03266
  1          MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   =======================================
 13             Tuesday, March 8, 2005
 14            Delta Hotel, 350 St. Mary Avenue
 15             Winnipeg, Manitoba
 16   ========================================
 17   
 18                Volume  14
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
03267
  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
03268
  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   
03269
  1               INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
  2   Manitoba Floodway Authority
      Questions by Panel                      3271
  3   
  4   Closing Presentation by
  5   Cooks Creek Conservation District       3357
  6   Peguis Indian Band                      3372
  7   Mayor Stefaniuk RM of Ritchot           3385
  8   North Ritchot Action Committee          3392
  9   768 Association                         3427
 10   Ritchot Concerned Citizens              3439
 11   Rivers West                             3459
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
03270
  1                  INDEX OF EXHIBITS
  2   
  3   115    Presentation:  Aquatic and          3473
             Terrestrial Environment
  4   
      116    Presentation: Heritage Resources    3473
  5   
      117    Closing Statement: Cooks Creek      3473
  6          Conservation District
  7   118    Closing Statement: Peguis First     3474
             Nation
  8   
      119    Closing Statement: RM of Ritchot,   3474
  9          Bob Stefaniuk
 10   120    Closing Statement:  North Ritchot   3474
             Action Committee
 11   
      121    Letter:  March 7, 2005 from         3474
 12          Yuroslav Shumuk to Terry Sargeant
 13   122    Closing statement:  768 Association 3474
             Inc
 14   
      123    Closing statement:  Ritchot         3474
 15          Concerned Citizens Committee
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
03271
  1   TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005
  2   Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m.
  3   
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Good morning.  Welcome
  5   back to everybody.  We are now on day number 14.
  6   We have a few questions remaining by members of
  7   this panel of the Floodway Authority panel.  First
  8   of all, I understand, Mr. Bowering, you have some
  9   additional information you'd like to provide in
 10   response to a question yesterday?
 11               MR. BOWERING:  Yes.  Thank you,
 12   Mr. Chairman.  We were talking about natural
 13   levels and a comment has come up a number of times
 14   about over the period of operation that nine
 15   times, we exceeded natural.  And I'd like to just
 16   clarify on that.  Doug, have you got that slide?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  What was the name of the
 18   file?
 19               MR. BOWERING:  It was natural@floodway
 20   entrance.pdf I think or some name like that.  The
 21   thing I'd like to point out about that analysis,
 22   that analysis showed that since we started
 23   operating in 1969, the yellow circles show the
 24   occasions when we've gone above natural.  And so
 25   the impression that has been given by this slide
03272
  1   is that we fairly often go above natural.
  2               The key issue about this slide that
  3   I'd like to point out is if you'd look at the
  4   title, it's using Acres 2004 curve for natural.
  5   And of course in 2004, when Acres recomputed the
  6   curve, the curve came out lower than the curve
  7   that was originally designed when the floodway --
  8   was originally developed when the floodway was
  9   designed.  So most of those years were not above
 10   natural based on the standard that we were using
 11   at that time.
 12               So the only ones that were above
 13   natural besides '97 of course where we went into
 14   rule 2, the only ones where we inadvertently went
 15   above natural were '74 and '76 and that led to a
 16   study by the Manitoba Water Commission that
 17   determined that there was an error in the
 18   relationship for the floodway gates that were used
 19   at that time to compute the flow.  We don't
 20   compute flows that way anymore.  But in the first
 21   few years of operation, we computed flows based on
 22   the relationship that the designers gave us for
 23   the floodway gates.
 24               It was found there was an error in
 25   those designs.  So in '74 and '76, we were
03273
  1   actually about 2 feet above natural inadvertently.
  2   But all of the other years, the going above
  3   natural is only because we are using a different
  4   standard to compare it to.
  5               If I can just clarify one other thing
  6   I think I said in response to Dr. Webster
  7   yesterday.  In removing the floodway lip, and I
  8   was suggesting it might make a difference of
  9   somewhere in the order of 2 feet, I checked the
 10   numbers for 2004 summer operation.  The water
 11   level at the floodway entrance was 756.5.  The
 12   water level at St. Mary's Road, which is about a
 13   kilometre east which is just past the lips, was
 14   756.  So there is only six inches of difference
 15   between those two.  So all of the resistance
 16   between the river itself and St. Mary's Road only
 17   added up to half a foot.  So even if there was no
 18   lip there, even if the channel had been dug all
 19   the way down to the base of the Red River, it
 20   would have only made it a half a foot lower.
 21               So when I was suggesting in the order
 22   of 2 feet, really the maximum difference you'd get
 23   by removing the lip for a year like 2004 would be
 24   about six inches.  Thank you.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you,
03274
  1   Mr. Bowering.  I have a few questions in respect
  2   of compensation for floodway, particularly
  3   flooding south of the inlet, and they generally
  4   relate to the Red River Floodway Act.  And I
  5   realize that that's sort of loosely on the edge of
  6   what's germane to our hearing but it is a
  7   mitigation provision.  And as well, it comes out
  8   of some of the testimony that we've heard from
  9   some of the public during these hearings.
 10               So I'm hoping that somebody is able to
 11   answer these questions and help us a little bit in
 12   our understanding of the Red River Floodway Act.
 13               And I understand that it's only for
 14   artificial flooding and only for artificial
 15   flooding due to spring operations of the floodway.
 16   But I'm just wondering a little bit about how it
 17   would work.  And just, for example, if a house,
 18   because of natural flooding, were flooded up to
 19   the top of the basement and then because of
 20   artificial flooding there is another two feet of
 21   water in there that goes part way up the kitchen
 22   walls, how is that person compensated?  Is it all
 23   under the Floodway Act or is part of it under the
 24   Disaster Assistance?
 25               MR. J. OSLER:  Understanding that this
03275
  1   is obviously an issue that the province is dealing
  2   with ongoing with the existing structure under the
  3   Red River Floodway Act, Rick Bowering and beside
  4   him is Paul Anderson.  Is Paul Anderson sworn?
