 23 Is widening of the floodway going to 24 increase the chance of intrusion? 25 MR. W. CLIFTON: I'm sorry? 02813 1 MR. MOTHERAL: Is widening the 2 floodway going to increase the chance of 3 intrusion? 4 MR. W. CLIFTON: It increases the area 5 of seepage, and in my view, yes, it increases the 6 chance of intrusion, but to a lesser extent than 7 the opportunities that currently exist. 8 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. 9 MR. W. CLIFTON: Simply by widening it 10 out, it allows more area for infiltration through 11 a reduced clay cap and low permeability cap on top 12 of the bedrock. But the main pathway that is 13 there today are the springs. 14 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. Thank you. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I have one follow-up 16 question. My earlier question about the data over 17 the 38 year period, and you said that a lot of it 18 isn't there. Is it possible to go back and find 19 data, or collect data that may or may not be 20 there? Is there some sort of data there that can 21 be analyzed for that period? 22 MR. W. CLIFTON: I would guess that 23 it's available. It may not have been collated 24 sufficiently to put in the EIS, but I would be 25 surprised if simple things like stage water level 02814 1 elevations on a daily basis were not available 2 during periods of flood. I mean, the records that 3 were included in the EIS on flood flows had yearly 4 gaps in them, which says to me the record simply 5 wasn't located at the time the EIS was published. 6 But I'm sure that given for a facility like the 7 floodway, the information is around there. 8 And again, it's one of those 9 facilities that's gone through multiple 10 jurisdictions, one agency built, another agency 11 operates and so on. So I would guess it is in the 12 file somewhere and can be brought together in a 13 collated fashion. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. We 15 have no further questions here. Are there any 16 members of the registered participant groups that 17 have questions for Mr. Clifton? I see none. 18 Are you coming forward as an 19 individual or as a member of a -- 20 MR. BODNARUK: Actually, I'm part of 21 the RM of Springfield. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 23 MR. BODNARUK: Mr. Clifton, I am going 24 to ask you a couple of questions, probably outside 25 your field of expertise, but I am going to ask 02815 1 them anyway, and that's dealing with the health 2 issues. It's been made reference several times, 3 and I think even in the EIS there's no recorded or 4 documented case of illnesses. How many illnesses 5 never get reported, or even if they are reported, 6 would never get linked to a water problem because 7 the doctor would have no reason to suspect that? 8 Would you agree with that generalization that it 9 probably happens? 10 MR. W. CLIFTON: I have no information 11 on that, on how many have been reported here. I 12 can only go by what Dr. Palmateer said, which is 13 the types of illnesses that are incurred from 14 water pollution source often go unreported. 15 MR. BODNARUK: That's basically what 16 my point was, that in most cases, doctors would 17 not even know if you were on a distributed water 18 supply or whether you were on the well. I think a 19 better question might be, how many people do not 20 use their water anymore for drinking, and have in 21 fact bottled water that they use, because there 22 are sediments and there are taste to it, 23 obviously. 24 MR. W. CLIFTON: Again, I don't have 25 that information but that would be part of a 02816 1 comprehensive well inventory that would normally 2 be part of the work done on a project like this 3 one. 4 MR. BODNARUK: And the last question 5 is again outside your expertise, but you might 6 know the answer to it, and that's dealing with 7 some of the viruses and some of the pathogens that 8 are in there. Is it not true that there's only 9 windows in which time you can actually evaluate 10 what the cause is, hemorrhagic E. coli is a good 11 example where you only have a narrow window where 12 you can determine what the cause was, and after 13 that all you see is the effect, the kidney 14 failures and the illnesses, the nausea and the 15 other symptoms? 16 MR. W. CLIFTON: You're way out beyond 17 my field of expertise. 18 MR. BODNARUK: It is something for the 19 Commission to consider too. Thank you. 20 MR. W. CLIFTON: Thank you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Our normal procedures 22 are that only participants can ask questions, but 23 if you are brief and to the point, I will allow 24 it. 25 MS. FUGA: Thank you. My name is 02817 1 Leslie Ann Fuga. I just wanted to follow up on a 2 question one of the panel members had for you, 3 which is the increased risk of contamination given 4 widening of the floodway. And I heard you say 5 that existing springs are the greatest risk in 6 terms of gradient reversal and possible 7 contamination. By widening the floodway and 8 removing clay barrier, is that not an additional 9 possibility to create blowouts? 10 MR. W. CLIFTON: The water levels that 11 are currently in the aquifer should not cause 12 additional blowouts. Now, there's always the 13 possibility that some future climatic event causes 14 water levels to rise. I can't foresee those from 15 here. But current water levels should not cause 16 blowouts if the stratigraphy and the ground 17 conditions are as portrayed in the EIS. 18 MS. FUGA: So you're saying that even 19 though more clay will be removed in the widening 20 process, that is change in pressure should not -- 21 MR. W. CLIFTON: Should not cause 22 additional blowouts, no. 23 MS. FUGA: Another question was based 24 on the questioning the Floodway Authority had with 25 regard to the definition of the project, when we 02818 1 were talking about licensing. 2 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 3 MS. FUGA: And it wasn't clear to me 4 at the end of that whether project, your 5 interpretation of project based on the examples 6 that you had given referred only to the expansion 7 or referred to the existing facility plus the 8 expansion in terms of assessing impacts? 9 MR. W. CLIFTON: The way the 10 regulators were handling that is they used 11 existing baseline, including the effects of the 12 existing projects as the starting point to 13 evaluate the impact. But on a go-forward basis, 14 the impacts of the expansion, plus the project, 15 must be considered to see if there was a threshold 16 sometime in the future at which an adverse impact 17 may occur. 18 MS. FUGA: So when you say the project 19 plus the expansion, you specifically mean the 20 existing facility, the impacts of the existing 21 facility and the expansion? 22 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 23 MS. FUGA: Another question that came 24 I believe earlier in the proceeding from the panel 25 had to do with whether or not we were more 02819 1 concerned about the protection of the unconfined 2 versus the confined aquifer. My understanding is 3 the unconfined aquifer, or the Birds Hill Kame 4 deposit, actually is an aquifer recharge to the 5 bedrock aquifer underlying it? 6 MR. W. CLIFTON: Yes. 7 MS. FUGA: So does that not mean we 8 would be as concerned with the protection of the 9 unconfined aquifer? 10 MR. W. CLIFTON: Absolutely. They are 11 both sources of high quality water, and both 12 worthy of protection to an equal level, yes. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: These areas have all 14 been quite adequately covered. 15 MS. FUGA: Thank you. I just needed 16 clarity because sometimes when the questioning 17 goes back and forth -- thank you. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 19 Mr. Clifton, again, thank you very much for making 20 yourself available to come back to Winnipeg and 21 answer these questions very important to our 22 deliberations. 23 MR. STRANG: If you don't mind, we do 24 have another question. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: As I pointed out last 02820 1 week, Mr. Strang, this is unusual in that you are 2 asking questions of your own witness. 3 MR. STRANG: I understand that, 4 Mr. Chairman. 5 MR. W. CLIFTON: It's been going on 6 for some time, Mr. Chair. 7 8 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION) 9 10 MR. GERA: Thank you very much. I am 11 Deputy Reeve Gera from the RM of East St. Paul. 12 Mr. Webster, he touched on it a little bit too. 13 And we have a great concern actually with our 14 water being in that Birds Hill sand and gravel 15 aquifer. We're looking at it, though, to increase 16 production and naturally to protect our citizens 17 there with any possible contaminants. 18 I was just going to -- if you can 19 dwell a little bit more, because as we have heard 20 the Manitoba Floodway Authority isn't going to be 21 doing any work on the east side, there is no 22 proposal, they are going to go on the west side 23 there. We are just looking at how we can possibly 24 increase our production there. Our wells aren't 25 working very well there, as you know. We're not 02821 1 getting the production that we thought we were 2 licenced for. And I was wondering if you could 3 tell us maybe what could be done to increase the 4 water there in that area? 5 MR. W. CLIFTON: You're speaking 6 specifically of the Birds Hill aquifer area? 7 MR. GERA: Yes I am. 8 MR. W. CLIFTON: Well, there appears 9 to be ample water in the aquifer, and I think it's 10 a technical problem on the design of the well 11 field, but the wells right now appear to be 12 relatively closely spaced. And to me, if there is 13 water in that aquifer, it's a matter of getting 14 the wells in the right location at the right 15 depth, right design to get the water out of them. 16 MR. GERA: Okay. Thank you very much 17 then. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, again, thank you 19 very much for having come here today. 20 MR. CLIFTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: We will in a moment 22 take a 15 minute break. Immediately following the 23 break, we will have the reeves of the three 24 municipalities at the front to conduct the 25 cross-examination that we weren't able to do last 02822 1 week, as we ran out of time at the end of their 2 presentation. I don't think it will be all that 3 lengthy, but we will have that opportunity 4 following the break. So come back at five to, 5 please. 6 7 (Proceedings recessed at 10:39 a.m. 8 and reconvened at 10:55 a.m.) 9 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's get back 11 at it. Could we come back to order, please. 12 Last, and I can't even remember what day it was, 13 was it Wednesday or Thursday in Oakbank when the 14 three municipalities made their presentations, we 15 ran out of time to conduct a cross-examination so 16 we've called them back for today. First, the 17 Floodway Authority. 18 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, we don't have 19 any questions of the three RMs. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. 21 Barrie? 22 MR. WEBSTER: I think the question 23 that I have applies to all three RMs. I gather 24 that a good deal of the water supply that's used 25 in your communities comes from the aquifers that 02823 1 we have been talking about. And that's one of the 2 reasons why you have been concerned about the 3 questions of water quality. 4 But one of the things I guess I 5 thought it was important to ask about was is it 6 your understanding that the current protection 7 provided by the outflow through the springs is 8 connected with the amount of water that you use 9 from that aquifer? And is that something that you 10 are intending to take notice of as you go forward? 11 Do you understand the nature of my 12 question? 13 MR. HOLLAND: I think I understand, 14 Mr. Webster. I mean there are certainly all kinds 15 of issues that affect the aquifer. I think 16 Springfield in particular has already seen an 17 impact of the sort of thinking that's maybe going 18 into Bill 22 at the provincial level because when 19 our proposed development plan by-law was 20 considered by the municipal board, the end result 21 was a recommendation that development not take 22 place around the perimeter of Birds Hill Park on 23 what you may call the Kame deposit area or at 24 least that it not take place on a density of five 25 acre lots. So the minimum size was increased to 02824 1 20 acres. So yeah, that's certainly a factor. 2 The thing is that I have a 3 topographical map because I was just kind of 4 looking at one particular area because it's been a 5 little confusing to me I guess. The cross-section 6 specifically at Spring Hill where there has been 7 very significant deposit of sand and gravel and 8 quite an uplift sort of in the water level that's 9 in that aquifer. The topographical map that I 10 have shows Mr. Gavaga's dairy farm operation which 11 is about a mile east of the floodway. If you 12 recall, he testified that the water level in his 13 well is down to 41 feet from the surface. 14 If you take the land height at his 15 yard site there and you take the level of the low 16 flow channel and the floodway, the low flow 17 channel is at about 226 metres, the level in his 18 well would be at about 227 or so. So I mean the 19 situation is different than portrayed specifically 20 at the sand and gravel aquifer location. I think 21 they are significantly at more risk of migration 22 into that aquifer at different locations along the 23 channel. 24 It's tough obviously with -- you know, 25 there's obviously a lot of issues around 02825 1 particularly rural residential development. But I 2 mean, a municipality like Springfield I think we 3 would recognize that livestock operations, and in 4 particular, dairy farms, they've been part of the 5 picture for years. They use quite a bit of water. 6 And I'm not quite sure how we would control that 7 let's say or stop the use by a dairy in order to 8 sort of try to maintain a higher head in the well. 9 MR. WEBSTER: I guess I'm asking about 10 keeping tabs on use, not stopping use, but keeping 11 tabs, carefully using the resource of it. In 12 fact, you do protect it because I guess in the 13 course of our discussions today, we have learned 14 about the way in which the flow into or out of the 15 floodway could damage that aquifer or could 16 protect that aquifer. But if there is sufficient 17 use of that aquifer, that protection may 18 disappear. And that's one of the reasons I think 19 why we are looking at contamination in the low 20 flow channel. 21 So my question is simply one of asking 22 you to be aware of that and perhaps the monitoring 23 wells that we have been talking about are 24 something that will help you keep tabs on it as 25 well. 02826 1 I wondered if that was something that 2 you were aware of, the monitoring wells actually 3 could be a help to you in your planning. 4 MR. HOLLAND: Yeah. I think there is 5 no question that the monitoring could be helpful 6 in a number of different ways. You know, for us, 7 I mean it's a kind of a situation. We made a 8 presentation to the legislative standing committee 9 on Bill 22 for example. I mean we are totally in 10 favour of aquifer management, protection zones and 11 all of the kinds of things that are proposed in 12 that legislation. But we do want it based on 13 science. I mean it was disturbing to me that 14 before the Bill was tabled and, you know, with 15 what we understood that it would be something that 16 would be based on science. That the premier was 17 saying this will be a tool for shutting down urban 18 sprawl in the capital region. Well, I'm not sure 19 what kind of science that is. 20 MR. STRANG: If I may just add to 21 that? I think with the way times are changing, 22 that as municipalities, we have no choice but to 23 better manage our resources. I think you see 24 that, as John related, to Bill 22. You see that 25 with the water Act that's coming forward to 02827 1 address the concerns of the lake. The concerns of 2 water usage and water quality within our 3 municipalities have been brought to the forefront 4 not only by ourselves but by the province. And as 5 we made comments before regarding policies that 6 are being put forward by, say, the Bill 22, we 7 feel that it's justified that we all react 8 properly when we're trying to address these types 9 of concerns. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is Bill 22 the Water 11 Protection Act? 12 MR. STRANG: It is. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have a 14 couple of questions. I think the first would be 15 to Deputy Reeve Gera of East St. Paul. And you 16 mentioned this in your presentation. It was also 17 noted in your submission and it's the issue about 18 the water lines that flow underneath the floodway. 19 Now, in your presentation last week, 20 you stated that, and I quote, 21 "The estimated cost to complete this 22 work is 300,000. Initially, we were 23 advised that the cost of lowering the 24 water line would be borne by the 25 Manitoba Floodway Authority as part of 02828 1 the construction. We are now of the 2 understanding we may be required to 3 pay one-half of the cost." 4 Is that correct? 5 MR. GERA: Yes, that is correct. Our 6 CEO had a -- well, we had them -- first the 7 Manitoba Floodway attended a meeting with council 8 and we were told that there would be no costs 9 borne by the municipality on our lines and that. 10 And then recently, they had a meeting with our CEO 11 and that and they notified him that there will be 12 a cost of $150,000 to lower those lines, either to 13 extend them or lower them. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: There are two lines; is 15 that correct? 16 MR. GERA: Yes, there are two lines 17 going across there. We have our four pumps and 18 they are like dual. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: And you use both lines? 20 MR. GERA: One is just like a backup 21 right now. We're trying to keep up naturally -- 22 we are having a tough time to keep up with the 23 flow there to keep our reservoir up. 24 It's very difficult for us there with 25 our aquifer sand and gravel to capture that water. 02829 1 We added an extra two pumps there. Well, we 2 started off in 1990. I'll tell you, we got our 3 licence to capture 250 gallons per minute and we 4 were only capturing roughly about just under 100 5 gallons per minute. So we were granted another 6 licence in 2000 and we added two more pumps there. 7 We brought it up to where we can 8 capture about 128 gallons per minute to feed our 9 reservoir but that isn't sufficient in the high 10 usage during the summer periods. So we're looking 11 at an alternative method to try to capture more 12 water to feed our reservoir at our water treatment 13 plant. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: And the reason for this 15 $150,000 bill, the lowering or extension of these 16 water lines is only because of the floodway 17 expansion? 18 MR. GERA: Yes, it is. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Reeve 20 Strang, you have expressed some concerns about the 21 Dunning Road crossing and your concerns about 22 maintenance of it. Could you just elaborate a 23 little bit on what your concerns are in that 24 respect? 25 MR. STRANG: Mr. Chairman, you just 02830 1 want me to talk about the maintenance portion? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Whatever the concerns 3 are of the RM of St. Clements. 4 MR. STRANG: Well, first of all, I 5 want to say that I think the concerns that we have 6 for the Dunning Crossing are not just represented 7 by the RM of St. Clements but they are represented 8 by my two neighbours here also. The crossing, as 9 I told you before, is utilized by all the 10 municipalities for different reasons. For the RM 11 of St. Clements, it is used as a fire protection 12 route to go to the other side. And as you know, 13 we have the Pine Ridge Village Trailer Park there. 14 We have a number of residents that are built up 15 around the park. Springfield has residents very 16 close by in that part and so does East St. Paul, 17 ambulance service, fire service, police service. 18 As our population has grown, the 19 crossing has been utilized far more now than it 20 ever has. And we see a definite need to at least 21 recognize that requirement and perhaps build on 22 it. 23 Our concern is that, as I made the 24 statement prior, that if consideration is given to 25 the future of other communities, then it should 02831 1 also be done in the same fashion for those of us 2 who use that crossing. 3 Every time the floodway is utilized, 4 whether it be in the winter time or during 5 summertime operation, it creates an inefficiency 6 to protect our community better. Our fire haul is 7 located on the portion of lands between the 8 floodway and the river. 9 Would mitigation be as far as putting 10 a small building and a fire truck there? Perhaps. 11 I mean whichever. I mean it's going a little bit 12 off from your question. Would it be to build a 13 bridge and to admit that there is a future there 14 and that the communities are growing and it's a 15 requirement as far as health and safety? We 16 believe that is the case. 17 During the time of the floodway usage, 18 the crossing is pretty well ruined. It has to be 19 rebuilt. And every time during summertime 20 operation, it creates the same effect. 21 What further concerns us, it was an 22 off the record conversation that I had with 23 Mr. McNeil, and even though this is not within 24 their mandate presently, we believe that the 25 summertime operation will be used to keep the 02832 1 walkway at The Forks dry. So in turn, that falls 2 back to our municipality losing the ability to use 3 that crossing and, in turn, also creating further 4 costs for us. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: So if your municipality 6 or the Floodway Authority were to win the lottery, 7 you'd like to see a bridge put in there? 8 MR. STRANG: There's no doubt about 9 it. I just want to make a comment about that. 10 Like you say win the lottery or I heard the ATM 11 machine comment, it falls back to all that we give 12 up for this floodway. This floodway, as you 13 gentlemen know, 90 per cent of it goes through our 14 municipalities. What do we get from that? I mean 15 we get an area which is a garbage dump, a wrecker 16 place, a stolen vehicle drop-off, a party place, 17 burn the hay bail type of situation. And the good 18 thing about flooding is every few years, when it 19 gets utilized, it washes everything out to the 20 lake and we get to start fresh. 21 We don't see that as positive things. 22 We don't. So for the fact that we're asking for a 23 little bit of something back for all we're giving, 24 I don't think it's out of line. