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