  5   That's one question.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't think so.
  7   
  8               (PAUL ANDERSON:  SWORN)
  9   
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Anderson.
 11               MR. ANDERSON:  Thank you,
 12   Mr. Chairman.  Under the proposed regulations,
 13   where we have potentially two sources of
 14   assistance that would apply, we would attempt, if
 15   we can, to distinguish between the sources if
 16   there was some solid information that we could use
 17   to determine what might be eligible under our
 18   disaster assistance program and what should apply
 19   to the compensation program.
 20               The circumstances you apply though
 21   where we're dealing with two feet and potentially
 22   more than that, we would probably apply a fairly
 23   common principle in the insurance industry that's
 24   called concurrent causation, where it's difficult
 25   to determine the difference between two causes.
03276
  1   And in those particular circumstances, i.e. two
  2   feet or perhaps more, it's likely that the
  3   compensation package would apply in that case.
  4   Meaning we could not easily distinguish between
  5   one or the other so we would apply the
  6   compensation package which gives the greatest
  7   amount of funding to restore that property.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  What you refer to as
  9   the compensation packages, the compensation under
 10   the Floodway Authority Act or the Red River
 11   Floodway Act?
 12               MR. ANDERSON:  That's correct.  The
 13   compensation that's provided for under the Red
 14   River Floodway Act.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay, thank you.  It
 16   was noted this week that there is often a degree
 17   of uncertainty in calculating the amount or the
 18   magnitude of artificial flooding.  And I know we
 19   saw it in a few different graphs.  I'm just trying
 20   to find one.  I believe it was the 768
 21   Association.
 22               Now the 768 Association provided some
 23   information which I believe they took out of the
 24   EIS that says there is a significant uncertainty
 25   associated with the water levels or the magnitude
03277
  1   of artificial flooding.  And at 200,000 CFS, this
  2   could be from minus .1 to plus .3 feet.  At
  3   300,000, it could be minus 1 foot to plus .8 feet
  4   which is almost a two foot difference in
  5   calculation.
  6               Now, it was suggested by some of the
  7   participants or the public who have appeared
  8   before us in the last few weeks that they feel
  9   that home-owners should be given the benefit of
 10   the doubt with respect to this.
 11               What will happen in a situation like
 12   that if there is uncertainty, whether it's
 13   two feet or two and a half feet of artificial
 14   flooding?
 15               MR. BOWERING:  Once you get to a very
 16   large flood where the uncertainty is higher, of
 17   course you will be in artificial flooding even
 18   with the expanded floodway.  The expanded floodway
 19   stays in rule 1 up to the 120 year flood which is
 20   in the order of 120,000 CFS, something like that.
 21   So once you get to these high areas of
 22   uncertainty, you are in artificial flooding
 23   anyways.  And so the compensation would apply.
 24               But the uncertainty, if you look
 25   through those documents, becomes much narrower
03278
  1   once you get below there.  And really our biggest
  2   uncertainty that we are trying to address during
  3   those periods is how accurate is the flow
  4   information that we have?
  5               I don't want to go into a lot of
  6   detail here but the way flows are measured all
  7   across Canada is by a program that's administered
  8   by Environment Canada and cost-shared with all the
  9   provinces, Water Survey of Canada.  Basically what
 10   they do is they go out and measure water levels
 11   and measure flows and process the data and a year
 12   later, they publish the final results.  And the
 13   final results of course is what we will be judged
 14   by in this when we operate.
 15               And so the concern that we are working
 16   on in addressing, now that we have this
 17   legislation which really, as soon as we go above
 18   natural, we are suddenly into a large program that
 19   involves Manitoba emergency measures and
 20   ourselves.  And so we are doing everything we can
 21   to try to narrow those uncertainties in real time.
 22   But the result is that when we are going to
 23   operate, our plans are to actually operate a
 24   little bit below natural on a continuous basis so
 25   that once those final numbers  are computed, we
03279
  1   are getting a sense, my operator is getting a
  2   sense of every source of data that he uses, get a
  3   sense of the uncertainty so that he can be pretty
  4   confident that once the final numbers come six
  5   months, eight months later, we are also talking to
  6   Environment Canada about getting that number out
  7   quicker but it won't be in real time, it will be
  8   later.
  9               So we're going to be actually
 10   operating a little bit below natural to give
 11   ourselves a cushion for that uncertainty.  That
 12   will also take into account the model uncertainty
 13   to a certain extent.  But for the flows that
 14   normally occur, I don't think the modeling
 15   uncertainty is as big an issue as the data
 16   uncertainties.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  So if it takes I think
 18   you said six, eight months, even up to a year to
 19   get the final figure, what happens to compensation
 20   in the interim?  I mean people need to get their
 21   lives back together PDQ.
 22               MR. BOWERING:  Yeah.  The kind of
 23   situation that would happen, if you look at a
 24   fairly typical year, well, like, you know, a year
 25   that doesn't cause any widespread flooding, the
03280
  1   kind of thing I'm talking about here is an
  2   inadvertent slip over natural when there was no
  3   need to.  And so what I'm saying is we're going to
  4   be operating a little bit below that to leave the
  5   cushion.
  6               Under the Floodway Act, we are also
  7   required to produce a report by June 30th of each
  8   year and we will be working with Environment
  9   Canada to try to convince them, encourage them to
 10   get as close to final data as they can for that
 11   report.