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: This I guess would be 02833 1 directed to Deputy Reeve Gera. East St. Paul 2 would get some benefits from the floodway? 3 MR. GERA: Oh yes, we do. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: You would get flood 5 protection from it? 6 MR. GERA: Yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: St. Clements probably 8 not. 9 MR. STRANG: That's not true. As I 10 stated before, we do get some protection. And I 11 actually live within the triangle that receives 12 it. But that falls back to my comments prior, 13 that I would probably be very happy to give up 14 that protection in order to guarantee me safe 15 clean drinking water. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a final question 17 and any one or perhaps all three of you may want 18 to comment on it. Would it be safe for me to 19 assume or for us to assume that if your issues 20 around drinking water are addressed, you are not 21 opposed to the floodway expansion going ahead, 22 perhaps even this summer? 23 MR. STRANG: Well, probably all three 24 would like to answer that question. I believe 25 that at the closing remarks, that we will put a 02834 1 proposal together which shows unity which as far 2 as MFA and the municipalities working forward to 3 make this project happen. I will leave our legal 4 counsel to make that presentation. 5 We have never been opposed to the 6 floodway. We have stated that from the beginning. 7 What we have been opposed to is basically being 8 left in a situation which doesn't give good 9 protection to our residents and we still stand on 10 that. 11 To answer your question is if our 12 concerns are addressed in a way which is 13 favourable to our residents, and I don't think 14 personally we're asking for too much, I think we 15 would support that, yes. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other 17 comments? 18 MR. HOLLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think we 19 have certainly stated during the course of this 20 hearing, and in fact back in January 2002 I 21 appeared in Morris before Terry Duguid, the Clean 22 Environment Commission, Mr. Clifton's presentation 23 referred to those meetings. And we actually spoke 24 at that time in favour of the option of the 25 expanded floodway. But we did say in that 02835 1 presentation, because of the need to address some 2 of the worst aspects of the existing floodway and 3 we thought that that was the only way that those 4 would be addressed, so no, we are not opposed at 5 all to the expansion of the floodway. You know, 6 it may be simplistic and I guess we have heard it 7 a lot. We just want it done right. That's what 8 we feel to be right. 9 MR. GERA: Mr. Chairman, I think that 10 was an easy question to answer. We are looking -- 11 that's a presentation that we brought to you, that 12 we had concerns about our water quality and our 13 quantity. And it's been addressed here through 14 the weeks that we had been dealing with this. 15 We are in favour of the floodway. It 16 naturally is going to help some of our residents 17 in our area. And I look at if we can address 18 those concerns, all the residents of East St. Paul 19 will be able to sleep at night. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: How long-standing have 21 been your concerns about the drinking water? 22 MR. GERA: How long is our -- pardon? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: How long-standing have 24 you had concerns about the drinking water? 25 MR. GERA: Well, as long as I had been 02836 1 representing East St. Paul. I think East St. Paul 2 always had concerns about their drinking water. I 3 think we had been very diligently checking and 4 testing wells and we spent a lot of dollars 5 towards water studies in our municipality. And we 6 had shown that when we had a benzene problem. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me specify or be a 8 bit more specific. How long-standing have you had 9 concerns about the floodways's effect on your 10 drinking water? 11 MR. STRANG: Can I give that one a 12 shot? 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 14 MR. STRANG: I can tell you that two 15 years ago, soon after I became a councillor for 16 the RM of St. Clements, we were working with our 17 neighbours, the City of Selkirk, the RM of St. 18 Andrews, the RM of West St. Paul regarding 19 concerns that the floodway would bring. At that 20 point, it was submitted to a group of councils 21 that we would need hundreds of thousands of 22 dollars to take these concerns forward. I was 23 going to say fight. I don't want to view it as a 24 fight, but take these concerns forward. So at 25 that point, I would tell you at least by around 02837 1 2002, minimum. And I can't speak on behalf of the 2 previous council because there was a clean house 3 in the last election. 4 Can I make one other comment, if I 5 may, Mr. Chairman. Since I have become the Reeve 6 of the municipality, and I stated this prior, we 7 have made every attempt, I believe every attempt 8 on the political level to resolve this problem. 9 We choose -- we would have chosen not to be here 10 today. We would have chosen to have these 11 concerns addressed prior to this, but we weren't 12 able to do that and that's why we are here. And I 13 made the comment before we did so on a federal 14 level, a provincial level, a municipal level, I 15 mean the water stewardship board. We had worked 16 every angle, we looked down every avenue. We just 17 were not successful. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: This is a question that 20 all municipalities can respond to. One thing 21 follow-up on the 50 per cent funding of your 22 replacement of the lines and the floodway, the 23 300,000, the $150,000. That 150, was that to be 24 split with the Floodway Authority or was that with 25 Water Services? 02838 1 MR. GERA: Excuse me? That was 2 supposed to be split with the Manitoba Floodway 3 Authority -- the Manitoba Floodway Authority is to 4 pay $150,000 and the RM of East St. Paul is 5 supposed to pay the other $150,000, so for a total 6 project of $300,000. 7 MR. MOTHERAL: I guess my follow-up 8 question is do you have any other sources to 9 collect the $150,000? Would you be able to apply 10 to Water Services for that portion? I mean maybe 11 that's a question I'll leave with you because look 12 in the possibilities of it. 13 MR. GERA: Well, the possibilities of 14 it. The only other option we have is to put it 15 under our utilities and we would have to -- under 16 our utilities is the only way to pay it, the other 17 option. And that will go on the back of the 18 residents that have a piped-in water system. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: That's fine. And some 20 of my questions, I'm hoping to try to keep them 21 tied in with the floodway and some of them become 22 kind of municipal questions. But we understand 23 from your presentations that this possible 24 contamination is a real concern. But I do know 25 too from some recent studies that you also do in 02839 1 the future possibly have a shortage of water too; 2 is that true? 3 MR. STRANG: That is correct. The 4 Wardrop report states by 2023 I believe the date 5 is, don't quote me on that date, but that there 6 could be shortages within the region. 7 MR. MOTHERAL: And the municipalities 8 are probably I mean looking into possibility of 9 accessing other water supplies in the future if 10 that happens or is it limiting development? This 11 is where it's getting into development issues and 12 not maybe floodway issues. 13 MR. GERA: I'd like to answer that if 14 I could. I think we've been prudent to go ahead, 15 the municipality. As you know, we are a fast 16 growing municipality. We are looking at 17 developments and that and we need development to 18 sustain our municipality the way we are. So we 19 have spent a great deal of money towards our water 20 study in our municipality alone. We spent up to 21 $80,000 just recently on a study to see if we can 22 gain some more water. 23 One of the sites we did was Birds Hill 24 aquifer, we looked there. We went down into the 25 bedrock. We also went on the west side and we got 02840 1 good results there also. 2 We did a total of five wells in our 3 municipality and we got positive results at the 4 Bird Hill aquifer. So that's why we have great 5 concerns naturally to make sure that we are 6 protected there. And saying now that they are not 7 going to be doing any work on the east side, we 8 will still have concerns that we hope that there 9 is some kind of monitoring put into place there of 10 those wells. 11 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. And one 12 last question is on recreation. We've had many 13 several presentations on possible recreation 14 activities within the floodway and a greenway, et 15 cetera, et cetera, and the municipalities 16 hopefully have been involved in a lot of these 17 discussions. And where is recreation on your 18 priority list? 19 MR. HOLLAND: Well, I guess maybe I 20 should comment on that because I was somewhat 21 outspoken about some of the concerns that we have 22 about just the property management aspects of the 23 floodway, if you will. 24 I mean I was here for the 25 presentations by a number of the recreational 02841 1 trails associations. I mean they seem like nice 2 people and they seem to have good ideas and it may 3 be quite possible that they could be part of the 4 solution. But there are a lot of things that I 5 could take you out to show you on the floodway 6 which is not places you'd like your kids. 7 MR. MOTHERAL: The reason why I've 8 asked the question is we've heard the pros and 9 cons of both. And in fact, one of your 10 councillors did mention the possibility of the 11 noise and the -- 12 MR. HOLLAND: Yeah. I think people 13 that were on there that we are concerned about are 14 not truly sort of recreationalists. I mean there 15 is a lot of vandals and trespassers and probably 16 just petty criminals and whatnot that are spending 17 their time up there because there's absolutely no 18 supervision and no control over their activities, 19 so it's easy to kind of confuse the two I guess. 20 What we're a little sensitive too is, 21 you know, and I'm sensitive too and as a municipal 22 politician, I don't want to get too far afield 23 here, but I make decisions that determine that a 24 piece of property is worth $700 an acre if it's 25 farmland or $10,000 an acre if it can be developed 02842 1 into five acre lots. A lot of us, including 2 myself, have farm property which, you know, we are 3 not allowed to develop and there's supposedly a 4 very high value attached to agricultural land and 5 agricultural practices. And you know, I suppose I 6 think what I had said in my presentation was hey, 7 you know, don't prefer recreational activity over 8 agricultural activity. Maybe the two can 9 co-exist. 10 But that was essentially agricultural 11 land for the most part that was taken for the 12 right-of-way. We see that as an appropriate use 13 of the embankments and would not want recreational 14 activities or use of that property to preclude 15 agricultural use. 16 MR. MOTHERAL: And I'm familiar with 17 some of your answers, Mr. Holland. They are 18 usually quite long. I take it from that, it's not 19 high. 20 MR. STRANG: Can I just add to that 21 quickly. Just to fall back on your previous 22 question regarding the water and looking at it as 23 a resource. 24 There is a number of the 25 municipalities and the City of Selkirk have gotten 02843 1 together and we have developed a committee called 2 the RRIC, the Red River Infrastructure Committee. 3 We believe that it's a responsibility of 4 government, especially at our level of government, 5 to make sure that our future is based on our 6 resources. We have a responsibility to make sure 7 that if we were developing in certain areas, that 8 the resources are there to maintain them. 9 We also want to make sure, John has 10 made a comment before, we want to make sure we 11 base this information on science proven. And when 12 it reflects back to the water study that was 13 mentioned by Minister Ashton, we support that 14 study and it's an important part of all that. At 15 the end of the day, we do want to make sure that 16 our studies or at least the results, the outcome 17 of those studies, the recommendations have some 18 teeth in them. 19 So we are also looking forward into 20 the future and realizing that water is such a 21 precious resource and that we have a 22 responsibility as politicians to make sure that we 23 manage our areas with that consideration. 24 If I may make a comment on your last 25 question, Mr. Motheral, regarding recreational 02844 1 management or recreational use within the 2 floodway. I believe, as John stated, they can 3 coincide. They can run along beside each other. 4 We envision recreation as an important use of the 5 floodway for what it brings. And what does it 6 bring? Well, it brings usage, it brings the right 7 type of people into the area. It will push out 8 what's bad and bring in what's good. And what I 9 mean by that is I made comments regarding the 10 derelict vehicles and the partying and all those 11 things that go on which you've heard residents 12 complain about now. 13 And if there is a walkway system or if 14 there is a treed system or whatever is being 15 recommended for the recreational use, we see that 16 as something which would be more positively used, 17 bringing in a better type of person, if I may say 18 it that way. And that putting them side by side 19 and giving the opportunities for the farmers who 20 owned that land before to work together overall is 21 a very positive or important effect for that whole 22 floodway expansion. 23 MR. GERA: I'd like to also say that 24 the RM of East St. Paul supports recreation on the 25 floodway. We are working with some organizations 02845 1 right now. We did use the floodway on top for 2 part of our Trans Canada Trail. It is an 3 excellent site but it's very hard to control the 4 individuals that come to the floodway. Naturally, 5 it's up to the municipalities to police that area. 6 And we have problems with it, but we'll be looking 7 after that. 8 But I think if you have more 9 organizations, like Reeve Strang said, using the 10 floodway, that might discourage the individuals 11 and they might come on board with these other 12 recreation organizations. 13 MR. MOTHERAL: You have to accept the 14 risk. 15 MR. GERA: Right. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I did have one question 17 I forgot to ask Deputy Reeve Gera. I understand 18 that East St. Paul has some drainage issues on the 19 west side of the floodway. 20 MR. GERA: Yes, yes. We have on 21 the -- which we share with Springfield, we are 22 looking at putting an outfall structure on there. 23 We are looking at trying to approach the floodway 24 and see if we can get something. That would 25 entail taking a great deal of acreage, and it 02846 1 naturally drains towards the floodway. There was 2 never one installed there but we've had major 3 flooding in there and it usually flows towards the 4 river. But this would improve the drainage a 5 great deal if we could have that outfall structure 6 there. And then actually, we're just delighted 7 they just built that golf course there and that 8 would help their drainage concerns they have 9 there. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: And so you have been 11 dealing with the Floodway Authority in that 12 regard? 13 MR. GERA: We're putting that proposal 14 towards them. We're going to do it properly, I 15 hope, along with my fellow councillor from 16 Springfield. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. 18 MR. STRANG: Mr. Chairman, I'd just 19 like to add that we have had discussions with 20 Mr. McNeil regarding drainage on the west side and 21 he has shown us the course in order to make that 22 happen. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there 24 any other registered participants that might have 25 questions of the three reeves? Mr. McNeil. 02847 1 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, if you don't 2 mind. Some of the discussion about these wells 3 from Mr. Gera, I'd just like to ask some follow-up 4 questions. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 6 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Gera, you mentioned 7 five wells to look for more water for your 8 municipality. Where are these wells, all of these 9 wells? 10 MR. GERA: One we had out at our 11 landfill site. One was an existing fire well that 12 we had on the other side of the floodway towards 13 Waugh Road. And the other one we had is by our 14 water treatment plant. And another one was at the 15 Birds Hill sand and gravel aquifer or Spring Hill. 16 We had one put there. 17 MR. MCNEIL: And how many of them are 18 within the floodway right-of-way? 19 MR. GERA: Just the one at the Birds 20 Hill. 21 MR. MCNEIL: And you mentioned that 22 it's at Birds Hill but is it into the limestone 23 aquifer? 24 MR. GERA: It's into the limestone 25 right now. That's where we went. We naturally 02848 1 know -- we experienced the trouble we had with the 2 sand and gravel aquifer so we got an exploratory 3 permit to go into the bedrock there. 4 MR. MCNEIL: And you've engaged an 5 engineer to do your analysis for the well? 6 MR. GERA: Yes, we have. Stantec 7 Engineering is doing our -- 8 MR. MCNEIL: Which office of Stantec? 9 MR. GERA: Which office? All I know 10 is it was done through Keith Miller and we used a 11 hydrologist from the Ontario office. 12 MR. MCNEIL: So the hydrogeologist 13 would be aware of the GUDI approach then with 14 respect to looking at these wells? 15 MR. GERA: I can't answer that. You 16 know, I can't speak for him. 17 MR. MCNEIL: Just for everybody's 18 recollection, GUDI stands for groundwater under 19 the direct influence of surface water as well as 20 looking at well head protection studies. 21 So are they looking at that aspect of 22 the well? 23 MR. GERA: I can't say. I can't 24 answer that. 25 MR. MCNEIL: But that well is within 02849 1 the floodway right-of-way. 2 MR. GERA: Right, it is. 3 MR. MCNEIL: Immediately on the east 4 side adjacent to the Spring Hill ski hill? 5 MR. GERA: Right. 6 MR. MCNEIL: Down to the bedrock 7 aquifer? 8 MR. GERA: Right. 9 MR. MCNEIL: And with all the concerns 10 we've heard to date with respect to the 11 groundwater in the vicinity of the floodway and 12 whatnot, why would you drill that well there? 13 MR. GERA: Because we know we're just 14 checking for the amount of water, the quantity. 15 That's why we went down there. 16 MR. MCNEIL: Were these wells -- 17 MR. GERA: Because we had to take our 18 sites and we had -- we wanted to see what -- we 19 weren't very successful going into the gravel and 20 sand aquifer so they made the choice to find five 21 locations and that was one of the sites they 22 picked. 23 We haven't accepted it as our main 24 source of our water though. 25 MR. MCNEIL: Are you pumping out of 02850 1 that now? 2 MR. GERA: Yes, we are. 3 MR. MCNEIL: Is it supplying the East 4 St. Paul solely at this point in time? 5 MR. GERA: No, just the four wells 6 right now. That's what's supplying our water. 7 MR. MCNEIL: I guess the only other 8 question I'll have is why not go further east? 9 Like the water is coming from the east and moving 10 to the west. There's been all these concerns 11 raised about the proximity of wells to the 12 floodway, so why not go further east? 13 MR. GERA: We went further east and we 14 went on Waugh Road and the water didn't have the 15 same quality and had a hardness, a lot more 16 hardness and that. So it wasn't as good a quality 17 as was down there in that bedrock aquifer close to 18 the -- 19 MR. MCNEIL: That site is north of 20 Spring Hill? 21 MR. GERA: It's north by Garven Road. 22 MR. MCNEIL: So that's quite a bit 23 north. So why not go due east then? You're 24 tapping into the same water in this test. 25 MR. GERA: Well, due east was further 02851 1 into Springfield. We didn't have permission to go 2 into Springfield, into their municipality. So we 3 just stayed within our boundaries of our 4 municipality. 5 MR. MCNEIL: Thank you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to thank you, 7 gentlemen, for your presentation, your questions 8 here this morning. We have a little bit of time 9 before lunch and we can fit in one or two of our 10 public presenters. I understand that Mr. Morrison 11 is available. 12 Mr. Morrison, would you please state 13 your name for the record. 14 MR. MORRISON: Yes. My name is John 15 Morrison. I reside in Rosser, Manitoba. 16 17 (JOHN MORRISON: SWORN) 18 19 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 20 MR. MORRISON: Thank you. I have 21 provided a written presentation and I'll read from 22 that generally. 23 My name is John Morrison. I am a 24 farmer on a century farm in Manitoba just outside 25 of Winnipeg. I am a past president of the South 02852 1 Interlake Agricultural Society. I made 2 presentations to the Capital Regions Review 3 relating to the administration, structure and 4 water control management difficulties within the 5 Winnipeg area. Those presentations were included 6 in the committee documents following the hearings, 7 including recommendations by the committee. I am 8 also or I have also held a pesticide dealer and 9 applicator's licence and was recognized by the 10 Province of Manitoba as authorized to apply and 11 sell pesticides and insecticides as restricted 12 products. 13 I am taking a position here over the 14 floodway expansion that I would have said several 15 months ago, I was very much in favour of this 16 floodway going ahead. But I am very very 17 concerned over environmental concerns that are out 18 there that are not being addressed by the 19 Conservation Department nor by the premier in 20 Manitoba. 21 Based on that, the position relating 22 to the Winnipeg Floodway Expansion Project and 23 presented to the Canadian Environment Commission 24 today is this: Request to the Clean Environment 25 Commission should put forward a determination and 02853 1 recommendation that the floodway expansion not 2 proceed at this time due to the environmental 3 risks and concerns related to the management of 4 the Red River flood plain. That the Floodway 5 Expansion Project may continue at such time as the 6 environmental concerns have been addressed and 7 appropriate protection legislation and appropriate 8 clean-up of existing high risk sites is in place. 9 Supporting information for this is as 10 follows: While the City of Winnipeg does not 11 obtain any drinking or potable water from the Red 12 River nor the local aquifer, certain locals 13 including the Town of Selkirk use water from the 14 Red River for those purposes. That potable water 15 may be severely affected by the expansion of the 16 floodway. 17 Expansion of residential and 18 commercial development along the floodway as well 19 as by sites along the Red River that are required 20 to obtain their water from the Red or the local 21 aquifer are currently at risk for their water 22 supply and currently at risk is even before the 23 expansion of the floodway. 24 It is appropriate for the Commission 25 to consider and indicate the possible necessity of 02854 1 another source of water supply and delivery for 2 those that would be affected by the loss of the 3 aquifer in the future. 4 In the original development of the 5 floodway, it appears that very little serious 6 consideration was done on the effects of the 7 floodway by the local or on the local aquifer or 8 the long-term effects on the potable water from 9 that aquifer. 10 The proposed expansion of the floodway 11 may seriously exasperate any negative effects 12 caused by the original floodway. Many of the 13 residents adjacent to the floodway are currently 14 advised to purchase bottled water for young 15 children by the local health office, due to 16 aromatic and mineral nitrates and sulfates, most 17 residents feel currently compelled to purchase 18 that same bottled water for their own consumption 19 rather than using the aquifer water currently 20 available from their wells. 21 Water filters, softeners and 22 particulate removers are common to most area 23 residences to a degree of 7 to 15 times that prior 24 to the development of the original floodway. 25 While parties may argue that by choice consumers 02855 1 are purchasing more water filters and bottled 2 water than ever before, a common concern being 3 voiced is it's nice to live in the country but 4 don't drink the water. 5 I believe the responsibility of the 6 Clean Environment Commission is to consider the 7 effect of the current floodway and the historical 8 changes to the aquifer as well as considerations 9 of the proposed expansion and the future effects 10 that expansion may cause. 11 In the south Interlake at a meeting 12 relating to environmental issues, the Department 13 of Conservation has provided information that 14 indicated that they did not have the manpower nor 15 resources to properly provide proper testing and 16 evaluation to address developments that could have 17 a negative effect on the environment or on the 18 local aquifer. 19 Personal comment and from what I heard 20 this morning. I'd like to add that the discussion 21 here was over 38 years you don't have test results 22 that you should have here. There has been a 23 consideration of expanding that floodway to better 24 protect Winnipeg since 1997. And why hasn't the 25 Department of Conservation been out there and 02856 1 really effectively doing water analysis and key 2 points to cover it at this time, or up until this 3 time? 4 I am of the opinion that the lack of 5 resources and the failure to address these issues 6 by the department has been long-term. That before 7 the department -- that therefore, the Department 8 of Conservation has not appropriately monitored 9 nor addressed the negative effects currently 10 affecting the aquifers nor are they capable of 11 projecting the risk factors nor exasperating 12 effects of an expanding floodway. This must be 13 addressed before any expansion is considered. 14 The Department of Conservation has 15 allowed the development of hazardous waste storage 16 and containment sites to be developed on the first 17 level flood plain of the Red River in the past. 18 Those sites hold a significant risk of 19 contamination of the Red River south of Winnipeg 20 and, therefore, by water flow, every community and 21 aquifer north of these sites. The department has 22 allowed the development of these sites and 23 probably one of most environmentally hazardous 24 locations in Manitoba. 25 The department has further indicated 02857 1 that they had not continued in providing 2 assessments of containment nor monitoring but have 3 allowed the site managers as individual enterprise 4 to provide any evaluation. Information relating 5 to this has been provided in an addendum number 4. 6 The Federal Department of Fisheries & 7 Oceans has the authority to manage and control the 8 waterways within Canada, specifically when those 9 waterways are populated with wildlife species. 10 This has been brought home to the farmers of 11 Manitoba as the current municipal drains that are 12 man-made in 1910 and 20's and until today are 13 covered by that legislation. It's not even a 14 natural water flow but one that is man-created. 15 That legislation reflects to the 16 assurances that the water purity and quality are 17 maintained as well as a restriction of impurities 18 or pollutants that may affect the water quality or 19 life-sustaining requirements of that water. 20 The provincial government has 21 currently indicated that based on concerns of a 22 Lindane contamination site south of Winnipeg and 23 adjacent to the Red River, that the provincial 24 government had not provided environmental 25 assessments nor testing, that the site would now 02858 1 be tested and, if required, a clean-up would 2 ensue. This followed complaints directed to the 3 provincial government over many months which they 4 refused to address. 5 To be very clear on that, over the 6 last several years, a farmer out in that area has 7 regularly gone to the Conservation Department and 8 said they are spreading insecticides out there and 9 this isn't safe. And the provincial government 10 said, oh, it's not a problem, don't worry. 11 My understanding is that the Federal 12 Environment department is now addressing this 13 matter based on a complaint forwarded to them by 14 the Federal Department of Fisheries & Oceans. It 15 appears that Manitoba Conservation Department is 16 now considering a clean-up of that site that they 17 originally approved but provided no testing. 18 A run-off of contaminants into the Red 19 River with access to the aquifer providing water 20 to residents east, north and south of Winnipeg 21 will be of serious consequence. And again, I 22 added information relating to that specifically 23 one as addendum number five. 24 The Manitoba Department of 25 Conservation in managing the Environmental 02859 1 Protection Act have not addressed many of these 2 concerns of Manitobans. They haven't provided key 3 clean-up or testing of areas of concern nor had in 4 place the resources to assure the protection and 5 management of environment issues in the past. 6 Based on this, a group of concerned 7 citizens, of which I am a part of, have requested 8 a meeting with the Premier of Manitoba to address 9 these matters. As one voice, I believe I have 10 clearly emphasized my position that the Department 11 of Conservation has mismanaged and been negligent 12 in the addressing of environmental issues and 13 should be replaced as a provincial authority in 14 these matters. 15 The premier's office, although 16 indicating their awareness of the issues, have 17 refused to provide a meeting to address them. The 18 department, through several ministers over several 19 years, have refused also to provide a meeting with 20 the minister. The department has refused to 21 address the clean-up issues nor provide testing to 22 provide environmental security. Information 23 relating to this has also been added to the 24 addendum. 25 I therefore put to the Clean 02860 1 Environment Commission the formal request that the 2 Commission require that the current hazardous 3 materials storage sites be removed from the Red 4 River flood plain prior to any expansion of the 5 Red River floodway to protect the quality of water 6 to the river and aquifers fed from that water. 7 That sites of that nature be 8 established in areas of minimal risk to the 9 populations of Manitoba and that this be done 10 prior to any expansion of the Winnipeg Floodway 11 based on the elevated risks that these sites 12 entail. 13 That the Commission require the 14 clean-up of the Lindane contamination site south 15 of Winnipeg to prevent contamination of the Red 16 River potable water in Selkirk and other 17 communities prior to any recommendations by the 18 Commission to proceed on the floodway. 19 That the Commission direct that 20 compensation be directed to any parties affected 21 by the mismanagement by the department and a 22 failure to address these issues. 23 I'll add a little key on here right 24 now. There is a farm site out in the St. Jean 25 area that has had the Lindane applied that is 02861 1 approximately 240 acres. As a pesticide dealer 2 and applicator, if I had had a Lindane spill of 3 let's say a couple five gallon pails of treated 4 seed, the Conservation Department or the 5 Department of Agriculture would have told me to 6 dig it down about three feet deep and about six 7 feet out in all directions from the site. So you 8 now have a farmer who is in the St. Jean area that 9 may be losing the top three feet of soil off of 10 his farm. And I guess we could just say we 11 wouldn't call it a farm anymore. And that gets 12 very serious as far as I'm concerned. 13 That the Commission take the position 14 that until such time as the provincial government 15 addresses the current aquifer and environmental 16 risks and the additional risks of an expanded 17 floodway and provide a method of assurance of 18 providing potable water for those using the 19 aquifer, that the expansion cannot proceed. 20 And in the references I have added 21 here, and I won't go through them specifically 22 except I would like to go through one. And 23 skipping over four and reading through five, I go 24 to the next page and I'll describe what Lindane 25 is. And not only is it me describing this, this 02862 1 is actually an article that was run in the Free 2 Press some time ago from Paul Egan and there is 3 some professional consultants that responded to 4 that at this time. 5 But Lindane is a seed treatment or has 6 been used as a seed treatment chemical. This 7 chemical was reported in the Free Press article by 8 Paul Egan as multiple health risks, kidney and 9 liver damage as well as cancer. It will break 10 down in soil over time but it takes many years and 11 is not broken down by microbes and water. 12 Now as a pesticide dealer and 13 applicator, in my reference material provided by 14 the Department of Agriculture, it says Lindane 15 takes up to 20 years to break down in the soil. 16 In the water, it doesn't break down. So if I was 17 to place some Lindane in water and leave it in a 18 five gallon pail for 10 or 15 years, it would be 19 as effective a product 20 years down the road as 20 it was the day I put it in the water. 21 And to follow that through. On a 22 personal note as a pesticide dealer and 23 applicator, I would never have considered 24 dispersal of this chemical in a matter of 25 spreading it on a field or whatever. 02863 1 Under the training and information 2 provided by the Department of Agriculture in 3 certifying me, I would have expected that an 4 application of 20 kilograms per acre would have 5 been of concern and that an application of 6 200 kilograms on a single acre would have been 7 viewed as an immediate health hazard and would 8 have required containment and clean up. This 9 would be less than one-fifth of the apparent 10 application that was put on by the Department of 11 Conservation through a company called Miller 12 Environmental in a high risk site in close 13 proximity to the Red River and it is on a level 14 one flood plain. 15 The premier's office has refused a 16 meeting with myself and other parties over this 17 issue. And it's not over a legal case or anything 18 else, I have nothing to do with that farmland, 19 it's just these alarm bells going off that you 20 can't do something like that and having it flow 21 into a water source in Manitoba. 22 And while you're talking here about 23 springs and other issues that come up along the 24 floodway where water from the floodway may go into 25 that aquifer, just think of what would happen with 02864 1 Lindane or other products like that going directly 2 into that aquifer and causing possibly liver 3 damage, kidney failure or 20 years or 40 years of 4 cancer out there before it goes away. That's just 5 astounding. I can't understand that. 6 Going back to the Lindane that was 7 applied. If I go to the front of reference number 8 5 which would be on the previous page, it gives 9 you an idea of the concentration of Lindane that 10 used to be allowed to be used some years ago. And 11 that registration was pulled I believe in 1997. 12 Basically, it was used as a canola seed treatment 13 insecticide. It was registered in the past, and 14 as I said, removed I think in 1997. It lost its 15 registration when it was determined that the 16 seeding rate of this chemical in conjunction with 17 canola seed at approximately 3 kilograms per acre. 18 And that would be 3 kilograms per acre as in 19 43,560 square feet. And of that 3 kilograms mixed 20 with canola seed, that would be about a cup full 21 of Lindane that would be applied on that acre. 22 Basically that application at that 23 rate caused concentrations in the grown food 24 stuffs that could be a health risk. It was 25 considered that as a breakdown of the Lindane as 02865 1 an organic solid may take up to 20 years, that the 2 opportunity for buildup in the soil structure 3 enhanced those risks. 4 Miller Environmental had stocks of 5 this substance in their site that had been 6 reported at close to 2,500 tonnes or 2,500,000 7 kilograms. Those same reports indicate that the 8 chemical is spread over 240 acres. This would 9 indicate an application rate of over 3,000 times 10 the regular rate for the registration which was 11 withdrawn. And that which was withdrawn had been 12 considered that it was no longer a minimal risk 13 and that's why they removed it. 14 Steve Davis, who is a director of the 15 Environmental Projects Department of Conservation, 16 indicated that the department had approved the 17 dispersal of this product by Miller Environmental 18 along the Red River. 19 Now, without going through the other 20 references that back up the information that's on 21 that particular product, that's going into the Red 22 River. It's not dissolving in the Red River and 23 disappearing. It's going into plants and other 24 items that are growing along the Red River. And 25 the Department of Conservation, for years, has now 02866 1 sat here, oh there aren't issues here, there 2 aren't problems. And when the problems do get to 3 the forefront, they say, oh, we don't have the 4 money, we don't have the resources to deal with 5 these. 6 This is the one opportunity where the 7 Clean Environment Commission sitting here and 8 dealing with the expansion of the floodway to say 9 hold it, we can't have something like this go on. 10 And a follow-through on here, and the 11 discussion came up before about the Water 12 Stewardship Board or the Ministry. One of the 13 things we'd like to put to the premier in Manitoba 14 is that handling of any water issues at all that 15 involve Environmental Protection Act or 16 environmental issues be removed from the 17 Department of Conservation because of their 18 failure to manage it properly in the past. 19 I was astounded that with this problem 20 coming out on here when we are trying to get this 21 addressed, that the Minister is refusing to have a 22 meeting? They are refusing to talk about it. 23 That we could really say the bottom line is, oh, 24 we have to wait until the floodway goes through 25 before we even address this. And when the 02867 1 premier's office says, oh, we're not going to talk 2 about this now, that's scary. And you know, I 3 started out supportive of a floodway and to help 4 people, and this is rather strange. 5 So in closing, my appearance before 6 the Commission is to bring forward these concerns 7 and to plead, and I'd like to extenuate or express 8 very strongly that word plead, with the Commission 9 that no undertaking that may risk the aquifers nor 10 the environment by expanding the floodway until 11 such time as the removal of hazardous materials is 12 completed along the Red River and that hazardous 13 materials storage facilities are removed from the 14 flood area and environmental risk areas along the 15 Red River. That the probable future failure of 16 the aquifer be addressed by the Commission and 17 recorded in its delivery of position. Thank you. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 19 Mr. Morrison. We have no questions, thank you. 20 We will now take our lunch break. 21 Please be back at one o'clock. We will hear from 22 one participant group, Save our Seine, immediately 23 after lunch and then we have a few more public 24 presenters. 25 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, if we'll 02868 1 add Mr. Morrison's presentation as Exhibit 101. 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 4 5 (EXHIBIT 101: Presentation by John H. 6 Morrison to CEC) 7 8 (Proceedings recessed at 11:55 A.M. 9 and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.) 10 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I ask that we 12 come back to order. 13 First up this afternoon, we have a 14 presentation by the participant group, Save our 15 Seine. 16 Mr. Danyluk, would you please 17 introduce your party and we need to swear in 18 anybody who will be giving testimony. 19 MR. DANYLUK: My name is David Danyluk 20 with Save Our Seine. This is Jules Legal, also 21 with Save Our Seine. Alf Poetker with Cochrane 22 Engineering and Matt McCandless, also with 23 Cochrane Engineering. This is my boss, President 24 of Save Our Seine, Bev Sawchuk. 25 02869 1 (Messrs. Danyluk, Legal, Poetker, 2 McCandless & Ms. Sawchuk - Sworn) 3 4 MR. CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 5 MR. DANYLUK: Thank you. I would 6 first like to say on behalf of the board of Save 7 Our Seine, that we would like to thank the CEC and 8 MFA for the opportunity to be here today. I guess 9 in contrast to the past presentations now for 10 something completely different. 11 Save Our Seine would like to just 12 begin by just describing what our presentation 13 will cover. We will speak of very briefly a 14 little bit about our organization, the Seine River 15 and the structures that affect it, and a little 16 bit of the background of the hydrology and the 17 fish habitat and the issues that we are here to 18 discuss. We will wrap up with our request and 19 recommendations. 20 This year, we are able to celebrate 21 our 15th anniversary and, essentially, our mandate 22 is to protect, preserve and enhance the Seine 23 River corridor. Typically, this has been during 24 the urban or lower Seine River area, and those 25 concerns. We have become an expert resource on 02870 1 Seine River related issues. 2 I should also add that we are not an 3 environmental group, but we are a community-based 4 stewardship group, which is slightly different 5 than that. Our motto is: "A river lies waiting to 6 be discovered." Hopefully, this will be the case 7 for some of you today. 8 This river has come a long way. As 9 you can see in these slides, in one or two, you 10 can even ask yourself: Where is the river? 11 We even once ourselves described this 12 beautiful river as: "A stagnant, algae-choked, 13 mosquito-breeding cesspool and lifeless ditch." I 14 don't know if you can see it, but that little 15 diamond-shaped sign in the centre says, "No 16 Dumping". 17 So, the local citizens stepped forward 18 and with thousands of volunteers over the last 15 19 years, literally removed tons of debris and 20 garbage. Thousands of volunteers have planted, 21 watered, weeded and protected trees to improve the 22 habitat. 23 In 2004, SOS was awarded four awards, 24 including the first ever in Manitoba: The 25 Canadian Environmental Award for restoration and 02871 1 rehabilitation. 2 Provincially, from the Naturalists 3 Society's, the Prairie Crocus Award, the first 4 group to receive that. 5 Manitoba Eco-Network's Group Award and 6 the Mayor's Volunteer Service Award for the 7 Environment. 8 Clearly, these endeavours have been 9 recognized by our municipal, provincial and 10 federal societies and if we can use that as an 11 indicator, then we think we are doing what is 12 expected. 13 For obvious reasons, SOS is very 14 concerned with water quality and water quantity. 15 It may interest the panel that to improve both, 16 the quantity and quality of the water, Save Our 17 Seine has been working for almost ten years on a 18 riffle structure installation program. 19 This is a riffle. I am not sure if 20 everyone is familiar with that? It a measure to 21 increase water crest levels and to improve the 22 quality. 23 To put the river in a better context, 24 we would like to show you the actual Seine River 25 watershed. You can see that we have to turn our 02872 1 attention upstream into the watershed if we are 2 going to address our issues. 3 The Seine River is approximately 4 300 kilometers long. It is very difficult to 5 ascertain this because the river meanders so much, 6 that over one kilometer could be 4 kilometers or 7 longer in that little same stretch. Approximately 8 90 percent of the watershed is outside of the 9 Floodway. So, beyond the Floodway. 10 The three structures that we are most 11 impacted by as a river is the Seine River 12 diversion at Ste. Anne's, the Red River Floodway 13 and the siphon that is there and the Grande Pointe 14 control structure which was recently built. 15 So, if this is the Seine River image 16 from Marchand at the headwaters up here -- I don't 17 know if you can see my cursor -- all the way up to 18 the Red River where it spills into the mouth 19 there. 20 This is where the Ste. Anne diversion 21 occurs and water is diverted into the Red River 22 south of the City of Winnipeg, then at the Grande 23 Pointe control structure and, finally, at the 24 Floodway siphon. 25 At the Seine River crossing, it is 02873 1 actually incorrectly labeled as a siphon. It is 2 just a pipe and it is gravity that allows the 3 water to cross. It does not actually act as a 4 siphon. We do refer to it often as a siphon 5 regardless because it is consistent with much of 6 the literature. 7 SOS would like to acknowledge the 8 tremendous benefits to the City of Winnipeg from 9 the Red River Floodway. We all benefit from that. 10 In the 1960s, the controversial 11 expropriation of properties took precedence over 12 environmental concerns and mistakes were made. I 13 think we can appreciate that back at the time that 14 those are very serious impacts. 15 Today, we have a very impacted river 16 system and a disregard for the Seine River 17 environment as a trade-off for the benefits of 18 flood protection. Today, the Seine River is 19 treated little more than another drainage ditch. 