 12               So anything that happens after that,
 13   after June 30th would be a pretty minor
 14   adjustment.  But if we are in a situation where
 15   there is significant artificial flooding, these
 16   uncertainties probably wouldn't make very much
 17   difference.  It's just something we're going to
 18   have to manage and work with.  But the way that we
 19   are going to hedge against it is by operating a
 20   little bit below natural.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  And as you heard from
 22   some of the participants over the last couple of
 23   weeks, there is I guess some mistrust as to who
 24   sets the level of artificial flooding.  Did you
 25   just say in your earlier answer, Mr. Bowering,
03281
  1   that Water Services Canada is involved in this?
  2               MR. BOWERING:  Water Survey of Canada
  3   is the agency that measures the water levels and
  4   the stream flows.  So they are the source of
  5   information for the water levels and stream flows.
  6   And so that defines what's happening right at the
  7   floodway entrance.
  8               But the question is, is if there is a
  9   foot of artificial flooding at the floodway
 10   entrance, how much is there at St. Adolphe?  How
 11   much is there at Grand Pointe?  At that point,
 12   they have to depend on our model.
 13               And our model, even though it's being
 14   worked on by us, is part of an international
 15   exercise.  The model is currently being extended
 16   actually by the same consultant who originally
 17   developed the model for us, Klohn-Crippen out of
 18   Richmond, B.C.  It's been extended right down to
 19   the head waters of the Red in the United States.
 20   So there is a lot of public scrutiny of this
 21   model.
 22               The Americans are looking at it
 23   because they want a consistent model right from
 24   one end of the Red right up to Lake Winnipeg.  I
 25   think there's pretty good scrutiny of that model
03282
  1   and, of course, as you mentioned, the flows and
  2   levels are done by Environment Canada.
  3               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, the Act
  4   contemplates artificial flooding downstream of the
  5   outlet.  Can you give us an example of how
  6   artificial flooding might occur downstream of the
  7   floodway outlet?
  8               MR. BOWERING:  We believe artificial
  9   flooding, now that's flooding as compared to
 10   natural, is very unlikely to occur north of
 11   Winnipeg.  And the reason is, the reason is
 12   because of the effect of Shellmouth and Portage
 13   Diversion.  Remember, there's the three projects
 14   that all go together for flood control for
 15   Winnipeg.
 16               I described that we will operate a
 17   little bit below natural, not very much below
 18   natural.  But south of Winnipeg, we will operate a
 19   little bit below natural to give ourselves a
 20   little bit of cushion there.  We have to be
 21   careful not to go too much below natural because
 22   if we go significantly below natural south of
 23   Winnipeg, then what we are doing is pushing that
 24   water around the floodway to the north of
 25   Winnipeg, raising the levels there.
03283
  1               So it would be possible.  And
  2   actually, this is one of the results that would
  3   accrue to the suggestion of holding levels well
  4   below natural south of Winnipeg.  That water then
  5   would go north of Winnipeg and increase levels
  6   above natural north of Winnipeg.  So we have to be
  7   careful of that.
  8               However, we have a fair bit of cushion
  9   in that effect because of the significant effect
 10   particularly of the Portage Diversion but also of
 11   Shellmouth reservoir.
 12               So we, in all of our modeling and
 13   sensitivity studies, have not really envisioned
 14   anywhere you'd go above natural.
 15               Now with the expanded floodway, you
 16   will still go above historic, what would have
 17   happened with the current floodway a little bit.
 18   And the Floodway Authority has talked about that
 19   effect before, but not above natural.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you,
 21   Mr. Bowering.  I have no further questions in this
 22   area.  Barrie, yes, go ahead.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  Mr. Bowering, you talked
 24   about the effect of removing the lip on spring
 25   operation levels of the water.  I think one of the
03284
  1   reasons for bringing this up was the assumption
  2   that it might make a substantial difference in the
  3   summertime if there was summer emergency
  4   operations required.  Could you give us some
  5   indication as to what removal of the lip would do
  6   in the summertime since at that time it's all
  7   artificial flooding?
  8               MR. BOWERING:  Correct.  The answer I
  9   gave was for 2004 which was a summer operation.
 10   So 2004 summer operation, from one side of the lip
 11   to the other side of the lip, the difference was
 12   six inches.  So it doesn't make very much
 13   difference.  And it's always a little surprising
 14   when we come up with these numbers, although
 15   that's just recorded data.
 16               But the reason is really because of
 17   the hydraulics of the channel.  The channel is so
 18   flat, the first half of the floodway is so flat
 19   that basically once that channel starts filling
 20   up, its back water effect just comes back and
 21   basically drowns out the lip.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay, thank you.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Wayne.
 24               MR. MOTHERAL:  Hand in hand, the
 25   compensation, Mr. Bowering, some residents
03285
  1   upstream have suggested that the province buy out
  2   the houses, the property affected by artificial
  3   flooding while others have suggested that the
  4   province should be required to purchase flood
  5   easements.
  6               And firstly dealing with the flood
  7   easements, has the province ever considered these
  8   as one way to deal with artificial flooding
  9   upstream of the floodway?
 10               MR. BOWERING:  The province has
 11   purchased flood easements in some cases in the
 12   province.  There is some flood easements along the
 13   LaSalle River for some dams that were built there
 14   some decades ago.  And the province has had some
 15   problems with flood easements.  It usually has to
 16   do with when the people sell the property, they
 17   either forget there's an easement on there or
 18   somehow the new buyer said he didn't know there
 19   was an easement and hadn't been properly told and
 20   stuff.  So there are some problems to easements.
 21               However, I think the province does not
 22   want to be a land owner of large portions of land,
 23   so there's obviously problems with buying land as
 24   well.  So between the two, if you can word the
 25   easements properly, we'd probably prefer
03286
  1   easements.
  2               Of course, for artificial flooding
  3   from spring operation, that's a vast amount of
  4   property you'd have to buy easements on, because
  5   different floods flood different areas, and if you
  6   go right up to a 700 year flood, then you'd have
  7   to go over quite a large area where you could
  8   potentially have an impact.  And because it
  9   happens so rarely, the government would much
 10   prefer to have legislation which requires them to
 11   provide full compensation whenever it happens
 12   rather than buy easements for something that
 13   happens very rarely.
 14               Where the government might look more
 15   seriously at easements specifically would relate
 16   to summer operation.  Particularly, if we ever
 17   decide to proceed with non-emergency summer
 18   operation which is quite a ways down the road I
 19   think.  I think a lot of work has to be done
 20   before we make that decision.  But if we did go in
 21   that direction, I think we would have to have a
 22   combination of buy outs and easements for the
 23   people that are affected by that because for
 24   non-flood operation, it would be happening once
 25   every two years.  It would be a pretty common
03287
  1   thing.  And so some kind of an easement program
  2   would make a lot of sense for that kind of a
  3   situation.
  4               MR. MOTHERAL:  Certainly it needs to
  5   be one of the options as we have discussed here.
  6   In many of the days, there is a licence that is
  7   required to operate the floodway and that licence
  8   of course gives the operator the right to
  9   artificially flood land and it would only make
 10   good sense that those people need to be
 11   compensated --
 12               MR. BOWERING:  Yes.
 13               MR. MOTHERAL:  -- in a proper manner
 14   and the government must look into this option.
 15               Perhaps maybe you could give us an
 16   example.  And like we know with the Northern Flood
 17   Agreement between Manitoba Hydro and the First
 18   Nations and that and maybe there needs to be more
 19   using that as an example, looking seriously at it
 20   because when you hear what we've heard over the
 21   last number of weeks here, something needs to be
 22   done in the upstream area.
 23               MR. BOWERING:  I would suggest the
 24   Northern Flood Agreement situation is much like
 25   the summer flooding issue.  Something that happens
03288
  1   fairly regularly.  There should be some program in
  2   place to allow that to happen.
  3               For the spring flooding situation
  4   though, with the expanded floodway, you know, it
  5   will happen less than once in a hundred years on
  6   average.  And so it's such a rare event and it
  7   would be so much work to arrange easements with
  8   5,000 property owners, that in our view, it
  9   wouldn't be warranted.  We would prefer to have a
 10   situation with these people that we commit to full
 11   compensation in the very rare event that we do
 12   artificially flood them.
 13               So I would differentiate between
 14   spring flooding operation and summer flooding
 15   operation.  But for summer flooding, I think it is
 16   something that needs to be looked at.
 17               MR. MOTHERAL:  And have you ever
 18   considered a wider buy out program that would, for
 19   example, include all the area that has been
 20   artificially flooded over say the last 10 years?
 21               MR. BOWERING:  Well, the last 10 years
 22   of course includes '97 so that includes 90 per
 23   cent of the RM of Ritchot.  If we bought it all
 24   out, what would we do with it?  I don't know the
 25   RM would particularly like that idea, just having
03289
  1   one owner.
  2               Buying out such a large area does not
  3   seem practical to me.  But buying out specific
  4   areas that are flooded by the summer operation, I
  5   think that is something that we are looking
  6   seriously at.
  7               MR. MOTHERAL:  Could you maybe explain
  8   possibly what a flood easement is?  I know what it
  9   is myself.  I'm sure that everybody here would
 10   like to know exactly how you would go about doing
 11   that, say to an individual property owner?
 12               MR. BOWERING:  Well, I'm not a lawyer
 13   so I'll put it in engineering terms.  A flood
 14   easement is basically you purchase a right to make
 15   some use of the property.  So we would say that by
 16   the operation of our structure, we will operate in
 17   certain years, under certain conditions and that
 18   will cause artificial flooding on your property.
 19   We recognize that would devalue your property so,
 20   therefore, we would like to negotiate a price.
 21   And then that would go on the title to the
 22   property that the government owns an easement on
 23   this property and has the right to flood it
 24   according to some agreed pattern.
 25               MR. MOTHERAL:  Back to the
03290
  1   compensation situation.  We are also concerned
  2   about not just the home, but the landscaping of
  3   the area and what, you know, if there's going to
  4   be compensation, where is there a baseline or
  5   whatever for compensating for that?
  6               MR. ANDERSON:  Under the disaster
  7   assistance program, it really only covers the
  8   essential items, the basic essentials somebody
  9   needs to make the home or property inhabitable,
 10   and landscaping has not been considered under past
 11   disaster assistance programs.  However, under
 12   compensation it definitely would be an eligible
 13   loss.  We define it simply as damage, anything
 14   that's physically destroyed or damaged in any way,
 15   so that would include landscaping issues under a
 16   compensation program.
 17               MR. MOTHERAL:  It would include that?
 18               MR. ANDERSON:  Yes, it would.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  How about loss of
 20   enjoyment of use of the property?  We had one
 21   citizen come before us a couple of weeks ago, or a
 22   week or so ago and talk about having to move his
 23   horses from their favorite pasture into another
 24   one.  Would that sort of thing be covered?
 25               MR. ANDERSON:  It's not been
03291
  1   contemplated under the regulations at this time.