20 Here's a closer perspective of what 21 the crossing is. This is the natural or original 22 river channel, which is diverted here, into a 23 created river channel, where it meets the Seine 24 River overflow weir and grilled intake. Waters 25 are also diverted into the Floodway from here and 02874 1 into the main channel of the Floodway and the 2 siphon exit is here where the water is allowed to 3 carry on to the urban Seine River. 4 Here's a situation where it clearly is 5 not a flood condition. You can even see the 6 riverbank is not overflowing. This is the volume 7 of water, even at this condition, that is being 8 diverted away from the true Seine River course and 9 into the Floodway, through these spill weirs. 10 This little box here -- I will show you another 11 image in a moment -- is the intake where the Seine 12 River passes underneath the Floodway and carries 13 on north. 14 Here, again, you can see the water; 15 clearly not a severe flood threat at this point. 16 A substantial amount of river water is passing 17 into the Floodway and discharging out here in the 18 Floodway through these culverts. At a time like 19 this, this is where the river is expected to cross 20 and carry on to the lower 27 kilometers. 21 Here's another perspective of how that 22 works. This little tiny dot right there is that 23 intake box. The water has to cross another 24 1450 feet, or 460 metres, and a bulk of the water 25 is diverted into the Floodway. 02875 1 The theoretical maximum flow capacity 2 of this siphon is 4.2 cms. However, the siphon 3 restricts the Seine River flows into the City of 4 Winnipeg at a typical rate of about 2.1 cms, if 5 the siphon is clear. Even at this flow, water 6 still spills over the weir and into the Floodway. 7 Historically, flows to the Seine River 8 in the City of Winnipeg were much higher. In 9 fact, the average spring flows were closer to 8-10 10 cubic metres a second. 11 This is a very important graph. It 12 shows the daily average from the beginning of 13 March to the end of October cycle and this is a 14 12-year average of 12 different years. 15 Please notice that in the spring, the 16 river is choked at an average of 2.1 cms and that 17 would be just right along this line. So, these 18 blue spikes are cut off on an average of 2.1. 19 From mid-march to late May, this 20 represents the natural spring levels and natural 21 capacity of the river. Also shown in green, this 22 little line here, is the flow which permits fish 23 passage and this is from mid-March to mid-June, 24 fish cannot go upstream from here to here because 25 of the speed of the water, velocity of the water 02876 1 going through the siphon the way it is now. 2 So, why are we concerned about this? 3 The water carries on to the Winnipeg. Here's the 4 exit of the siphon and the river meanders on to 5 Winnipeg. This is the area that is of also 6 significant concern. 7 This is a cross-section of a typical 8 river. It is the floodplain area that we are most 9 concerned about. It is amply named because it is 10 the area that floods. However, when the water 11 levels are restricted so much, the floodplain does 12 not truly flood any longer. 13 The floodplain and the riparian zone, 14 over all, is probably one of the most sensitive 15 and diverse habitats in a Prairie Region. You can 16 recognize instantly, in this little area, that 17 this is where the aquatic and the terrestrial 18 habitats meet and interact. This is very, very 19 sensitive. 20 What we have referred to as 21 flushing -- it kind of sums up our terminology for 22 this really well -- is for the waters to rise 23 above into the floodplain and over the bench, 24 which is the very, very edge of the riverbank. We 25 are not proposing significant volumes of water 02877 1 beyond that. That should be adequate to flood 2 that floodplain like it traditionally was. 3 So, the image up here of the Seine 4 River, this would be the area that would need to 5 be flooded. Just over that. 6 So, in your documents, the figure of 7 2.0 and 2.5 was not used in the study. We were 8 using 4.2 as the extreme maximum, which we decided 9 was not really a true or proper representation of 10 that. 11 This is in the Bois des esprits 12 forest. This is an oxbow. This is within -- 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, the what 14 forest? 15 MR. DANYLUK: The "Bois des esprits". 16 I am kind of forbidden to say it in English. It 17 is located in St. Vital, between Bishop Grandin 18 and the Perimeter. It is an 80-acre forest, with 19 33 acres of floodplain. Within the floodplain, 20 there are these ancient riverbeds, which are known 21 as oxbows, which are extremely rare and extremely 22 sensitive habitats. This is flooded due to rains. 23 So, there is none of the silt that would be 24 brought up and deposited from a river flowing 25 naturally. 02878 1 These can have spring -- not even 2 floodings -- but, they get filled up in the spring 3 and that is just based on rainfall. 4 Again, this is what the river looks 5 like when the flows are not occurring. 6 In Winnipeg, there are approximately 7 380 acres of floodplain in the natural urban 8 quarter and these are valued at approximately 9 $6 million. They are only valued at that because 10 the City of Winnipeg restricts the value at 15,000 11 per acre, so we are just under $6 million. 12 Again, this is the floodplain area we 13 are referring to as the 380 acres. There is much 14 more park areas and lands above and the uplands. 15 This is where the river exits the siphon and then 16 arrives at the Red River at the forks -- the other 17 forks. 18 Therefore, the shoreline plant 19 communities or habitat along the 52.4 kilometers 20 of riverbank are no longer experiencing the normal 21 conditions required of a floodplain. According to 22 DFO, natural shores are among the world's most 23 effective, least expensive erosion controls. The 24 mix of plants, shrubs and trees forms a complex 25 web of roots and foliage that knits the waterfront 02879 1 together, holding the bank in place. Improved 2 bank stability reduces habitat and land loss and 3 maintains higher water quality. 4 An inadequate volume of water from 90 5 percent of the Seine River watershed crosses the 6 Floodway, eliminating natural flushes and critical 7 deposits of silt. Consequently, a significant 8 amount of the water in the lower Seine River is 9 urban runoff. Urban runoff is rich in road salt, 10 not river silt. 11 In addition to the hundreds of aquatic 12 and terrestrial riparian grasses, sedges, plants 13 shrubs and trees, other affected species are fish, 14 clams, snails, crayfish, reptiles, aquatic birds, 15 riverine mammals, et cetera. 16 I do a lot of presentations to schools 17 about the Seine River and, on average, a classroom 18 full of students can name five fish species. I 19 would be impressed if anyone else in the room new 20 all 26 that were found in this particular study or 21 recognize them, I guess. 22 These are mostly fish that are not for 23 recreational fishing. They are three to 24 five inches long at most, but they are a critical 25 component in the ecosystem. There is clams, 02880 1 snails and other benthic species that live at the 2 bottom of the river and are extremely critical to 3 the overall fish habitat. 4 Fish inhabit the Seine River in the 5 City of Winnipeg and upstream at the Seine River 6 diversion at Ste. Anne's. So, from Marchand to 7 Ste. Anne's and from the floodway to the mouth, 8 there are significant fish populations. 9 Two studies have identified, however, 10 that the Ste. Anne diversion and the floodway 11 siphon are barriers to fish movement. No 12 significant fish populations were found between 13 the Ste. Anne diversion and the Red River 14 Floodway. This is a very recent study. 15 Water velocities in the siphon are in 16 excess of the Manitoba Stream Crossing Guideline 17 of 0.8 metres per second for culverts greater than 18 25 metres in length for much of the year. 19 When the flow rate through the siphon 20 is 4.2 metres or could be 4.2 cms, the 21 corresponding water velocity will be in excess of 22 3.5 metres per second. 23 At a velocity of 0.8 metres per 24 second, the flow through the existing siphon will 25 be approximately 0.93 cubic metres a second. That 02881 1 is saying that for fish to be able to travel 2 upstream, the waters would be so low that they 3 would not achieve the flushing and everything 4 during the spring. 5 So, we wonder: How many kilometers of 6 river habitat are no longer accessible to fish due 7 to the barriers? Keeping in mind that the overall 8 river is 300, 330 kilometers long and very 9 difficult to determine it precisely. 10 We recognize that naturally occurring, 11 low Seine River flows cannot be increased. 12 However, during appreciable flow periods, we 13 believe that measures are under -- should be taken 14 to provide the maximum flow to the benefit of both 15 aquatic and terrestrial habitat, as well as 16 recreation, without flooding properties along the 17 Seine River within the City of Winnipeg, including 18 Grand Pointe. 19 Overall, impacts to the Seine River 20 due to the Red River Floodway crossing and the 21 Grande Pointe control structures are reduced flows 22 as described, a barrier to aquatic species, due to 23 velocity being too high, clogging and vertical 24 drops. 25 Also, the siphon, as we once had 02882 1 traditionally, was fallible. It had a complete 2 siphon failure. It is unnatural course of the 3 river and there are very serious safety concerns. 4 In a response to one of our requests, 5 the Floodway Authority responded: 6 "There are no plans to modify the 7 conduit further under the Floodway 8 Expansion." 9 We recommend otherwise. It a barrier to aquatic 10 species. 11 Here's a dead turtle that was pulled 12 from the grill by one of the officers of a study, 13 who was studying the lower management of the Seine 14 River. It was just stuck by the pressure of the 15 water pushing against it. 16 Keep in mind, this is where fish would 17 exit if they were to swim upstream, through the 18 velocity and up this shaft here, if there was 19 enough water to allow that. But, if there was 20 enough water, the velocity wouldn't permit it 21 anyway. 22 So, it is a barrier to fish and 23 aquatic species and referred to as virtually 24 impassable to fish that swim upstream in the Seine 25 River. 02883 1 The flow velocity again is too high. 2 If the maximum capacity were achievable, the flow 3 rate of 4.2 cubic metres a second would result in 4 a velocity of 3.5 metres a second. This is four 5 times above the Manitoba Stream Crossing 6 Guideline. Fish cannot swim against the current 7 in a smooth pipe to go upstream. 8 In addition to that, when there is low 9 water or virtually no water, there is a fish trap. 10 The water is stagnant inside this underground pipe 11 and the fish that are able to enter are left 12 there. 13 These are the dimensions of the fish 14 drops that we wanted to emphasize again. 4.4 15 metres at the upstream and 3.5 metres at the 16 downstream shaft. These are the areas we are 17 referring to. So, we don't have it very well 18 marked, but this would be the bottom of the river 19 up here and a little bit lower here. 20 In a request, it was replied by the 21 MFA that a fish habitat compensation plan is 22 currently being prepared with respect to the 23 project. This plan which will outline the fish 24 habitat alterations will be addressed -- will be 25 addressed and provided to DFO for their review and 02884 1 approval prior to project construction. We expect 2 these issues to be part of this plan. 3 Another issue in their response to one 4 of our requests, was some details about the 5 inverted pipe being repaired; the siphon. It was 6 declared that there was a 75-year useful design 7 life extension. 8 The original siphon completely failed 9 in the late '90s. "Where Has the Water Gone?" was 10 the front-page story in the Winnipeg Free Press of 11 October 14th, 1998. Water was crossing in the 12 inlet, nothing was leaving at the outlet to the 13 lower Seine River. Water was boiling up through 14 the bottom of the Floodway, however. The siphon 15 was realigned in March of 2000. 16 Originally installed in 1966, it had a 17 complete failure in the late 1990s. The failure 18 was identified by Save Our Seine, and provincial 19 support was gained through media coverage. It was 20 functional for less than 50 percent of the 21 projected 75-year life. 22 So now, since 1999 -- that's when the 23 siphon was realigned -- at a cost of approximately 24 $620,000 -- I'm using the lowest figure we could 25 find -- it estimated an increased life of 50 years 02885 1 for the crossing as we have it today. 2 Water flows are even faster now 3 because of the smooth pipe and resulting in higher 4 velocity, which is a worse fish barrier. SOS 5 can't help but question the adequate life span 6 when we are talking about a project that has a 7 700-year flood event consideration. 8 This Band-Aid solution didn't resolve 9 the issues of fish passage or increased flows 10 which we consider this as temporary. 11 Since the siphon restricts flows to 12 2.1 cubic metres a second to the lower 13 26.2 kilometers, the flushing that requires rates 14 closer to 5, maybe 9 cubic metres a second to 15 bring the nourishment to the floodplain and the 16 shoreline's critical bench, which is this edge 17 here. 18 This is a very important slide which 19 illustrates the overall effect which was lost and 20 is still required. 21 I think when we are talking about 22 increasing flows within a project that is 23 discussing flood threats and flood risks, I think 24 a society can often be frightened and use terror 25 as a means of undertaking amazing steps at 02886 1 unbelievable costs, as we have seen. 2 Your photos outside in the little 3 display shows serious flood situations. That's 4 very frightening to me as a homeowner in Winnipeg. 5 Maybe that wasn't the intent of those photos, but 6 that is what the effect is. 7 We just want to stress that we are not 8 talking about a flood threat. We believe and we 9 have seen that the water levels can withstand much 10 more. We are not talking about, like, WMDs or 11 waters of mass destruction coursing through the 12 river and damaging and threatening the situation 13 for residents. That's not at all what we are 14 saying. So, I hope you're not misled that we are 15 asking for flood situations or the risk to be 16 increased at all. 17 Again, the waters at this level would 18 still be controlled and we have confidence in our 19 talented engineers with the Authority to be able 20 to control that properly. 21 The project plans do include 22 installation of a modified trash rack for the 23 inlet box of the siphon. People that are 24 frustrated with the low flows in the urban Seine 25 River will actually go and clear the inlet 02887 1 themselves. We do it regularly. It is a very 2 serious safety concern. We don't encourage people 3 to do that and we really discourage that. But, we 4 take it upon ourselves and sometimes others do it 5 without us being aware of that. 6 Now people will be required to go to 7 Grande Pointe control structure to do such a 8 thing. 9 The overflow weir and siphon inlet 10 design had inadequate regard for human safety, in 11 addition to this disregard of the issues already 12 raised. 13 One thing that we are wondering is how 14 Navigable Waters would feel about such a 15 structure. I don't know if they have ever 16 formally been approached about this existing 17 siphon. 18 So, for clogging there was a log boom 19 that was installed a long time ago and it has 20 disappeared. Smaller things can still get into 21 the grill and block the water passage and, of 22 course, species can suffer from that as well. 23 The Grande Pointe crossing. This was 24 constructed in 2003 and it is the Highway 59 25 crossing. The purpose is to allow water to pass 02888 1 at less than 3 cubic metres a second. From 3 to 2 40 cubic metres per second, water begins to be 3 diverted from here and into the Floodway. So, we 4 have actually duplicated the siphon effect at the 5 Floodway. 6 In order to achieve 4 cubic metres a 7 second, at this restriction here, the river has to 8 be flowing at 40 cubic metres a second, which we 9 said traditionally in the spring would be 8 to 10 10 on average in the spring time. 11 The significant control of the Seine 12 River is now at Grande Pointe. This new structure 13 in 2003. This creates a second grill to be 14 cleaned by concerned citizens. Here is a better 15 image of it. This was the natural course of the 16 Seine River and then two lanes of 59 Highway over 17 top. This is now the Seine River's new grill. 18 Here in this channel is the bulk of 19 the water that gets diverted into the Floodway. 20 Grande Pointe's control of flows 21 renders the siphon's overflow weir redundant. It 22 remains a safety hazard and perhaps a weakness to 23 the Floodway with those four culverts in the 24 Floodway stream. 25 It also eliminates the natural flushes 02889 1 for the downstream reach of the Seine River 2 between Grande Pointe control structure and the 3 Floodway. It is suspected as yet another fish 4 barrier. It is so new that we haven't had any 5 information on that more current. 6 It is imperative in SOS's opinion that 7 the functioning of the Grande Pointe control 8 structure be revisited. It must be modified or 9 replaced in order to control the larger flows 10 required downstream, including the stretch from 11 Grande Pointe to the siphon. 12 Somewhat reassuring, here's a response 13 from the MFA. That they are committed to 14 examination of flow enhancement opportunities for 15 the siphon during the detailed design phase of the 16 project. This work will include a comprehensive 17 analysis of the hydrologic parameters and 18 constraints for the siphon. A feasibility 19 assessment of a second siphon conduit and required 20 modifications to the control structures adjacent 21 to and through Provincial Trunk Highway 59 and 22 other modifications to existing siphon inlet 23 structure. This work is currently scheduled to 24 occur early in 2005. If that is on schedule, as 25 we speak. 02890 1 Therefore, SOS requests the following: 2 That the Seine River crossing be replaced to 3 permit adequate flows to allow flushing of the 380 4 acres of floodplain within City of Winnipeg and to 5 comply with DFO regulations with regard to the 6 passage of fish and other aquatic life. SOS would 7 encourage a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. 8 SOS also requests that the Grande 9 Pointe control structure crossing be modified or 10 replaced to permit adequate flows to allow 11 flushing of the 380 acres, plus the acres between 12 Grande Pointe and the siphon to comply with the 13 DFO regulations. 14 SOS also requests an opportunity to 15 review the examinations, analysis and assessments 16 of the design team and provide input into their 17 findings. This might be an opportunity for 18 Navigable Waterways to have another look at the 19 structures and barriers to other travelers on the 20 river. 21 SOS also requests the opportunity to 22 review and provide feedback on the draft 23 Environmental Act Licence developed by the 24 Environmental Approvals Division of the Manitoba 25 Conservation. 02891 1 And SOS also proposes that the 2 following project enhancements be examined by the 3 MFA, in addition to the areas they already have in 4 mind to examine: To augment the flows to the 5 Seine River by channeling water from Old Prairie 6 Grove Drain that is currently directed into the 7 Red River Floodway. 8 Development of a marsh wetland habitat 9 on the Seine River, just upstream and/or 10 downstream of the Red River Floodway in order to 11 create a recreational and interpretive, 12 educational area, that would allow for wildlife 13 viewing and overall habitat and water quality 14 improvements along the Seine River and integrate 15 the wetland habitat into the recreational projects 16 along the Red River Floodway. 17 Perhaps use this opportunity to 18 receive mitigation credits for the 380-plus acres 19 of floodplain habitat improvements and the marsh 20 wetland development. 21 To give you an example, this is the 22 area that we propose upstream. Again, here's the 23 original stream bed of the river, the recreated 24 channel, the Old Prairie Grove Drain and then the 25 siphon. 02892 1 What we propose is to have this area 2 created into a marsh wetland, as well as this one. 3 Most of the material would be moved not away from 4 the site, but into islands and in a dyke, and that 5 fish-friendly weirs would be installed, and that 6 solar or wind-powered pumps would pump water from 7 this channel and nourish the marsh wetland, as 8 well as from this drain into this body of water. 9 We are part of the recreation 10 coalition led by Rivers West and this is part of 11 the junction we propose with the Floodway and the 12 Seine River Greenway. Please use these as an 13 exciting suggestion which deserves serious study 14 as part of the Premier's Greenway commitment along 15 the Floodway. 16 Also, as part of the expansion are 17 some affected crossings on the north side of the 18 Floodway downstream. Specifically, the road 19 crossing at -- the river crossing at Prairie Grove 20 Road and potentially, but it seems likely, the 21 CPR-Emerson Subdivision railroad embankment. 22 These are two locations where the Seine River 23 crosses these obstructions and they will have to 24 be raised, I believe, or rebuilt. 25 At the Prairie Grove crossing 02893 1 specifically, it is impassable for canoeists, it 2 restricts flows, it is chronic -- often has ice 3 jams and the culvert inside here is actually 4 collapsed. This is what it looks like in the 5 spring with this restriction. We, of course, 6 think this is a safety hazard. This fence is -- I 7 am not sure how effective that is in a safety 8 concern. 9 We would like to encourage maybe some 10 practical, creative and bold options to consider 11 here that are environmentally friendly, 12 aesthetically pleasing and we believe would not 13 cost much more. 14 Therefore, SOS requests the 15 opportunity for involvement in the early 16 design-phase of these structures to ensure canoe, 17 riffle and trail compatibility. A supplemental 18 concern is that of safety and the overall 19 aesthetics of crossing replacements. SOS would 20 like to be assured that safety and aesthetics will 21 be given due regard. 22 In summary, SOS believes that the MFA 23 and the Province of Manitoba have a duty to 24 provide a management strategy for the lower Seine 25 River, which includes a new crossing at the 02894 1 Floodway and modified crossing at Grande Pointe. 2 SOS believes that, ultimately, the 3 entire Seine River can be restored to a more 4 natural state, such as existed for hundreds of 5 years. 