  2   We did have quite a lengthy discussions about it,
  3   but we couldn't come up with any way of
  4   quantifying what an amount would be.  So now under
  5   the compensation program, it's limited to physical
  6   damage --
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  8               MR. ANDERSON:  -- in terms of anything
  9   else.  Excuse me, I'd like to add something to
 10   that comment.  The compensation program is limited
 11   to the physical damage, but also economic loss, so
 12   if it's wages or salaries or earnings of a
 13   business.  But as I said, in terms of the loss of
 14   enjoyment of a particular piece of land, no,
 15   that's not covered under the program.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you for adding
 17   that.  I was aware of that but it's good to get it
 18   on record, the economic loss factor.  Thanks.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  I'd like to turn then to
 20   the Robert Millman issue, the issue that he
 21   brought forward with respect to the back flow of
 22   water from the floodway through the Grande Pointe
 23   gap, and the drop structure from the Seine River
 24   diversion, the one that's parallel to Highway 59.
 25               I guess the first question there is,
03292
  1   would you envision that for certain sized floods
  2   that you could sandbag or otherwise plug those
  3   culverts or those entrances, and prevent flood
  4   waters from reaching the east side of Highway
  5   59 -- now, this assumes flow of the water not only
  6   from the floodway, but from other areas -- or
  7   would the water always back up to the Grande
  8   Pointe gap that you intend to expand east of
  9   Highway 59?  And the footnote to that is,
 10   obviously there will be no protection for major
 11   floods like a 700 year flood, we're talking about
 12   lesser floods than that.
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  I think this needs, it's
 14   not a straight answer and it needs a little bit of
 15   an explanation, so I'm calling up a graphic here
 16   to help explain this.  And I apologize, I didn't
 17   hear all of your question because of rustling
 18   papers on my side of things.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  Have you got the gist of
 20   it?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  I'd got the gist of it I
 22   believe.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  Would you like me to
 24   rephrase it again?
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  Part of the question I
03293
  1   didn't hear was with respect to culverts.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  I guess the question
  3   encompasses flow of water into the area, both from
  4   the floodway, and from the west or south through
  5   culverts, through structures that might otherwise
  6   protect that kind of area.  So it's really a two
  7   pronged kind of question.
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  This map is in section 8
  9   of the supplementary filing, and it is figure 8 --
 10   no, it's in the annex, one of the annexes, but it
 11   shows the 700 year flooded area.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  As the question stated,
 13   we're not looking for an answer for the 700 year
 14   flood situation, we're looking for a situation
 15   that's less than that.  Because quite clearly the
 16   700 year flood, all bets are off, it's going to
 17   get flooded anyway.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  I want to explain
 19   something with respect to Highway 59.  This is the
 20   700 year flooded area, and you can see that some
 21   distance south of Ile Des Chenes it wouldn't even
 22   reach Highway 59.  The natural ground is higher in
 23   this area, and Highway 59 is higher in this area.
 24   So Highway 59 is high south of Ile Des Chenes and
 25   east of Niverville and then it slowly, you know,
03294
  1   it's above the landscape or above natural ground
  2   but it does slowly, the elevation slowly goes down
  3   as it approaches north towards the city, towards
  4   Grande Pointe.  And at this point in time, the
  5   lowest section is right near the southeast corner
  6   of the existing Grande Pointe dyke, near Mondor
  7   Road.  It's elevation 236.
  8               And that is, by the way, two feet or
  9   so above the 1997 flood level.  So in the 1997
 10   flood, the water will now, because of the Grande
 11   Pointe dyke and because of Highway 59 being raised
 12   as part of the dyke, and in this section, that the
 13   lowest point being two feet above 1997, therefore
 14   it protects the area to the east for floods up to
 15   1997, except for the fact that there are several
 16   cross culverts for drainage under Highway 59
 17   between the Grande Pointe dyke and the higher
 18   ground to the south.  These are fairly large
 19   culverts.  They are 750-millimeter diameter,
 20   1,500, you know, metre and a half diameter.
 21               Certainly they could be blocked off to
 22   prevent this water from reaching to the east side
 23   in an emergency event, if that was necessary.
 24               So then the question is, what's the
 25   water level in the floodway itself?  And I'm just
03295
  1   going to call up another graphic.
  2               MR. J. OSLER:  Mr. McNeil is pulling
  3   up table 6-1.  It's found on page 6-1 to 6-2 of
  4   appendix H.
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  And I believe I've shown
  6   you this table before, when Mr. Millman was
  7   presenting to the CEC.  And so what it shows here
  8   then is, after we expand the floodway, in fact a
  9   repeat of 1997 flood, the water level in the
 10   floodway will be up to six feet lower than what it
 11   was in the existing floodway in 1997.
 12               So Mr. Millman, and he is on Southside
 13   Road, just south of, east of the Seine River
 14   diversion structure and south of the floodway.
 15   And he experienced three to four feet of water on
 16   his land.  And so with the expansion of the
 17   floodway, with the repeat of 1997, there will be
 18   no water approaching him or backing up from the
 19   floodway up the Seine River diversion channel.
 20               I couldn't tell you exactly what flood
 21   will do that.  If you assume that Highway 59, with
 22   those blocked culverts, will protect that area to
 23   some flow above 1997, because of the freeboard of
 24   the highway, and if those blocked culverts, or
 25   blockages were in place, at some point you get to
03296
  1   a sizeable flood that will back up onto the
  2   landscape before the Red River spills over Highway
  3   59 from the west.  And I would take a guess and
  4   say that that would probably not occur until about
  5   a 200 year flood, or thereabouts, where that water
  6   would back up through the Seine River diversion.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  So two sub questions
  8   then.  First of all, are there facilities in place
  9   at those culverts to block them if necessary?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  No, there are not.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  Is it possible to
 12   install that fairly easily?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  For the frequency of the
 14   event, we probably wouldn't look at permanent
 15   works.  But certainly in an emergency operation,
 16   blockage of culverts with a piece of plywood and
 17   sandbags and whatnot is quite often undertaken.
 18   It all depends on where the water is coming from
 19   and what's happening at the time.  It also relates
 20   to the spring drainage melting and the runoff in
 21   the local area.  Typically, you know, the Seine
 22   River is a good example.  The local runoff in
 23   Manitoba typically occurs prior to the water
 24   coming from the States.
 25               And as a good example, people that
03297
  1   live along the Morris River tell me they see two
  2   peaks, they see the peak of the Morris flowing out
  3   towards the Red, and then they see the peak of the
  4   Red backing up to the Morris.  And that's typical
  5   of a lot of the tributaries in Manitoba.
  6               So would you block the culvert?  You
  7   have to assess it at the time of the flood and
  8   determine if it is going to cause more harm than
  9   good, because those culverts are there for local
 10   drainage.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  Is that decision to
 12   block the culvert part of the operation of the
 13   floodway?  In other words, would it be handled by
 14   the Floodway Authority?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  No, that's part of the
 16   flood protection measures that are taken either by
 17   the municipality, if it's their responsibility, or
 18   by Manitoba Water Stewardship related to ring
 19   dykes and whatnot.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  Is it coordinated with
 21   the operation of the authority?
 22               MR. MCNEIL:  The operation of the
 23   floodway is undertaken by Manitoba Water
 24   Stewardship, so they would be coordinating that
 25   with whatever is going on in the valley.
03298
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  What I am getting at is
  2   there would be a linkage so that it would be
  3   operated as one system, rather than somebody
  4   trying to play catch up?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
  6               MR. BOWERING:  Maybe I can just add to
  7   that an example, we did it in '97 with the Domain
  8   and Manness drains which flow north through the
  9   West Dyke.  It's just part of the overall
 10   operation, coordinated operation.
 11               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.  A second
 12   question relating to that area.  Could river water
 13   get to the east side of Highway 59 some distance
 14   to the south -- and perhaps you've covered this,
 15   perhaps you haven't -- and flow northward, for
 16   example, possibly as a result of backup in the
 17   Seine River diversion channel near St. Adolphe.
 18   Let's try that again.  That's the other Seine
 19   River diversion channel I think we're talking
 20   about here.  Could river water get to the east
 21   side of Highway 59 some distance to the south, and
 22   flow northward, possibly as a result of backup in
 23   the Seine River diversion channel near St.
 24   Adolphe?
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  I think the simple answer
03299
  1   is no.  I'm going to ask Rick Bowering to help me
  2   out here by putting this graphic back up.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  Just the landscape is
  4   relatively flat in the area and it's not easy,
  5   without the studies that have been done, to tell.
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  I don't know if in '97,
  7   did the Seine River diversion break with backup
  8   from the Red, did it break out anywhere?
  9               MR. BOWERING:  I don't believe the
 10   Seine River diversion broke out, as you say.  But
 11   there was water that did work its way west, at
 12   least, in fact it worked its way across the
 13   railroad rather than across Highway 59.  So it
 14   basically flooded that area between the railroad
 15   and Highway 59, and came into Grande Pointe from
 16   that direction.  But to go further across Highway
 17   59, I think just by the lay of the land, you can
 18   see that that's -- basically the flooding that's
 19   likely to occur to the east of Highway 59 would
 20   most likely be, as you suggested, Doug, Seine
 21   River local runoff that would happen.
 22               Now, if the older Seine River
 23   diversion got plugged with ice, which does happen
 24   on occasion, and so far we've always been
 25   successful at breaking that up and getting the ice
03300
  1   through, but if it does block up, then more flow
  2   would of course come down the Seine River, less
  3   would come down the diversion.  And that would
  4   cause its own problems.  And we do what we can to
  5   prevent that from happening.  Of course, going
  6   down the Seine River is its natural route.  So
  7   anything we can send down the diversion is
  8   improving the situation over natural.  And those
  9   are just one of the issues that we deal with
 10   during a flood situation.
 11               But basically what I'm saying is the
 12   flooding that happens east of Highway 59 is
 13   largely local flooding due to the Seine River.
 14               MR. MCNEIL:  Hang on, Rick, let's be
 15   clear here though.  First of all, the Seine River
 16   diversion comes into the Red River just north of
 17   St. Adolphe in this region here?
 18               MR. BOWERING:  Right, yeah.
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  And so during a large
 20   flood it acts the same way that any tributary, the
 21   Rat River, whatever, the Morris River would act?
 22   It would normally discharge into the Red River
 23   with the local runoff peaking before the Red
 24   River, especially in a large event.  You know, for
 25   example, the 1997 peaked on May 1st, May 2nd.  The
03301
  1   1826 flood was determined to peak in mid to late
  2   May.  And so you have this local system that is
  3   drained out, and then you have the growing Red
  4   River flood that first backs up into tributaries
  5   and into the Seine River diversion, if the last
  6   weir allows it to do so.  And then all of the
  7   flooding we show here, though, is related to the
  8   Red River overflowing its banks and running
  9   cross-country.  And that includes, because this is
 10   the 700 year flood, that includes the area to the
 11   east of Highway 59, because the Red River flood
 12   level exceeds the elevation of Highway 59 in this
 13   instance.
 14               There are local problems along the
 15   Seine River upstream when there is a Seine River
 16   peak event, independent of the Red River event.
 17   And the Seine River diversion was built to try to
 18   prevent some of those problems downstream of Ste.
 19   Anne, with the local Seine River system.
 20               MR. BOWERING:  Yeah, I was talking a
 21   '97 type size flood where it doesn't significantly
 22   overflow Highway 59.  But, yeah, a 700 year flood,
 23   as you say, all that area is part of the Red Sea.
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  Yeah, and it won't in the
 25   future -- in 1997, because the Grande Pointe dyke
03302
  1   was not there, the Red River did spill CPR Emerson
  2   and eventually spilled over Highway 59 in the
  3   Grande Pointe area, because it's very low in that
  4   area.