6 We believe that the substantial costs 7 would be vastly outweighed by incalculable 8 benefits that would ensue for generations to come. 9 We would like to thank the following 10 people. 11 That is the end of our presentation. 12 Thank you from the cheap seats. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Danyluk. 14 We don't consider any of the seats in our 15 auditorium to be cheap seats. 16 One of your last lines, I particularly 17 would like to see the climate that would bring the 18 palm trees that you have shown in the slide. 19 MR. DANYLUK: A biosphere dome 20 perhaps. 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, that's possible. 22 Questions, Mr. McNeil? 23 MR. McNEIL: Actually, Mr. Chair, I 24 don't have any questions. But, I would just like 25 to thank SOS for your presentation. Very nicely 02895 1 done. We look forward to working with them, as 2 indicated in some of those slides, as we move 3 forward with the detailed design of this project 4 to try to meet some of Save our Seine's needs. It 5 will be very shortly that we get together with you 6 because our engineers will be starting on the 7 design of some of these features. Thank you. 8 MR. DANYLUK: We did ask for a 9 replaced siphon. 10 MR. McNEIL: As indicated in that 11 information response, that will be one of the 12 things that we consider. 13 MR. MOTHERAL: My question is related 14 to the watershed of the Seine River. 15 How many municipalities does it take 16 in, approximately? I know it comes from quite far 17 south. It probably takes in Hanover -- 18 MS. SAWCHUK: It takes in eight to 19 ten. Recently, we just started communicating with 20 the Seine/Rat River Conservation District and, 21 basically, they are setting up a conservation 22 district to cover the Royal Seine and want to 23 partner with us. But, certainly it takes over 24 towns of La Broquerie, Giroux, Lorette, Ste. Anne 25 and I just recently looked at one of their maps 02896 1 and I recall that there was approximately eight to 2 ten. 3 MR. MOTHERAL: You have answered my 4 question, because I was asking about the 5 possibility of conservation districts. The 6 projects you have fit so well in with local people 7 dealing with local concerns and handling things in 8 local areas. Certainly -- is this a projected 9 conservation district or is it formed? 10 MR. DANYLUK: The concern -- the issue 11 here is that we are in the City of Winnipeg. So, 12 we have to see how the City of Winnipeg fits into 13 the Conservation District Act. It doesn't say 14 explicitly that the City of Winnipeg is excluded 15 yet that I have seen. Regardless, the Minister 16 can instruct that it be so. So, we are, believe 17 me, pursuing that as a partnership. 18 I should go back. That was one slide 19 that got omitted and it showed about eight or nine 20 municipalities. Some of them have a corner of the 21 municipality. Some are 80 or 90 percent of their 22 municipality. 23 We know there are all kinds of 24 concerned citizens out there. We get emails 25 constantly. We get reports from things occurring 02897 1 in the rural Seine River to our office. 2 There was a report that was finished 3 by the Seine/Rat River Conservation District that 4 identified some issues along the river and we 5 attended that meeting. There is just an 6 unbelievable amount of enthusiasm and energy to 7 address those issues that are rural. 8 MS. SAWCHUK: The reality is that it 9 is one watershed. There is a saying in the water 10 community stewardship and that we all live 11 downstream. The urban river, the rural Seine 12 River, everything ends up at the forks, everything 13 ends up in Lake Winnipeg. So, whatever we could 14 do to start addressing the Seine River concerns 15 and problems is a key component to fixing the 16 long-term problem. 17 We have had some discussions about 18 establishing an Urban Seine River Authority. 19 Something that we think is formally required and 20 we are currently pursuing those discussions right 21 now. 22 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. I would 23 certainly wish you to continue pursuing the 24 possibility of Winnipeg being part of it because 25 there is a lot of benefits and that's a very good 02898 1 funding base too. 2 MS. SAWCHUK: We are aware of that. 3 MR. DANYLUK: I might just want to add 4 one thing here that might -- I don't know if it 5 will be a question. When we were looking at 6 increasing the water flows, we were reassured and 7 felt really good about the fact that the river 8 traditionally could handle much more volumes. 9 I spoke to the riverbank engineer and 10 said, hey, we are asking for more water, is that 11 going to be a big problem? Because in our slide, 12 we mention that bank stabilization improvements 13 are very likely if the vegetation is naturally 14 occurring and intact. He said that the City of 15 Winnipeg owns one-third of the land along the 16 riverbank and that is increasing all the time. 17 And he said for all of their bank 18 stabilization projects, the city alone would 19 probably be about a million dollars in cost in 20 2000 dollars. So, if bank stabilization becomes a 21 concern, maybe tripling that to reflect 22 three-thirds of the river. Maybe $3 million worth 23 of stabilization monies would have to be 24 prioritized perhaps. It would definitely require 25 further study. So, we were aware of that and we 02899 1 did acknowledge that when we were reviewing. 2 MR. WEBSTER: If I understand your 3 recommendations here correctly, a large part of 4 the works surrounding the accommodation of the 5 Seine River within the current Floodway setup is 6 in violation of the Department of Fisheries and 7 Oceans regulations; is that correct? 8 MR. DANYLUK: I believe it was not -- 9 it did not conform in the '60s and does not 10 conform today, I believe. We have referred to it 11 as the illegal crossing, according to DFO 12 regulations. So, we are looking forward to having 13 DFO's input into this, as per our requests. We 14 will be submitting information to the Minister of 15 Fisheries and Oceans. 16 MR. WEBSTER: So, does that represent 17 a flaw in the way these things have been approved 18 in the past? 19 MR. DANYLUK: I think we believe 20 because of the controversy in the '60s and things 21 like that, things were done a little bit quicker 22 and we are not sure what the rationale was at the 23 time and how this was able to be unaddressed. 24 Again, with Navigable Waters, there is 25 no signage saying: "Ten foot drop and going 02900 1 through a culvert into the Floodway ahead." We 2 think it is just a shame the way it is and it is 3 extremely -- it is the most impacted location of 4 the whole Seine River. We know that DFO is 5 interested in this crossing and the remedy to it. 6 MR. WEBSTER: You have suggested the 7 restoration, essentially, of the Prairie Grove 8 Drain to come to the original siphon entrance, 9 whereas it has recently been diverted or being 10 diverted to the control structure for the second 11 Seine River diversion; that is the one that comes 12 by Grande Pointe. 13 MR. DANYLUK: Yes, there is potential 14 oversight. Just like the bridge is not being wide 15 enough for the expansion and things like that too. 16 That might be an opportunity that can be 17 resurrected. 18 MR. WEBSTER: Is that Prairie Grove 19 Drain currently feeding into the new Seine River 20 diversion there at 59? 21 MR. DANYLUK: I believe it has been 22 cut off, but we can ask our experts. 23 MR. POETKER: Alf Poetker here. Yes, 24 the Prairie Grove Drain feeds into that diversion 25 and empties directly in the Floodway. 02901 1 MR. WEBSTER: So then, how would your 2 plans interact successfully with that structure? 3 You would have to somehow block off the new 4 diversion; would you not? 5 MR. POETKER: Well, the flood 6 protection dyke extends to the Floodway. I don't 7 know if you would call it the south dyke or the 8 east dyke at that point. It is, I believe, a 9 couple of hundred metres east of Highway 59 at 10 that point. So, an opening would need to be made 11 through that flood protection dyke. 12 MR. WEBSTER: You, essentially, have 13 an "X" junction there. You would have a crossing 14 of one waterway with another one; would you not? 15 Or, is it more complicated than that or simpler 16 than that? 17 MR. POETKER: If you have a crossing 18 of two ditches, for example, the water will follow 19 the path of least resistance. 20 MR. WEBSTER: So, then it is quite 21 acceptable to plan for it to go straight through? 22 MR. POETKER: I think it is quite 23 possible to do, yes. 24 MR. WEBSTER: Yes. Are you concerned 25 at all about contaminants from that Prairie Grove 02902 1 Drain since it drains a good deal of agricultural 2 land, or is it any different from the water 3 draining into the Seine, for instance? 4 MR. POETKER: Most of the water 5 draining into the Seine would be coming from 6 agricultural land. 7 MR. WEBSTER: So, it is, essentially, 8 the same kind of source? 9 MR. POETKER: Yes. 10 MR. DANYLUK: And a requirement for a 11 good relationship with the Conservation District. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Well, I guess all I can 13 say beyond that is that I wish you the very best 14 of success. 15 MR. LEGAL: May I just make a few 16 general comments? 17 When we first started thinking about 18 this several years ago, we had just more or less a 19 hunch that the river was certainly not as healthy 20 as it used to be before the construction of the 21 Floodway. 22 We have noticed as paddlers, for 23 example, that there is more weeds in the river, a 24 lot more debris, and we have had to use a 25 considerable amount of our energy and resources to 02903 1 just clear the debris in the river every year. It 2 is an ongoing thing. That's a cost that I don't 3 think was ever taken into account. It is quite 4 considerable. 5 We really had no idea just how much 6 that siphon has impacted the lower Seine. Now, we 7 are finding out that it also impacts the upper 8 siphon. So that in total, the impact that that 9 small conduit is having on the whole Seine River 10 is really incalculable. If we are talking a few 11 million bucks to replace the whole aqueduct at 12 this time, it is pretty small compared to all of 13 the impacts if we were to add them all up. 14 There has been all kind of studies, we 15 have a comprehensive book here. Part of our study 16 involves the biology. We didn't try to put a 17 dollar figure on it. But, if ever we were to put 18 a dollar figure on those impacts, I suspect we 19 would be talking tens of millions of dollars in 20 impacts. 21 So that we really need this new 22 aqueduct to begin the restoration of this river. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Danyluk, in your 24 presentation, you mentioned a couple of times the 25 Seine River crossing. Was that the siphon or is 02904 1 that something else? 2 MR. DANYLUK: Well -- 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Or are there more than 4 one Seine River crossings? 5 MR. DANYLUK: To be fair, it should be 6 the Floodway crosses the Seine and the roads cross 7 the river, but we refer to these as crossings in 8 the intersection. So, the word gets used in both 9 instances. Even "siphon" is not the right term. 10 We prefer "aqueduct" and that's probably the best 11 reference to it. Yeah, that is what we refer to 12 pretty much, unless it was referring to the 13 Prairie Grove crossing of the Seine River or the 14 CPR line. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You mentioned in 16 response to one of my colleagues that you had been 17 talking with the City of Winnipeg about -- I think 18 particularly you were talking about bank 19 stabilization. Have you talked to them or do you 20 know how much more water the Seine River could 21 carry without causing any problems for the city? 22 MR. DANYLUK: I think our experts 23 would be able to answer that better, but much 24 more. 25 MR. McCANDLESS: Matt McCandless here. 02905 1 We know that historically in the Seine 2 River there have been, in spring time, there has 3 been flows in excess of 20, 30 cubic metres per 4 second. Since the flows into the Seine have been 5 decreasing since the Seine River diversion was 6 implemented and then, again, when the siphon was 7 put in. 8 So, we believe that the Seine River 9 can handle flows as high as what has been seen in 10 the past without flooding. 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: So, I think I gather 12 from your presentation that you would like about 8 13 or 9 cubic metres a second? 14 MR. DANYLUK: Well, that would have to 15 be studied more so, but that is kind of the figure 16 that shows us. That was that cross-section that 17 we showed. It showed that little bench in the 18 floodplain being flooded. That would be just in 19 the lower reach after the Floodway. The volumes 20 are all increasing as you get to the Red River 21 mouth. The cross-section would be much wider and 22 accommodate a much larger volume of water. So, it 23 would have to be -- 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: That would allow, 25 though, 8 or 9 cms coming through the siphon or 02906 1 the aqueduct, or whatever you call it. But, the 2 natural banks of the Seine would have no problem 3 holding that amount of water? 4 MR. DANYLUK: The natural floodplain 5 is 380 acres. That's a large volume of water that 6 can be spread over that area. So, if we are five 7 or six inches, I don't even know if we could get 8 that much through anything. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 10 MR. LEGAL: I would like to mention 11 though that this maximum amount we are talking 12 about would just be for pulses in the spring time 13 and perhaps after a heavy rain, then it would be 14 controlled or it would naturally fall back to some 15 level much less than that. 16 MR. CHAIRMAN: So, you just want this 17 once in a while to flush out the system? 18 MR. LEGAL: We want two things. One, 19 in the spring particularly, but maybe more than 20 once, we would like lots of water to go through to 21 flush out the system. But, also we would like to 22 have a slightly higher level than the present 23 aqueduct will allow on a continuing basis, yes. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, I didn't 25 get your name? 02907 1 MR. LEGAL: Jules Legal. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I am sorry, the 3 gentleman at the end of the table. He was 4 responding to me earlier about the city. You 5 mentioned something about high runoffs at certain 6 times? 7 MR. McCANDLESS: Yeah. In the spring 8 time runoff into the Seine River before the 9 Floodway would have been the full flow of the 10 Seine. So, it would have been in much excess 11 of -- probably in excess of 10 cubic metres per 12 second and that was safely handled in the city. 13 What Save Our Seine is looking for is 14 just a flush that could just cover the benches, as 15 David mentioned in his presentation, and whatever 16 flow would be necessary to do that. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 18 MR. DANYLUK: If I could add one more 19 thing. As it stands now, the lowest reaches of 20 the Seine River do flood from backup from the Red 21 River. It is not necessarily river water coming 22 from the bona fide watershed crossing through the 23 siphon crossing. 24 This slide, I think, is the key 25 information that we need to address. You can see 02908 1 these three spikes. You can call those a pulse or 2 a flush. Those are capped at 2.1 cubic metres a 3 second, if you can see that. Those little -- in 4 the red area. That's typically what is allowed to 5 cross into the lower reach compared to the 6 traditional spring levels. 7 It might be that ten cubic metres a 8 second is undesirable and that's why we have 9 confidence in a control structure, probably at 10 Grande Pointe, we were thinking or somewhere like 11 that, that would allow more seasonal, natural, 12 spring flushings or pulses to occur. 13 But, then again, we quickly add the 14 green line and is that during that critical, early 15 or mid-March to late June, that is when fish are 16 unable to cross upstream during the spring when 17 fish want to go upstream. They can't cross into 18 the 300 kilometres of river. So, we need to have 19 some kind of structure that will allow fish to 20 pass by the velocity being slower and still allow 21 the volumes of water required to benefit the 22 floodplain. That slide really of March to July is 23 what we are really addressing. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Changing topics a bit: 25 Have you met with local officials from DFO in 02909 1 respect to both fish habitat and Navigable Waters? 2 MR. LEGAL: Yes, we have had 3 discussions with a number of people from that 4 department and also from the Provincial Fisheries 5 as well. They are certainly supportive of our 6 presentation here. We have asked them if they 7 could definitively give us proof that fish could 8 not migrate up the present siphon. They said, 9 well, it is pretty obvious that it can't, but they 10 have never actually gone out and measured to see 11 whether fish are travelling through there. 12 But, they could see no good reason why 13 it could not be designed to allow for passage of 14 fish upstream and downstream. 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 16 MR. MOTHERAL: When we were in Oakbank 17 last week, we had a presentation from the Cook's 18 Creek Conservation District and we are wondering 19 if you could look back, through transcripts and 20 whatever, and see if there is any synergies to use 21 in your presentations at all to -- because you 22 will have some similar concerns on similar issues. 23 The Prairie Grove Drain, for sure. 24 MR. DANYLUK: I think it is fortunate 25 one of our consultants also is a consultant for 02910 1 Cooks Creek. 2 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. Then you have 3 answered our question. 4 MR. DANYLUK: We will ask him. 5 MR. POETKER: I am aware what Cooks 6 Creek is asking for. There are synergies, perhaps 7 some computing interest too, I think, that Cooks 8 Creek was asking for another inlet into the 9 Floodway at that point or at DeMeyer Road. 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any of the 11 registered participant groups have questions? 12 Thank you very much for your 13 presentation and thank you for your time. 14 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, could we 15 add the presentation for Save Our Seine as 16 Exhibit 102. 17 (Exhibit 102: Presentation by Save 18 Our Seine) 19 20 MS. JOHNSON: Their submission, "Seine 21 River Issues Related to the Red River Floodway 22 Expansion Project" as 103 and "Revitalizing the 23 Seine River" as 104. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. 25 02911 1 (Exhibit 103: Submission by Save Our 2 Seine, entitled, "Seine River Issues 3 Related to the Red River Floodway 4 Expansion Project") 5 6 (Exhibit 104: Submission by Save our 7 Seine, "Revitalizing the Seine 8 River") 9 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have three 11 or four public presentations for this afternoon. 12 The first is Mr. Allan Ciekiewicz. I 13 am not sure I pronounced your surname correctly, 14 Mr. Ciekiewicz, 15 16 (MR. CIEKIEWICZ: Sworn) 17 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: You may proceed 19 Mr. Ciekiewicz. 20 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: Good afternoon, 21 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Clean Environment 22 Commission, representatives and employees of the 23 Manitoba Floodway Authority, consultants and 24 participants and all members of the public. 25 My name an Allan Ciekiewicz. I live 02912 1 approximately 4.4 kilometers east, as the crow 2 flies, of the existing Floodway located at a 3 north-east jog in Birds Hill Provincial Park. 4 I make this presentation independent 5 of any group, organization, company, et cetera and 6 is not intended to offend any individual, group, 7 company or authority. 8 I wrote two formal letters, dated 9 October 8th, 2004 and January 4th, 2005 to 10 Mr. Bruce Webb of Manitoba Conservation, which I 11 outlined my concerns related to the Floodway 12 Conservation project. The letters were forwarded 13 to the Manitoba Floodway Authority. I requested 14 a formal written response to the letters -- 15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ciekiewicz, could 16 you just go a little more slowly, please -- 17 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: I have to make sure I 18 am within my 15 minute time limit. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we will give you 20 a moment or two leeway, but the recorder can't 21 keep up with a fast read. 22 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: Oh, sorry. 23 So, I requested a formal written 24 response to my letters. I received nothing from 25 the Manitoba Floodway Authority. 02913 1 After listening to Mr. Gilroy's 2 comments on February 15th, I decided to write 3 Mr. Gilroy a letter asking him to respond to my 4 concerns. Once again, I received nothing from 5 Mr. Gilroy. 6 Hence, this presentation in which I 7 outline specific and general concerns related to 8 the Floodway expansion project. 9 Throughout my presentation, I will be 10 referring to parts of the abovementioned letters, 11 parts of the Manitoba Floodway documents and 12 comments that I have heard at these hearings. 13 Just some background from where I am 14 coming from. First, on page 2, from the first 15 time I heard of the Floodway expansion, my 16 immediate thought was the security of my water 17 supply. 18 At that time, that was my main 19 concern. I attended three of the open houses 20 related to the project. The last one at the 21 University of Manitoba on October 2nd, 2004. 22 At that time, I had read the executive 23 summary of the Environmental Impact Assessment, 24 dated August 2004 and most parts of Appendix Q. 25 On October 2nd, 2004, I spoke with Mr. 02914 1 Bert Smith regarding my concerns. Although, 2 Mr. Smith stated that my well water system would 3 not suffer any ill-effects related to the Floodway 4 expansion, I decided to write a letter to 5 Mr. Bruce Webb in the event there would be a 6 negative impact on my well water system due to the 7 Floodway expansion. 8 My well is 107 feet deep with a 9 five-inch casing. I run two pumps off the well. 10 One pump is deep well pump, the other is a shallow 11 well pump. Neither pump is submerged. They are 12 both located in my house and near to the casing. 13 The deep well pump makes use of two 14 pipes inserted into the casing to a level of 15 approximately 60 feet. The shallow well pump 16 makes use of one, one-and-a-half-inch suction pipe 17 inserted into the casing. 