  5               In fact, one of the other things is
  6   that because of the Grande Pointe dyke and the
  7   Seine River diversion, it also intercepted the
  8   Prairie Grove drain.  And that was the drain that
  9   used to go through to the Seine River.  And the
 10   other day SOS suggested reinstating that, but then
 11   that would defeat the purposes of flood protection
 12   for the Grande Pointe area.  Just as an aside.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  Thank you.  To
 14   assist our consultants to examine the situation,
 15   would you please provide the Commission with
 16   following information; first of all, the elevation
 17   of the base or lip of the Grande Pointe gap?  I
 18   think you left us with the impression that it was
 19   prairie, but I'm not quite sure.
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  It would be above
 21   prairie.  And one of the reasons, and that's the
 22   same -- so what you're talking about, Dr. Webster,
 23   is the proposed third gap in the embankment of the
 24   floodway, which we have modelled, or rather the
 25   Canadian hydraulic centre modelled as part of the
03303
  1   pre-design, and that's in appendix H, I think.
  2   Appendix H of the preliminary engineering report
  3   includes all the analysis that was done to
  4   determine how large that gap should be.  I can't
  5   tell you offhand how high the lip of that gap is,
  6   but it would be above the natural elevation.
  7               The reason for that is to control the
  8   velocities in that area, so that there aren't
  9   excessive velocities going through the gap.  So
 10   you let this fill up a little bit, and then it
 11   kicks in to be effective to help reduce water
 12   levels in the very local area, but also to more
 13   efficiently allow the water that is trapped on the
 14   east side of the Grande Pointe dyke to get into
 15   the floodway.
 16               And similarly with the existing two
 17   gaps between the Grande Pointe dyke and St. Mary's
 18   Road, they are slightly above the prairie, for the
 19   same reason, to let the area fill up a little bit
 20   and then start spilling into the floodway.
 21               MR. WEBSTER:  I wonder if you could
 22   endeavour -- sorry, did you get that?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  The elevation of the lip
 24   proposed third gap is 235.0 metres above sea
 25   level.
03304
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  235.0?
  2               MR. MCNEIL:  Which is about -- is it
  3   about a metre above grade at that point?  Yeah.
  4   The land in that general area is about 234.
  5               MR. WEBSTER:  Could you give me also
  6   an elevation of the weir in the Seine River
  7   diversion outlet structure where it enters the
  8   floodway, and that's the new Seine River
  9   diversion --
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  Yeah, I have it right
 11   here.
 12               MR. WEBSTER:  -- entrance.
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, I have to give you
 14   this in English from my notes, but it's elevation
 15   757.9 feet.  I'll get you a metric equivalent
 16   right away -- 231.0.  So it's considerably below
 17   the prairie.  And the reason for that is that that
 18   structure is wholly designed to handle flows from
 19   peak flows in the Seine River.  It's nothing to do
 20   with the Red River flood.
 21               And some of the residents of that area
 22   said it was almost under water in the spring of
 23   2004.  Yes, that's correct, at some point it's
 24   going to be flooded out.  But it's not there to
 25   control back water of the Red River Floodway into
03305
  1   the Seine River, it's there to control the energy
  2   dissipation of the water from the Seine entering
  3   into the floodway.
  4               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  Thank you very
  5   much.
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Just one follow-up
  7   question.  The Seine River diversion, the Grande
  8   Pointe Seine River diversion, does it affect the
  9   flows of the Seine River in normal times?  I'm
 10   thinking back to the presentation by Save our
 11   Seine last week, when they were concerned about
 12   not getting enough water into the downstream side
 13   of the Seine River.  Does that diversion affect
 14   that at all?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  No.  The diversion is
 16   only intended to kick in for flood flows.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  So a normal summer flow
 19   would carry on going through the Seine River and
 20   the siphon in the City of Winnipeg.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  Just let me ask you a
 23   supplementary question to that.  The issue I think
 24   that Save our Seine was raising was the nature of
 25   the gate that went through under the highway, that
03306
  1   in fact it was acting as a flow restriction on the
  2   river.  Is that something that is intended or
  3   something that could be changed?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  The gate is only used to
  5   close off flow through Grande Pointe during a
  6   flood event.  So it's there to control the flows
  7   through Grande Pointe so that you don't flood them
  8   from inside basically.
  9               MR. WEBSTER:  Right, which is a
 10   reasonable thing to do.  But the grill, if you
 11   like, to keep debris out of the structure was, I
 12   think the Save our Seine people were telling us
 13   that it tended to gather debris and then reduce
 14   flow through there in regular water times?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  When the -- with the
 16   grate that they showed you at that culvert at
 17   Highway 59, yes, when debris gets accumulated
 18   against a grate, there can be some restriction of
 19   flow.  So whoever is responsible for cleaning that
 20   grate would have to do so frequently to prevent
 21   any restriction of flow, even in the summertime.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  And what controls, what
 23   determines how often that is attended to?  This is
 24   obviously a non-flood event situation.
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
03307
  1               MR. WEBSTER:  What determines how
  2   often that is attended to?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  It would just be part of
  4   the operation and maintenance of the people
  5   responsible for that.  And I'm sorry, I don't know
  6   if that's highways or Water Stewardship.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  So it's not part of the
  8   floodway again, it is another government
  9   department?
 10               MR. MCNEIL:  No, that's a separate
 11   project that was put into place prior to the
 12   floodway project.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  And is Water Stewardship
 14   likely to be the agency, the department involved?
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, the member of Water
 16   Stewardship is nodding his head.
 17               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.