18 For many years, the shallow well pump 19 has been used for irrigation and skating rink 20 construction. The main reason that we had a 21 five-inch casing installed was make use of two 22 pumps and to be able to accommodate three inserted 23 water pipes. 24 Something that isn't in there, we have 25 lived in the area since 1969. The shallow well 02915 1 pump has a regular capacity of 25 feet. A level 2 of the water in our well has always been, when I 3 have measured it, approximately 22 feet. The 4 shallow well pump has never experienced any 5 problems related to water flow unless there was a 6 fault with the pump. 7 Since the shallow pump is operating 8 efficiently, I can only assume the water level in 9 the casing is still approximately 22 feet or else 10 the pump would not be functioning. 11 Here are some specific concerns about 12 in Section E regarding deepening. Thank you, 13 Mr. McNeil, for your comments on February 17th, 14 2005, transcript page 868, in which you stated: 15 "We are not deepening, I repeat no 16 deepening of the Floodway" 17 And you ended it off with two words saying "Things 18 change". 19 However, I feel it necessary -- and 20 there is a reason -- to quote from the Executive 21 Summary on page 4 which states: 22 "The depth will generally not 23 increase, but selected reaches of the 24 channel could be deepened up to 0.6 25 metres subject to final design." 02916 1 I read the definition of reach here, 2 which would mean: Continuous extent, part of a 3 river, lying between two bends; a continuous, 4 uninterrupted extent or stretch, especially water. 5 On February 15th, 2005, Mr. Gilroy 6 stated on page 215: After careful consideration, 7 we decided to scale back our plans to deepen the 8 Floodway from up to 6 feet to 2 feet. This 9 modification will safeguard groundwater along the 10 Floodway and will ensure its long-term 11 sustainability. 12 Even the pages of errata, within the 13 November 2004 supplemental filing confirmed the 14 deepening and the use of the term "reaches". 15 The point of my mentioning the 16 outdated facts related to one of the principle 17 concerns of the public, is that if it is true that 18 there will be no deepening, then it is 19 necessary -- actually, it must be obligatory -- 20 that the Manitoba Floodway Authority issues a 21 supplemental filing in which they make a formal 22 statement that no deepening whatsoever will take 23 place related to Floodway expansion project and 24 that all sections of the Floodway expansion 25 documents that refer to deepening should be 02917 1 disregarded, removed, crossed out, et cetera. 2 To incorporate the design to not 3 deepen within only the final engineering designs 4 is just not sufficient. In fact, most people will 5 not observe the engineering designs. 6 I find it unfortunate that 7 Mr. McNeil's statement regarding no deepening 8 could not have been stated much earlier than the 9 issuing of the August 4th, 2004 Environmental 10 Impact Statements. As Mr. McNeil stated earlier, 11 "things change". It makes one wonder what was the 12 change that allowed the no deepening conclusion? 13 I hope that the no deepening statement 14 also applies to the construction of the 15 replacement bridges that is if techniques are 16 available, that permit such construction to take 17 place without the need to deepening. 18 Regarding widening, on page 7-1 of 19 Appendix Q, potential groundwater impacts, July 20 2004, it states: Remediation measures must be 21 implemented as required to address groundwater 22 impacts in wells due to Floodway widening, for 23 those wells with proven impact. Remediation may 24 include pump and well replacement, pump 25 replacement and well deepening or pump replacement 02918 1 and lowering. The actions required will be based 2 on a site-specific evaluation of well construction 3 and performance. 4 From page 2-4 of Q, it states: Where 5 pumping levels are already near the pump intake, 6 remediation maybe needed if unexpected drawdown 7 occurs during or after construction. 8 I find the phrase "unexpected 9 drawdown" to be disturbing. The glossary states 10 that drawdown is the lowering of groundwater 11 elevation, potentiometric surface as a result of 12 the removal of groundwater by pumping. Could 13 drawdown also occur if during construction more 14 springs are exposed, but more on this later in 15 this presentation. 16 As mentioned earlier, one of my pumps 17 has a maximum lift of 25 feet. An important 18 phrase in the quote from page 7-1: "For those 19 wells with proven impact." Will my measurements 20 of the water level in my well represent "proven 21 impact" if the water level drops below the level 22 that impacts negatively on the ability of my 23 shallow well pump to deliver water? 24 Who should be recording levels? 25 This leads me to another concern that 02919 1 I have regarding the Floodway expansion and that 2 is the $11 million Environmental Mitigation 3 Measures Fund. The glossary interprets 4 mitigations as: Measures taken during the 5 planning, design, construction and operation of 6 works to reduce or avoid potential adverse 7 effects. 8 On page 2-1 of Volume 1, it says: 9 Ways to avoid or reduce effects or enhance 10 environmental benefits. 11 In my case, if my shallow well pump 12 fails to perform, that is an adverse effect caused 13 by the Floodway expansion. If mitigation failed 14 or didn't or couldn't adjust the effect, then 15 another fund must be available and, in my opinion, 16 what is needed is a contingency plan and fund to 17 deal with such effects. 18 This contingency fund must not be 19 related to a mitigation fund. A contingency plan 20 must be of such a nature that the related fund 21 would address an adverse effect immediately. 22 The procedure to procure a contingency 23 fund should be available now for the public to 24 peruse before these hearings are complete. 25 I find it unacceptable that the 02920 1 procedure for processing claims related to the $11 2 million mitigation and environmental fund are 3 being developed. They should have been completed 4 before the commencement of these hearings. Maybe 5 they are and I don't know where to find them. 6 Also regarding groundwater on page 1 7 of RM3IR number 4b, it states: The Environment 8 Act License will consider the effects of 9 groundwater impacts due to Floodway expansion and 10 will identify necessary mitigation measures. A 11 little late. That material should be ready long 12 before an Environmental License is granted. 13 Another concern that I have regarding 14 the Floodway expansion project is Bill 23. 15 I found it interesting on page 6 of 16 the Executive Summary that legislation exists to 17 provide financial compensation for property owners 18 due to high water levels, but no legislation 19 exists to protect property owners if there are 20 negative impacts to their well systems and water 21 supply. 22 I would expect that if legislation 23 exists to compensate for high water levels, then 24 legislation should also exist to compensate for 25 any negative effects to well systems and water 02921 1 supply. 2 Another concern of mine was use of the 3 term "final design". In the Executive Summary, in 4 Appendix Q, there exist phrases such "subject 5 final design". Site-specific evaluations are 6 required during final design that are planned for 7 the final design phase. 8 On page 1 of 2 of RM3IR number 4c and 9 page 1 of CFPN IR number 6, it states: The final 10 design of the project will identify the specific 11 physical works to be put in place to address the 12 groundwater issues. 13 Page 1 of RM3 IR number 5, states: 14 The final design phase will confirm the steps to 15 be taken. 16 Page 1 of 2 of RM3 IR 6a at page 1 of 17 RM3 IR number 10, states: The detailed design of 18 the project is now beginning. 19 On page 1 of RM3 IR 13, it states: 20 Specific details regarding agencies 21 responsibility, funding mechanisms and adjustment 22 decision-making will be finalized through the 23 development of the monitoring and follow-up plans. 24 If I remember correctly, most of the 25 binders that I viewed were labeled "final". The 02922 1 phrases above seemed to indicate that there would 2 be another set of final binders. 3 Therefore, would it not be the 4 expectation of anyone who reads the documents to 5 be informed that the documents to this point in 6 time were not -- are not -- final documents. 7 In my opinion, some of the above 8 quotes indicate material that has not been readily 9 available and should be available to the 10 Commission members and the public before the 11 hearings commence. 12 Also the quote referring to the 13 beginning of the detail design of the project is 14 now beginning, and that was in the supplemental 15 filing of December 2004. They also should be 16 available. 17 I have trouble comprehending how an 18 approval to move forward with a project by the 19 members of the Clean Environment Commission can 20 all of a sudden spur the Manitoba Floodway 21 Authority in such a manner that they will very 22 quickly produce final designs, documents, 23 et cetera, after the Commission's decision. 24 If they can produce them quickly after 25 a decision is made, they could have produced the 02923 1 final designs, documents, et cetera, before any 2 decision by the Clean Environment Commission. 3 The members of the Clean Environment 4 Commission and the public at large need all the 5 information related to the Floodway expansion 6 project now. Not after a recommendation to 7 proceed is given or when an Environmental License 8 is granted. 9 Which brings me to another concern, 10 that being environmental protection plans. 11 Whether the environmental plan is a 12 construction-phase environmental protection plan 13 or otherwise, it is a mind-boggling contradiction 14 to read an Environmental Impact Statement that 15 doesn't contain complete environmental protection 16 plans that are readily available for scrutiny by 17 the members of the Clean Environment Commission or 18 the public before any decision of the Clean 19 Environment Commission is rendered, whether to 20 proceed or not to proceed. 21 In my opinion, any ordinarily prudent 22 and cautious person, having knowledge of above 23 facts, must demand full disclosure of all the 24 final documents related to the Floodway expansion 25 project. If not, that same ordinarily prudent and 02924 1 cautious person has reasonable grounds to believe 2 that something is amiss and that these hearings 3 did not consider all the facts. 4 An expectation of the members of the 5 Clean Environment Commission and the public is 6 that all final documents will be reviewed and 7 discussed before any decision is given to 8 recommend or not recommend that an Environmental 9 License be or not be granted. 10 Section K: Cumulative effects, 11 significance and insignificance. 12 On page 3 of a letter dated 13 December 20th, 2004, from Mr. Gilroy to 14 Mr. Sargeant states: The EIS considers cumulative 15 effects in terms of how the expansion project 16 would likely interact with and possibly exacerbate 17 any environmental effects of other projects or 18 developments that have taken place in the past or 19 will take place in the future. 20 Later in the same paragraph, it 21 states: The cumulative effects concept does not 22 transform the assessment of any given project into 23 an assessment of all past and future projects with 24 which it might interact. To me, these two 25 statements seem to contradict each other. 02925 1 But, then on page 12-6 of the glossary 2 it states: Future projects mean only projects and 3 activities that are likely to proceed in the 4 foreseeable future are considered to be future 5 projects. Typically, these include projects and 6 activities that have been approved, have been 7 officially announced by the proponent, are in a 8 government approval's process or directly 9 associated with the project. Uncertain or 10 hypothetical projects are not usually included. 11 Well, to me, that is a very 12 unacceptable definition to apply when assessing 13 cumulative effects. From that definition, it 14 appears that development, whether it be 15 agriculture or residential or recreational or 16 otherwise, which has been occurring substantially 17 for decades in and around the existing Floodway 18 will not likely occur in the future. 19 At this point in time, such future 20 development cannot be considered a future project 21 for consideration because it doesn't have approval 22 or announced officially. 23 Such a definition is giving the Flood 24 Authority license to eliminate future projects and 25 that is unreasonable. 02926 1 But, on page 12-2 of the glossary, it 2 states: Cumulative effects are the combined 3 effects of several projects on the environment. 4 Cumulative effects have to be considered as part 5 of the environmental assessment process. 6 By way of example from Section F of 7 this presentation on groundwater, the existing 8 Floodway interrupted the flow of groundwater by 9 exposing springs and that was considered an 10 insignificant negative effect. 11 If the Floodway expansion exposes more 12 springs and that was considered a further 13 insignificant negative effect, leads me to an 14 important statement made by Mr. Abra on 15 February 15th 2005, page 396, during his 16 discussion with Mr. Rempel regarding effects. 17 I will read from the transcript. 18 Mr. Abra asked: 19 "And any effects that past projects 20 may have, when taken together with 21 what the environmental effects may be 22 of the project under study are in 23 essence the cumulative effects, are 24 they not?" 25 Mr. Rempel stated, "Yes". 02927 1 Mr. Abra: "You add them together in 2 essence?" 3 Mr. Rempel: "Yes". 4 Mr. Abra: "And you may have one from 5 a past project that's insignificant, 6 but when taken together, the two 7 become significant." 8 And Mr. Rempel answered "Yes". 9 For me, the important part of the 10 above discussion is that two insignificant effects 11 can become a significant effect. A concern I have 12 here is who is deciding when two insignificant 13 effects become one significant effect? 14 In the case of groundwater supply 15 being interrupted in the sense it becomes a 16 significant, negative, cumulative effect is not 17 available to future projects due to the exposure 18 of springs in the past, plus the potential to 19 produce most springs as a result of the Floodway 20 expansion, who will address that significant 21 effect? 22 The definition of future projects 23 indicates that it is not the responsibility of the 24 Manitoba Floodway Authority. 25 The definition of future projects 02928 1 indicates that could happen because no person had 2 approval for expansion, whether it be residential, 3 agricultural, recreational or otherwise and, 4 therefore, not worthy of consideration. 5 Section L: The Manitoba Environment 6 Act. 7 Within the motions' brief of the 8 proponent, page 14, it makes mention of section 9 28(1) of the Manitoba Environment Act regarding 10 appeals of a license. I find the inclusion of 11 such a reminder unacceptable, while simultaneously 12 attempting to convince the public and members of 13 the Clean Environment Commission that no 14 significant adverse effects are expected due to 15 the Floodway expansion. 16 Before I continue, I would like to 17 review with all present my dealings with the 18 appeal process. In my case -- and probably for 19 anyone else contemplating the submission of an 20 appeal -- it begins at section 27 and then 28 and 21 then 29 of the Manitoba Environment Act. 22 Within the last four years, I appealed 23 two operating licenses of Manitoba Hydro. After 24 several months, my first submitted appeal was 25 dismissed. 02929 1 My second appeal for a different 2 license endured the deliberations of three 3 different environment ministers and after a period 4 of more than a year, it was dismissed. 5 For the dismissal of either appeal, 6 the reasons given to dismiss did not apply to my 7 appeals and were not accurate. In fact, one of my 8 appeals was dismissed on the grounds that the 9 license is to be reviewed three years after I 10 submitted my appeal. 11 In my opinion, the appeal process is 12 ineffective for the simple reason that once a 13 license is granted, the government of the day can 14 dismiss the appeal on grounds that are inaccurate. 15 Plus, the appeal does not terminate 16 the operation being appealed. I am not sure, but 17 I suppose a court injunction might be needed to 18 terminate an operation while an appeal is being 19 heard and that would probably speed up the 20 process. 21 It is probably important to note for 22 those interested, still on the Environment Act, 23 that Section 38 of the Environment Act states: 24 "Any person may lay an information, an 25 allegation, in respect of any offence 02930 1 against the Environment Act or the 2 regulations." 3 And Section 38 relates to Section 31, 4 and Section 31 outlines in detail how an 5 individual is guilty of an offence as it relates 6 to any provision of any order, license or permit 7 issued by the minister, director, et cetera, 8 et cetera. 9 Both sections 38 and 31 are brief, to 10 the point and worth reading for those with 11 concerns related to the Floodway expansion 12 project. 13 Section M -- getting close to the 14 end -- Statement by Mr. Gilroy. On Tuesday, 15 February 15th, Mr. Gilroy made the following 16 comment regarding the construction of the Floodway 17 expansion project, and that's transcript page 213. 18 He said: 19 "But we also need to keep in mind the 20 need to act and to act fast because we 21 never know what mother nature holds in 22 store for us." 23 From the transcript on page 222, he 24 stated: 25 "I want to reassure you that we know 02931 1 we are in a race against the clock." 2 I agree with the part of the above 3 statement that we never know what mother nature 4 holds in store for us. However, in my opinion, it 5 would imprudent to act fast as we are not in a 6 race against the clock. 7 Members of the Clean Environment 8 Commission, your decision in the matter of the 9 Floodway expansion project cannot reflect your 10 decision was based on a race again time. 11 Conclusions and Recommendations. I 12 recommend, one, that all references to deepening 13 are removed from the Environmental Impact 14 Assessment and a supplemental filing be produced, 15 including no deepening for bridge construction, if 16 such available techniques exists. 17 The formation of a contingency plan 18 and substantial contingency fund to address all 19 adverse effects, whether expected or not, that 20 mitigation failed to address or could not address. 21 That definitions, such as the future 22 project definition, be removed and replaced with a 23 definition does not restrict future development. 24 That legislation exists to protect 25 Manitobans whose water supply is adversely 02932 1 affected due to the Floodway expansion project. 2 Legislation that is straightforward, 3 easy to read, understand and accurately reflects 4 the purpose to address the adverse effects and 5 water supply due to the Floodway expansion. 6 The requirement to have disclosure of 7 all the documents related to the final design of 8 the project before the Commission makes a 9 decision. 10 The requirement to have the procedures 11 for making claims available now, whether it be 12 mitigative, contingency or otherwise. 13 The requirement to have all 14 environmental protection plans available now. 15 The time is permitted for interested 16 parties to view all documents from the above 17 recommendation and to be able to suggest omissions 18 and/or additions before the Clean Environment 19 Commission renders its decision. 20 Before I go on, page 15A, I added it 21 today. I was here on Monday and time expired, so 22 anybody who picked up my presentation doesn't have 23 15A. 24 So, page 15A, Section M is an 25 addendum. On February 28th, 2005, as time for 02933 1 presentations had expired my presentation was 2 rescheduled to this day. That was not a problem 3 for me. 4 However, there was a problem, one that 5 is difficult for me to comprehend. I listened in 6 disbelief to the presentations of misery of those 7 who were scheduled to appear before me. If the 8 government of the day, whether past or present, 9 treated the presenters who spoke among the 10 afternoon of February 28th in such offensive, 11 callous and disrespectful manner, then I can only 12 conclude that anyone who suffers adverse effects 13 due to the Floodway expansion will most likely be 14 dealt with in the same manner. 15 At the end of the February 28th 16 afternoon presentations and after I re-read my 17 presentation and based on my experience with the 18 government related to appeals on legal matters, 19 all I could see was red flags of caution and 20 mistrust blowing in the wind throughout the length 21 of the proposed Floodway expansion channel. 22 In my opinion, those red flags must 23 indicate to anyone that the cumulative effects of 24 the Floodway expansion and the original Floodway, 25 whether it be at the south end, the north end or 02934 1 the interval in-between, will likely continue to 2 adversely effect Manitobans now and for future 3 generations. 4 Such adversity endured by effects 5 Manitobans will continue and be compounded by the 6 negative attitude of the government. In my 7 opinion, the Clean Environment Commission's 8 decision cannot allow that to occur. 9 One last comment. I understand your 10 recommendations to proceed or not to proceed with 11 the project do not have to be followed. However, 12 your decision must reflect that it was based on 13 the information put forward based on a set of 14 complete -- I think it should be final and final 15 documents related to the Floodway expansion. 16 My special appeal to you, Commission 17 Members, is this: When you have made your final 18 decisions regarding all the information related to 19 the Floodway expansion, please let it reflect that 20 you are just, prudent and compassionate. 21 Members of the Commission, thank you 22 for the opportunity. 23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 24 Mr. Ciekiewicz. On your last note, we certainly 25 hope our decision reflects justice, prudence and 02935 1 compassion. I suspect, though, that there may be 2 a difference of opinion as to what that is among 3 the various parties. 4 Any questions? 5 Thank you very much, Mr. Ciekiewicz. 6 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: Thank you. 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brian Oborne? 8 MS. JOHNSON: He is here, but I don't 9 know where he went. 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leonard Wolechuk? 11 Mr. Cliff Dearman? 12 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Wolechuk is here. 13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Wolechuk here? 14 MS. JOHNSON: Do you have copies of 15 your presentation? 16 MR. WOLECHUK: No, I don't. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, who is who here? 18 MR. WOLECHUK: Is this it? 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. You just sit 20 there, sir. 21 MS. JOHNSON: One moment, please. 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you state your 23 name for the record, please, sir? 24 MR. WOLECHUK: My name is Leonard 25 Wolechuk, that is spelled W-O-L-E-C-H-U-K. 02936 1 (LEONARD WOLECHUK: SWORN) 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 3 MR. WOLECHUK: I do not represent any 4 group or organization, and my presentation is a 5 personal one. 6 I was encouraged by several people to 7 make this presentation, but I was stimulated by 8 receiving a gift in the form of a mug with an 9 imprint that said "everyone is entitled to my 10 opinions." So, bear with me and here it goes. 11 I have been a proud resident of 12 Manitoba for more than 75 years, and have 60 years 13 of construction experience. I believe I should 14 qualify to present my ideas to you. 15 I have made a meaningful contribution 16 to this province and in other areas during the 17 course of my career in construction, and my 18 involvement as a builder, project manager, and 19 consultant is quite impressive, I believe. 20 I have come to the conviction a long 21 time ago that anything can be accomplished and 22 built, provided that we throw enough money and 23 effort at the situation. And the end result 24 should provide value and endurance for the money 25 spent. And I believe this should apply to this 02937 1 widening of the Floodway. 2 I experienced firsthand the 1950 3 flood. Property that I owned on Scotia Street was 4 submerged in seven feet of water. I worked on 5 construction of dykes in the Norwood flat area. I 6 could only say that we were not prepared for this 7 disaster, and we reacted as best we could. 8 I might add this was all prior to the 9 unicity amalgamation, and it was truly amazing to 10 see how the separate municipalities cooperated in 11 this disaster. 12 I also recall general responses from 13 people all over the world to the flood relief 14 fund. After the flood, I was employed in the 15 restoration and reconstruction of many homes, 16 particularly Roslyn Road which was adjacent to the 17 Assiniboine River. After the clean-up and 18 reconstruction was completed, there were funds 19 left over in the fund, which indicates that most 20 people received pretty generous contribution and 21 funding for their problems. 22 And there were also many economic 23 spinoffs as a result of this flood, and people in 24 the construction trades, obviously, benefited, I 25 for one. 02938 1 Of significant importance in all of 2 this is that there was absolutely no loss of life. 3 We survived. 4 I would like to mention a side issue 5 in the 1950 flood, and it was part of the 1997 6 flood, that a lot of the basement flooding 7 occurred miles away from the course of the Red 8 River through sewer backup. And at that time we 9 had combined sewers that handled domestic effluent 10 as well as rainwater and seepage. 11 Since that time, of course, there has 12 been an effort to divert storm water into the Red 13 River, but there is still to this day sanitary 14 sewage being spilled into the Red River. That, of 15 course, leads to problems with respect to 16 contamination, et cetera. 17 Then after the flood came the building 18 of the floodway, which became known as Duff's 19 ditch, and which is credited for protecting 20 Winnipeg from flooding in the following years. 21 And of course everybody said it did a marvelous 22 job and it undoubtedly did. But nevertheless, it 23 took quite a while before the government was able 24 to get around to getting the job done. 25 With the presentations by various 02939 1 people regarding problems with respect to the 2 aquifers and contamination and these losses, 3 et cetera, I wish to point out that these have all 4 occurred as a result of building the Floodway. If 5 the Floodway hadn't been built, these problems 6 would not be here for us to look after. 7 Can you gentlemen hear me okay? 8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Very well, sir. 9 MR. WOLECHUK: There are obviously 10 flaws which were overlooked in the design of the 11 project, which can be highlighted by the fact that 12 quite often by solving one problem, you create 13 another. This should be kept in mind for the 14 widening of the Floodway. 15 The 1997 was entirely a different set 16 of circumstances which also pointed to the 17 inadequacies of the Floodway. You have to 18 remember that the flooding situation was very, 19 very different in as much as waters coming down 20 the Assiniboine River were certainly not the same. 21 There was a diversion built, taking Assiniboine 22 water into Manitoba, Lake Manitoba, and there were 23 several other changes in it all. So you are 24 dealing with another flood that has got its own 25 characteristic. 02940 1 In dealing with the so-called 700 year 2 flood, which we must prepare for, when this will 3 happen and to what extent is anybody's guess. In 4 my view these are all hypothetical Chicken Little 5 theories that have come into the fore. The 6 provincial government should be credited for 7 undertaking to solve this potential flooding 8 problem, but at the same time they could be 9 faulted for making their decisions based on these 10 hypothetical doom and gloom predictions. After 11 all, it is eight years since the 1997 flood. So, 12 if has taken this long to proceed with the next 13 step, maybe we should take a little longer. 14 The economic spinoffs, job creation, 15 inherent in a monumental project of this kind is 16 all secondary to this purpose, to prevent major 17 flood damage to the residents of Manitoba. I 18 emphasize Manitoba, which means all the 19 municipalities, both south of Winnipeg and north 20 of Winnipeg. They have concerns as well and they 21 should be addressed. 22 Please examine these basic facts: 23 Number 1: Flooding generally occurs in the spring 24 resulting from melting snow. Because this 25 phenomenon is weather related, there is nothing we 02941 1 can do about it, we just have to roll with it. We 2 can't make predictions and assume the possible 3 vagaries, et cetera, relating to weather. 4 Number 2: Manitoba is referred to as 5 the sewer province of Canada. We receive water 6 from Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, as well as a 7 great deal of it from the United States. 8 Tributaries such as the Roseau River or the Rat 9 River, et cetera, et cetera, they contribute to 10 the volume of the water from this land mass that 11 ultimately works its way down into the Red River 12 basin. There is not a hell of lot we can do with 13 this, we cannot dam up rivers and prevent them 14 from flowing in their natural way. 15 Number 3: The concentration of the 16 water in the winding Red River, coupled with slow 17 gravity, and that's important, results in 18 bottlenecks and flooding along its path. 19 You must remember that as the crow 20 flies from Emerson to Winnipeg is approximately 21 60 miles. If you follow the path of the Red 22 River, it is probably closer to a hundred. All 23 these winding turns, et cetera, as you well know, 24 slows the flow of water. I would venture to say, 25 when you track the course of flow and the peak, or 02942 1 whatever they call it, the crest, it probably 2 takes about ten days to reach Winnipeg from 3 Emerson. 4 To this point I must convey, it must 5 convey large amounts of water directly and quickly 6 bypassing Winnipeg, downstream -- must be conveyed 7 directly through, bypassing Winnipeg, through the 8 Floodway to Lake Winnipeg. 9 Now, with all the confusion being 10 presented to this committee, I wish to add a 11 little more by suggesting, and this is the nuts of 12 all this, the construction of a pressurized 13 pipeline or pipelines with appropriate pumping 14 stations and intakes along the way. 15 Now, this is important, because these 16 intakes would service the tributaries that flow 17 into the river. What you are in fact doing with 18 all this is that you are taking all this water and 19 directing it in the fastest possible manner to 20 Lake Winnipeg, and bypassing the Floodway and the 21 City of Winnipeg. 22 This all would alleviate and 23 supplement the existing floodway. This pipeline 24 would approximately be a hundred kilometers in 25 length. I want you to understand pipelines are 02943 1 being built all over the world and effectively 2 move large quantities of oil and water. 3 In a recent announcement by 4 TransCanada pipelines, we find that they are 5 proposing to build an oil pipeline from Hardisty, 6 Alberta to Patoka, Illinois, a distance of 7 3,000 kilometers, which is 1,800 miles. Part of 8 it will be going through Manitoba. This is at a 9 cost of 1.7 billion U.S. dollars, which includes 10 pumping stations, et cetera. This pipeline will 11 be 30-inch diameter, and in shallow burial, 12 designed to carry 400,000 barrels of oil per day, 13 which is converted to 18 million gallons. That's 14 quite a substantial volume. 15 Now, the pipeline could be designed, 16 or put into the form of two pipelines in order to 17 achieve the goals that you desire, in other words, 18 the volumes of water that you want to pump down. 19 The cost by extrapolation amounts to 20 $534,000 per kilometre for that one 30-inch 21 pipeline. These figures suggest that we could 22 possibly build a 100 kilometre pipeline for 23 $53.4 million, certainly under a $100 million. 24 This proposal is worthy of consideration, because 25 it is not only cost effective, but has other major 02944 1 benefits. And I would like to spell some of them 2 out. 3 The existing floodway would be left in 4 its present state and there would be no need for 5 expansion. No expenditure would be required for 6 land acquisition, or bridge construction, 7 relocation of buried water lines and service 8 utilities, as well as massive excavations. Like 9 there has been concern about what do you do with 10 all this earth that you going to excavate out of 11 the Floodway, and the announcement saying that 12 this is going to be the largest excavation next to 13 the Suez Canal. 14 I want to point out there is a 15 concrete aqueduct which delivers large quantities 16 of water from Shoal Lake to Winnipeg, 17 approximately 90 miles in length. It was built in 18 1919, and for 85 years has performed exceptionally 19 well, and it is a testament to good planning and 20 foresight. 21 Ironically, at the present time a 22 pipeline is being built to divert water from 23 Devil's Lake, North Dakota, into the Sheyenne 24 River. This is being constructed to relieve the 25 flooding that has occurred in Devil's Lake, and we 02945 1 should be sympathetic in knowing that they have to 2 do something about their problem, and that's the 3 direction they are taking. 4 Manitoba's attempts to stop this 5 project might cause some delays, but I assure you, 6 especially after the news I read this morning, we 7 are going to end up with this water whether we 8 like it or not, and this should weigh into the 9 expanded Floodway project. 10 I wish to compliment the work of the 11 Floodway Authority group for their vigorous effort 12 to get this project under way. They are, above 13 all, being paid to get the job done. 14 The provincial government as well, 15 having received a $330 million federal 16 contribution to this project, have their money in 17 their hot little hands and they want to go with 18 it. 19 However, cooler thinking should 20 prevail. By delaying the project and allotting 21 enough time to come up with a proper design, and 22 giving due consideration to all parties should be 23 done. 24 This should not be a project to 25 simulate the economy and gain political favour, 02946 1 because that's what it appears to be. 2 A presentation by the mayor of Ritchot 3 recently made a plea for protection of communities 4 south of Winnipeg, a plea for consideration of a 5 redesign and changes to the proposal to satisfy 6 their concerns. Cost effective figures comparing 7 Winnipeg residents versus suburban and rural 8 residents, that boils down to what they are going 9 to spend per person, and not wild hypothetical 10 costs, as they were expressed by the 11 vice-president of the Floodway Authority, are 12 simply not necessary. In fact, this is an insult, 13 a blatant insult, to say you are going to treat 14 these people differently from these people because 15 of monetary consideration. This in effect makes 16 certain second class citizens. 17 I wish to thank you for putting up 18 with my babbling, but that's synonymous with older 19 people, this is what we do. 20 And in finality, we are not dealing 21 with a rocket science and, therefore, sound, 22 practical thinking should come into play. For a 23 better explanation, I wish to use an old 24 architectural proverb or cliche which states, form 25 follows function. You could come up with your own 02947 1 interpretations to that one. My personal cliche 2 is: Go with the flow, or more appropriately, 3 control the flow. 4 I have no intention to insult anybody 5 or make some wild accusations. I can only say I 6 was fortunate enough to travel to other parts of 7 the world and witness the Panama Canal, canals 8 that were built in China and England, and saw the 9 work of the United States corp of army engineers 10 in the New Orleans area. And I can only say that 11 I marvel at what was accomplished for varied 12 reasons, and we have the challenge here now to do 13 something similar. Thank you very much. 14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wolechuk, thank you 15 very much. Let me assure you that I didn't think 16 your comments -- 17 MR. WOLECHUK: Who is talking to me? 18 Okay, go ahead. 19 MR. CHAIRMAN: I wanted to assure you 20 I didn't think of your comments as babbling at 21 all, you presented us with a very intriguing 22 alternative. Thank you for your presentation. 23 MR. WOLECHUK: Thank you, sir. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Oborne is next. I 25 see you are bringing up some technology up here 02948 1 that needs to be set up. Let me suggest we take a 2 short break during which time you get your 3 technology up and running. Let's come back at 4 3:00 o'clock sharp and we will proceed. 5 6 (Proceedings recessed at 2:50 p.m. and 7 reconvened at 3:00 p.m.) 8 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Oborne, would you 10 please introduce yourself for the record? 11 MR. OBORNE: Hello, my name is Brian 12 Oborne, and I operate my own consulting business 13 called Pantera (ph) Management. I work with 14 several agriculture and conservation 15 organizations, as well as several Manitoba rural 16 municipalities, none of which are all that close 17 to the floodway location itself. 18 19 (BRIAN OBORNE: SWORN) 20 21 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 22 MR. OBORNE: Thank you. Greetings, 23 Chairman Sergeant and other members of the 24 Commission as well as the Floodway Authority staff 25 and others here this afternoon. Thank you to 02949 1 Cathy in particular for accommodating some of my 2 presentation requirements. I appreciate it. 3 I am here to just bring to the 4 Commission's attention and perhaps remind the 5 parties of the fact that Winnipeg and Lake 6 Winnipeg, and indeed the floodway, lie at the 7 bottom of a huge 220,000 square mile watershed 8 called the Red River basin. And I know there's 9 been some discussion about the upstream issues and 10 whatnot. And I'm talking about the fact that this 11 watershed has been dramatically altered in the 12 last 125, 150 years due to agricultural 13 settlement. And I have a map up here which is an 14 approximation of what this watershed on the 15 Canadian side used to look like around the turn of 16 the century. 17 What you can see here is large wetland 18 areas dominating some parts of the watershed, with 19 the City of Winnipeg up here and the floodway of 20 course just out here. A large marsh here called 21 The Great Marsh lying just east of Carman, also 22 known as the Boyne Marsh, it took cooperating 23 municipalities 17 years to drain that marsh. And 24 they cooperated and they got it done. A couple of 25 large wetlands down here in the RM of Roland on 02950 1 the border with Morris. And we're talking the 2 Town of Morris just right there. 3 I have a couple of bits -- a couple of 4 paragraphs of my page 2 there just talking about 5 the Red River basin past and present. And Irena 6 Hanuta was commissioned by the International Joint 7 Commission following the flood of '97 to prepare 8 this work here. She went through all of the 9 original township maps, turn of the century that 10 were done during the Dominion land survey. And 11 she noted, you know, these are bush lands and 12 scrub lands, a lot of wood cover. This is natural 13 prairie here. And the blue, of course, are 14 wetlands and water bodies. She estimated that 15 wetlands throughout the Red River basin comprised 16 approximately 12 per cent of the surface area. 17 Today, that figure is less than 3 per cent. 18 About 25 years ago, Bill Rannie at the 19 Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg, 20 one of the authorities in terms of river hydrology 21 and flooding, certainly at the time and still 22 today, did a landmark paper on flood frequency on 23 the Red River, where he determined that 24 flooding -- flood events had actually doubled in 25 the latter part of the century compared to the 02951 1 first half of the century, and the magnitude of 2 those events was also increasing. So we're seeing 3 more, you folks know this, more frequent floods, 4 larger floods. 5 Back in 1971, another fellow with the 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did a study just 7 down here in the Pembina River system below the 8 border here, where he compared hydrologic data 9 from the turn of the century up until 1970. And 10 again, the latter half of the century saw much 11 more intense floods and more frequent floods 12 attributed to agricultural drainage and the loss 13 of wetlands, because that watershed did contain a 14 very large portion of natural wetlands at the 15 time. During and following World War II with the 16 mechanization of agriculture and the increased 17 ability to provide agricultural drainage, much 18 needed of course, but the drainage of wetlands and 19 the speeding up of water flow -- this is what this 20 data is pointing to. Certainly there is a factor 21 there, a human-induced factor. 22 The IJC in its research did consider 23 the potential of wetland storage and what they 24 called micro storage as possible options or 25 strategies to deal with flooding on the Red River 02952 1 system. IJC collusion number 3 refers directly to 2 micro storage as having some potential to reduce 3 flood peaks, perhaps significantly for more 4 frequent local floods. Certainly reliance on 5 micro storage only is not a solution to major 6 flooding on the Red River, and there are some 7 obstacles in terms of cooperation, I mentioned 8 amongst landowners and whatnot. However, they 9 said the feasibility of micro storage for flood 10 peak productions should continue to be analyzed. 11 They also refer to wetland storage as 12 a possibility as well. They commission several 13 papers on it. Again, probably cost prohibitive in 14 terms of a straight flood solution. And really 15 what I'm trying to point out is, yes, the IJC 16 looked at those two options, micro storage and 17 wetland storage, for flood control only, and they 18 don't pass the test economically. 19 However, they do provide a lot of 20 other benefits that this Government of Manitoba is 21 interested in, one of which is water quality in 22 Lake Winnipeg. Wetlands, for example, are proven 23 to have major positive impacts on water quality. 24 The research I'm familiar with on some small dams 25 in Southern Manitoba, which are micro storage, 02953 1 also have a tremendous ability to retain up to 90 2 per cent of phosphorous and nitrogen nutrients 3 which are causing problems in Lake Winnipeg right 4 now. 5 So I am trying to just remind people 6 that there are some other solutions out there that 7 can play a small role in terms of flood reduction, 8 but they also provide some other major benefits, 9 specifically water quality protection. And there 10 is others including wildlife habitat, aesthetic 11 value, and local community benefits in the form of 12 infrastructure cost savings which I am familiar 13 with. 14 Really, the most important benefit in 15 terms of Manitoba, and the current policy climate 16 around Lake Winnipeg water quality is the 17 potential to reduce negative impacts on Lake 18 Winnipeg's water from phosphorus and nitrogen. 19 Wetlands and micro storage can retain those 20 problems. 21 I'd like to just bring to the 22 Commission's attention an actual working example 23 of micro storage which lies within the Red River 24 basin. It lies in the municipality of Thompson, 25 in the headwaters of the Manitoba escarpment. 02954 1 It's a network of 26 small earth structures 2 coordinated on a small watershed called South 3 Tobacco Creek. South Tobacco Creek is a tributary 4 contributing watershed of the Morris River system, 5 and the Deerwood Soil and Water Management 6 Association since 1984 has been working to 7 construct these structures, these small micro 8 storage structures, combined with some 9 improvements in their own field management 10 conservation agriculture techniques. 11 They have three types of these 12 structures, one of which are called dry dams which 13 are primarily flood control structures. They have 14 back flood dams, which are primarily used to 15 irrigate pasture. And they have multi-purpose 16 dams which provide some degree of flood control as 17 well as wildlife benefits because they only draw 18 down by 50 per cent. 19 I'm going to show you a picture of 20 what these look like. Right here on your right is 21 an example of a Deerwood small dam, 26 of which 22 lie in the South Tobacco Creek. They were 23 designed to address serious problems like this on 24 a local level. This is a culvert washing out in 25 the Municipality of Thompson. A culvert like that 02955 1 costs in excess of $25,000 to replace. The 2 Municipality of Thompson, since the Deerwood 3 structures were fully installed, estimates they 4 are saving $25,000 a year, each year and every 5 year for the next 50 years in avoided 6 infrastructure damage. Those numbers come from 7 federal government hydrology research, combined 8 with some economic analysis of the lifecycle of 9 these dams. They have very minor operating and 10 maintenance costs, thus the 50 year life span. 11 The bottom line is, municipalities are 12 saving a lot of money by not having to replace 13 roads, bridges and ditches nearly as much as they 14 used to. And when compared to a municipality 15 immediately to the south, in the exact same 16 landscape, the claims, the disaster assistance 17 claims to the Manitoba Government are one-tenth of 18 the price that they are in the municipality of 19 Stanley, virtually identical landscape. 20 So there is something going on at a 21 local level in one part of Manitoba which is 22 having an impact in the Red River basin. It's a 23 very small impact, but I'll show you what it could 24 mean. 25 This chart here on the left shows the 02956 1 peak flow reduction, which can be achieved by one 2 of these small dams. They may drain a small area 3 of five to 15 to 20 acres in size, and store up to 4 3 to 4,000 cubic metres of water. What this is 5 here is a chart of the original peak flow before 6 the dam. So this is the water flowing into the 7 dam in metres per second, it's very small amounts 8 we're talking about, over a couple of days back in 9 1991. 10 As you can see, the water is in and 11 out very rapidly. And as we know in flood damage, 12 it's a last few inches, or last few feet that do 13 all the damage. That water is in and out very 14 quickly and on its way to the floodway and 15 Winnipeg. 16 With the dam installed, this is the 17 kind of reduction we are seeing. That's a 90 per 18 cent peak flow reduction on one very small 19 watershed. And if anyone has seen frequency 20 curves for larger river systems with natural flow, 21 it looks very much like this. This is a natural 22 hydrologic curve. We are replicating natural 23 runoff with our small dams. 24 Now, the combined effect, and this is 25 sort of the opposite of cumulative effects, this 02957 1 is cumulative benefits. This is a 29 square mile 2 watershed, the South Tobacco Creek. These are the 3 26 small dams primarily in the headwaters along 4 the Manitoba escarpment. The Town of Miami is 5 right here. This is 30 per cent control in our 6 small watershed, and overall at the very bottom of 7 the watershed, we can see a peak flow reduction of 8 25 per cent. So we do 90 per cent on individual 9 sites, 25 per cent at the bottom. We think that 10 there may be a potential for perhaps a 10 per cent 11 peak flow reduction over the larger Tobacco Creek 12 watershed, which is about 400 square miles in 13 size. 14 I have some data on the economic 15 evaluation of these dams, which I won't get into 16 too much, aside from the fact that they were 17 proven to have a payback period of between 16 and 18 25 years, based on the benefits received solely by 19 two municipalities in avoided infrastructure 20 damage. So we're talking hard costs, not soft 21 environmental costs, and the 50 year life span of 22 the dams as estimated by Agriculture Canada. 23 I'd like to talk now about an 24 initiative that I want you to know about. It's 25 called the Tobacco Creek model watershed. And 02958 1 based on the experience in 29 square miles here 2 that I've just described of a 25 per cent peak 3 flow reduction at the bottom of this water shed 4 right here, okay. 90 per cent on a farm site, 25 5 per cent at the bottom of this watershed. We have 6 decided to advance the concept by working with our 7 neighboring municipalities, and you can see the 8 Municipality of Dufferin here, Morris, Roland, 9 Thompson and a little bit of Lorne. This is a 400 10 square mile watershed, and these black lines are 11 major elevation lines in the region. 12 All of the small dams that Deerwood 13 has built, which is 26 in this watershed, are 14 above a 1,050 elevation above sea level. They do 15 have some other small dams in the headwaters of 16 these sub watersheds here. That is North Tobacco 17 Creek, South Tobacco Creek, Graham Creek, and we 18 call this the 4N or Tobacco Creek Drain. 19 What we're getting at here is building 20 on the scientific research of the Deerwood 21 Association, because these three stars represent 22 what is Canada's most detailed monitoring of an 23 agricultural watershed in the country. There is 24 currently a $600,000 project under way with 25 Agriculture Canada and Environment Canada and 02959 1 Ducks Unlimited, to monitor the effects of runoff, 2 water quality, and very many other parameters of 3 the work of the association. We want to build on 4 that scientific research and see if we can expand 5 the impact across the 400 square mile region and 6 monitor our impacts at the bottom of each sub 7 watershed, and one in the middle and one down 8 here. 9 We're calling it a living watershed 10 laboratory, and we think that the Commission and 11 the Floodway Authority should know about it 12 because it's a valuable piece of data. It's a 13 piece of a clue into what's going on throughout 14 the Red River basin system. Because if Bill 15 Rannie is right and those floods are increasing, 16 happening at an increasing frequency, and the 17 magnitude is better, we are going to need another 18 floodway expansion at some point in the future, 19 again, because the problem may be continuing. 20 The IJC did say that micro storage and 21 wetland storage have a role to play and they 22 should be analyzed. Nobody is doing that. So 23 what I'm suggesting today is for the Commission's 24 consideration and the Authority's consideration. 25 As the major recipient of the bulk of the money 02960 1 devoted to addressing the challenge of flooding in 2 the Red River basin, perhaps a small percentage of 3 your budget could be devoted to exploring some of 4 the questions that the IJC raised such as wetland 5 restoration and micro storage. 6 I have a little problem with the IJC's 7 dismissal of the concept of micro storage being 8 too difficult to achieve, because we are achieving 9 it in this watershed and we plan to achieve it 10 throughout a larger region. 11 This is 400 square miles of a major 12 part of the lower Red River Valley in Manitoba. 13 We have developed partnerships with five 14 municipalities, and now two conservation 15 districts. We are seeing peak flow reductions of 16 25 per cent in our community. We think we can 17 perhaps achieve 10 per cent peak flow reduction at 18 the bottom here. 19 We call it the model watershed because 20 we think other watersheds should be adopting and 21 following our lead, and we aim to do research that 22 may benefit and help them achieve that. We think 23 the floodway just might benefit from this too, by 24 lessening the impact, just a little bit, maybe 10 25 per cent. If the entire Red River basin had some 02961 1 kind of system in place like we're talking about 2 here, perhaps a 10 per cent shaving of the peak 3 flow could be achieved. Maybe that's significant. 4 I'm going to close with that, and if 5 there's any questions, I could attempt to answer 6 them. I do have 40 copies of my brief to you, as 7 well as copies of the Tobacco Creek model 8 watershed management plan that we're trying to 9 implement now. We're just releasing this really 10 today and yesterday and over the next few days. 11 So if you need copies I have those. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 13 Mr. Oborne. Barrie. 14 MR. WEBSTER: One of the important 15 considerations when we look at this kind of water 16 retention scheme is, how much agricultural land 17 does it take out of production? 18 MR. OBORNE: The small dams that I 19 described are in very marginal locations, and 20 steep ravines, we're talking about zero prime land 21 being taken out of production. However, some 22 grazing land, if that was a concern. But most of 23 the farmers actually helped pay for these sites 24 because they are getting a benefit themselves. 25 They are getting fresh clean water for their 02962 1 cattle. And the research says that clean water 2 can result in cattle weight gains of 50 per cent 3 higher than they would if they were just drinking 4 out of the creek. So they are a benefit to the 5 farmers. 6 MR. WEBSTER: You began by showing us 7 where the Boyne Marsh was in particular, and 8 indicating that there were several other large 9 formerly wetlands in the valley. Is the water 10 retention scheme you're talking about connected at 11 all with any kind of thought of restoring those 12 wetlands? 13 MR. OBORNE: Very much so, and I thank 14 you for reminding me. I did intend to tell you of 15 our plans. I mentioned in this western upland 16 region. This is the site of where we think the 17 micro storage should go. We have proven that it 18 works and we need maybe 30 to 40 more small dams 19 up here. In this region here, this is high value 20 irrigation land, high value potato land. Potato 21 growers need water, and there is an interest in 22 working together with the irrigation industry, as 23 well as Ducks Unlimited, for example, on restoring 24 some of the major wetlands which do exist here, 25 which would provide both flood control benefits, 02963 1 water quality benefits, and water supply for 2 irrigated agriculture. 3 That starts to raise the possibility 4 of just an incredible vision of sustainability 5 that we need in rural Manitoba, with some major 6 downstream benefits to Lake Winnipeg and the 7 residents who would benefit from the floodway. 8 So, yes, we do have some sites here 9 that we want to work on. We're going to start on 10 a small scale first. There's lots of -- there's 11 one last wetland left in this watershed that 12 hasn't been drained. The second last one was 13 drained last year. And we think, actually it's 14 very easy to restore a wetland if it's, you know, 15 if it hasn't been affected too much and very easy 16 to put a small plug in it for very low cost. 17 The larger sites that do exist down 18 here in this region are in higher value land, and 19 it is going to take more creative answers to bring 20 those ones back. However, we are very excited at 21 the fact that three of our municipalities in this 22 area, whose taxes come from this high value land, 23 appreciate the importance of storing some water 24 and have talked about putting a mill rate in place 25 to maybe buy up some of this, buy up one of these 02964 1 sites, and pay the landowner for what it's worth, 2 with larger benefits to the other taxpayers. 3 MR. WEBSTER: The impression of your 4 original map was that they were quite large 5 continuous areas of original wetland. But what 6 you're telling us is that if, for instance, over 7 in the area near Carman, as I understand it, 8 that's very high value land over there? 9 MR. OBORNE: Yes. 10 MR. WEBSTER: So are you suggesting 11 those wetlands would be restored or is it only 12 small parts of these wetlands? 13 MR. OBORNE: These are the three main 14 ones that I'm referring to. These lie within our 15 watershed, as do these ones here. I'm sorry, I 16 have another map which has our watershed outline 17 in it which basically looks something like this 18 So we do have some major sites in there, but this 19 certainly is a major challenge. 20 The reality today is, if you go to the 21 area north of Brunkild, if they get any kind of 22 serious rain, the farmers are complaining about 23 water anyway. The water is piling up there anyway 24 because it's naturally designed to do that. 25 So I think farmers are looking for 02965 1 creative ways to make a living. And there's a lot 2 of talk in the industry about paying farmers for 3 providing what they call ecological services. 4 Perhaps this is one way that we look at paying 5 farmers for providing water quality and wetlands 6 and flood control, perhaps in place of growing a 7 crop that hasn't changed in price in real terms in 8 45 years. 9 MR. MOTHERAL: I have no questions, 10 Mr. Oborne. I am very familiar, as you know, with 11 some of the projects you do and we have worked 12 together before. And you don't have to convince 13 me of the value of small dams. And in a watershed 14 as big as the Red River, if we go to Saskatchewan 15 Manitoba, North Dakota and Ontario, and we all did 16 what we should be doing with those things, it 17 would certainly lessen the problem with the Red 18 River, I realize that. So no convincing here. 19 And certainly in my past years, I have 20 been after the Water Stewardship, et cetera, to 21 pay me to store water, because they can have my 22 land if they are going to pay me. And it comes 23 into reflection of the problems we have south of 24 Winnipeg. So thank you very much. 25 MR. OBORNE: Just to say that this is, 02966 1 you know, it's more than a dream and an idea, it's 2 actually occurring. And you folks just would want 3 to make sure you know that. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for 5 a very interesting presentation, Mr. Oborne. 6 MR. OBORNE: Thank you. 7 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, while 8 we're waiting to finish up here, could I add Mr. 9 Allen Ciekiewicz's presentation as exhibit number 10 105 and Mr. Oborne's as 106. 11 12 (EXHIBIT 105: Presentation by Allan 13 Ciekiewicz to CEC) 14 15 (EXHIBIT 106: Presentation by Brian 16 Oborne; Future Opportunity for 17 Watershed Based Solution, Achieving 18 inter-related Flood Control, Water 19 Quality and other Goals) 20 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dearman. 22 MR. DEARMAN: It's Cliff Dearman, 23 Reeve of West St. Paul. 24 25 (CLIFF DEARMAN: SWORN) 02967 1 2 MR. DEARMAN: I'm here today to talk 3 about a few things. I want to say firstly, I 4 congratulate St. Clements, Springfield, East St. 5 Paul, Ritchot, my fellow municipalities for 6 bringing the floodway issues to a higher point in 7 these hearings, and these reports by the 8 hydrologists, or my issues, and West St. Paul's. 9 I heard during the issues, what are 10 the water issues and when did they start? In West 11 St. Paul, water has always been a issue and always 12 will be. I'm going to throw a few things around 13 here. I will throw in a little history about West 14 St. Paul too, so you have to keep up with me a 15 little bit. 16 Water issues have always been problems 17 in West St. Paul, and I'm going to tell you about 18 a few things that happened over the years in West 19 St. Paul, and this is our concern. 20 In West St. Paul over the last 40, 50 21 years, we had sludge beds. And you gentlemen know 22 what sludge beds are. Sludge beds are what the 23 City of Winnipeg put in West St. Paul's backyard, 24 and probably half of West St. Paul stunk for the 25 last 40 years, and we had to watch for pollution 02968 1 and for water tests. 2 At the same time, gentlemen, you would 3 ask about why I'd be worried about our water. We 4 had ash dump which came from the City of Winnipeg. 5 The whole City of Winnipeg had ashes brought out 6 to West St. Paul. So we had this ash dump 7 monitored all the time. 8 Snow dump. We have the snow dump 9 right on the border of West St. Paul. It's 10 probably the highest place in Manitoba right now 11 because of the snow this year. We are worried 12 about the water in West St. Paul very much. I 13 don't know what could be in the snow, all the 14 salt. 15 West St. Paul is at the end of the 16 road for water. We get the municipalities from 17 all through our area, from the City of Winnipeg, 18 Stonewall, coming through West St. Paul. And what 19 happens a lot of times, it backs up our water into 20 our own municipality and floods out our residents. 21 So if you'd ask me right now, how long have you 22 been worrying about water, ever since I came on 23 council. And I think my councils from before 24 always have been worried about water. 25 So it gives you a little history of 02969 1 West St. Paul with water problems and why we're 2 worried about the floodway. 3 Water is our greatest asset, and our 4 aquifer is our greatest asset. Since I have been 5 working with our neighbours, I have seen 6 literature by Peter Hayes and other hydrologists 7 saying that between the Red River and the 8 floodway, if there is enough pressure on both, 9 what it could do, it could pollute the water on 10 the other side of the Red River, which is the west 11 side of the river, which is West St. Paul side, 12 which is Selkirk side, which is St. Andrews side, 13 which is the whole aquifer on the other side. 14 I asked the flood, some of the people, 15 Doug McNeil, and I asked him could this be 16 possible? And they told me no, it couldn't be 17 possible. But I read it, I heard it, so I am 18 concerned. 19 Maybe it's a 1 per cent chance, maybe 20 it's a 10 per cent chance, maybe it's a half per 21 cent chance, but you know what, when it comes to 22 chances I have seen over the years -- I just read 23 out from the sludge beds, to ash dumps, to snow 24 dumps, other landfills, I could go probably a few 25 more. West St. Paul has been a dumping ground, so 02970 1 as the Reeve of West St. Paul, I am concerned of 2 any kind of chance that our aquifer could be 3 polluted. 4 And I heard there was a concern about 5 if our water would be polluted, are we concerned 6 because it would stop development or growth? Of 7 course I am. My family have been living out in 8 West St. Paul for over 100 years. And to say I 9 can't come back to my municipality or anybody 10 can't come back to the municipality because my 11 water was polluted and I can't have any growth or 12 development in West St. Paul? No, that doesn't 13 work for me at all. 14 I heard another one today that was 15 disturbing. And it disturbs me, I'm blunt, and I 16 don't confess to anybody I'm not. I heard that 17 someone won the lottery today. And I know it's 18 not St. Clements, I know it's not Springfield and 19 I know it's not West St. Paul. The only ones I 20 can see that won a lottery could be the engineers 21 or lawyers, not me. 22 So let's be serious about this because 23 I am serious about it. 24 Politicians don't do this because they 25 want to be up here. I don't feel like being up 02971 1 here. I heard the other day there is a gentleman 2 from the university saying we are here for our own 3 political gain. Well, see our salaries and see if 4 we're here for our own political gain. We're here 5 because we care for the people, just not in our 6 municipalities, but for all of Manitoba. 7 It comes back again where the Floodway 8 Authority says, because things happened in the 9 '60's, during the first time, that they can't do 10 nothing about the water going into the floodway 11 where thousands and thousands of people could be 12 drinking that water. What is done we can't 13 repair. 14 What happened if we said the same 15 thing to our First Nations, to our First Nations 16 and said, what happened 100 years ago, 200 years 17 ago, we can't do nothing about it. We know we 18 sure aren't saying that to them. What happened if 19 we said that to our World War II veterans that 20 came back from World War II, and other veterans, 21 that we can never help you because it happened 40 22 years ago. 23 Right now the province is taking up 24 the tobacco companies and saying -- so should our 25 own province say we shouldn't be filing against 02972 1 the tobacco companies because people have died 2 because of diseases in our lungs? Hydro projects 3 where the First Nations have been fighting for 40 4 or 50 years. And we are told, the municipalities, 5 what has happened in the '60's that we shouldn't, 6 that the province or that authorities shouldn't 7 care about it, or the municipalities shouldn't 8 care about? 9 Something is -- I don't know, it 10 doesn't sound right to me. Maybe I'm off the 11 wrong boat. 12 But anything that happens today, what 13 I hear today from Mr. Clifton is there should be a 14 lot of monitoring going around, and it should be 15 monitored just on east side? The wells should be 16 monitored on the west side. So just in case there 17 is pollution, and it could be at 1 per cent or 2 18 per cent or 10 per cent, I'm not too sure about 19 this because I'm not a professional engineer or 20 hydrologist. But I am a politician, and a 21 politician is supposed to care for his people and 22 I sure do. And I'm telling you right now that if 23 we are having monitoring systems, they should be 24 on the east side and the west side to make sure 25 that we are not polluted. 02973 1 And what compensation should be given 2 out? That should be understood. 3 I thank you very much for letting me 4 speak today. I do get very passionate. I hope 5 you're not mad at me for that, and I wish to 6 answer any questions I can. Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Reeve 8 Dearman. We have heard many passionate 9 presentations over the last few weeks, so we 10 certainly welcome another one. Any questions? No 11 questions at this time. Thank you very much for 12 your presentation. 13 That brings our agenda to a close for 14 today. But before anybody runs off, I'd just like 15 to review briefly what next week might look like. 16 And I put the emphasis on "might," because as you 17 all know, our schedule of proceedings has been 18 very fluid. 19 Except for Mr. Andress, who will be 20 here on Wednesday, we have now concluded the 21 presentation part of these hearings. On Monday 22 morning, the Clean Environment Commission will be 23 asking questions of the Floodway Authority panel, 24 so we'll see the tables at the front filled with 25 Floodway Authority officials. 02974 1 I anticipate -- I really can't guess 2 or pin down how long that will take, that can be 3 anywhere from three to four or five hours, so 4 let's say the morning to perhaps mid afternoon, 5 including some time for any redirect that 6 Mr. Handlon might feel is required by the Floodway 7 Authority. 8 Following that, we will begin the 9 closing presentations. They will be in 10 alphabetical order, except for the Coalition for 11 Flood Protection North of the Floodway. Since the 12 ice jam issue is key to their presentation, they 13 will be allowed to make their closing statement 14 after we have heard from Mr. Andress. 15 I would think that we may get through 16 one or two or three closing statements on Monday. 17 Tuesday will be closing statements all day, and we 18 could conceivably conclude the closing statements 19 on Tuesday. On Wednesday we'll hear from 20 Mr. Andress. That could take anywhere from half a 21 day to a day, depending on how strong the debate 22 is. 23 Once we are finished with Mr. Andress, 24 then the Coalition for Flood Protection North will 25 make their closing statement. And finally, and 02975 1 this might be into Thursday morning next, the 2 Floodway Authority will make their closing 3 statement. So we can definitely see the end of 4 the tunnel, the end of the culvert. 5 I'd also like to note that next week 6 Wednesday will be daytime, 9:00 to 5:00, it will 7 not be an evening sitting. So all of the sessions 8 next week will be 9:00 to 5:00. They will be at 9 the Delta Hotel over on St. Mary's Avenue. Any 10 questions on that? 11 Okay. We'll see you all Monday 12 morning, nine o'clock at the Delta. 13 14 (Proceedings adjourned at 3:40 p.m.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02976 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