 18               MR. MCNEIL:  By the way, Dr. Webster,
 19   just to explain the SOS situation is that there
 20   was always -- well, sorry, since 1978 when Acres
 21   did a study for the City of Winnipeg with respect
 22   to drainage and flooding on the Seine River within
 23   the city, the city established a policy to
 24   protect, and it's not the spring event that's the
 25   concern in the City of Winnipeg, because the
03308
  1   siphon exists and cuts off that spring flood flow
  2   to the city, the concern was more a 100 year
  3   summer storm.  And so the city has this ongoing
  4   obligation, and they mentioned they usually spend
  5   about $15,000 per acre to buy land in that flood
  6   plain, and to protect for the future the channel
  7   so that it can be used for summer flows.
  8               The kind of flush velocity and flow
  9   that the SOS would like to see there would negate
 10   those efforts in terms of flood protection
 11   downstream in the City of Winnipeg.  Also, any
 12   adjustments of the gate control structure at
 13   Highway 59 on the Seine would negate now the flood
 14   protection that's provided and afforded to the
 15   residents of Grande Pointe.
 16               So when we said that we would
 17   incorporate an enhancement in the weir control
 18   structure, where the Seine River then enters into
 19   the siphon, it will be minor adjustments to those
 20   weirs to maximize the amount of normal flow that
 21   goes through the siphon.
 22               I know I'm not explaining this
 23   perfectly.  The siphon has a capacity of
 24   approximately 150 cubic feet per second.  But
 25   before it reaches that capacity, water is already
03309
  1   spilling to the floodway.  So what the SOS has
  2   asked is, can we divert more water through the
  3   siphon up to its maximum capacity, and spill less
  4   to the floodway as those flows are increasing to
  5   that 150.  And that's what we're going to be
  6   looking at.
  7               But to give, or to send more than
  8   150 cubic feet per second through to the city to
  9   get something like pre-floodway spring runoff
 10   flows on the Seine River can't be done, mostly
 11   because of the flood protection requirements in
 12   the City of Winnipeg.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  Since you have addressed
 14   that, that siphon under the Red River, I think one
 15   of the arguments that you perhaps haven't
 16   addressed is the DFO question, and that is being a
 17   fish habitat and the fact that there isn't the
 18   opportunity for fish to pass through the existing
 19   structure.  Is that something that can be
 20   corrected?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  It can be, but it hasn't
 22   entered the discussions with DFO at this point.
 23   And the reason is, we're not replacing the
 24   structure.  If we were replacing the structure,
 25   then they would be looking to, or discussing with
03310
  1   us the potential for improvements.  But we're not
  2   replacing the existing structure, and what they
  3   will be looking at is improvements, for example,
  4   to the Prairie Grove Road crossing where now it's
  5   not fish happy, and we'll be improving that road
  6   crossing of the Seine River to meet DFO's
  7   requirements as well as Nav Waters requirements.
  8   So where we are replacing structures then, we work
  9   with them to make those improvements.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  Since the current
 11   structure doesn't allow passage of fish is that
 12   not a violation of the Fisheries Act?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  They have indicated that
 14   it's not, because the structure exists today.
 15               MR. WEBSTER:  So it's an existing
 16   structure, it's grandfathered.
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  That's my understanding.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  I see.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  In your application to
 20   Transport Canada, I believe it is, yes, you talk
 21   about the Seine River structure.  Are you asking
 22   them to licence it?  My understanding is that
 23   never happened because in the '60's these things
 24   just didn't exist, licences didn't exist?
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.  The only
03311
  1   structure that went through the approval process,
  2   nobody can find the licence, but we saw the
  3   advertisements in the Canada Gazette for the
  4   application and the minister's approval.  But
  5   before they can licence the alterations to the
  6   structure, we first have to apply for the existing
  7   structures, and under the Nav Waters Protection
  8   Act.  We've done that.  We did that on
  9   February 10.  So they will review those structures
 10   in the existing situation, and they do not have to
 11   be assessed under CEAA because they existed prior
 12   to the enactment of CEAA.
 13               However, Nav Waters Protection Act
 14   does require us to assess the alterations to any
 15   of the structures that we are applying for.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Is there a chance that
 17   Transport Canada or DFO may require you to totally
 18   redesign the siphon?
 19               MR. MCNEIL:  No.  In our discussions
 20   to date, they have indicated that there would only
 21   likely be some minor recommendations.  For
 22   example, the existing structure, Seine River inlet
 23   to the siphon is unsafe for the public, and also
 24   allows trash to block the entrance and whatnot.
 25   We are proposing a parabolic grate that will be
03312
  1   safe for the public and will be self-cleaning for
  2   trash.
  3               The other thing is warning, there is
  4   no warning at this time if somebody was to be
  5   canoeing that they are approaching this structure.
  6   So they are looking for things like signage.
  7               There is a trash boom right now that's
  8   hazardous.  We'll be removing that.  Those are the
  9   kinds of suggestions that they had been making.
 10               On the inlet structure on the Red
 11   River, for example, there is no warning device
 12   when the gates are up.  So signage doesn't work
 13   because eventually it would be flooded out, and if
 14   you can read the sign on the structure, it might
 15   be too late.  So things like lighting and that
 16   kind of thing are being suggested by Nav Waters
 17   people for us to improve the navigability of those
 18   structures.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I think my
 20   questions might lead into one that Wayne has here.
 21               MR. MOTHERAL:  In a letter to you,
 22   Mr. McNeil, from Transport Canada, it states that
 23   there will be a requirement to conduct an
 24   assessment of the effects of navigation of the
 25   existing and proposed project components.  And has
03313
  1   the Flood Authority assessed the environmental
  2   effects of this?
  3               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, that letter was
  4   discussed when we met with Nav Waters on
  5   February 24th, and they misunderstood the Act and
  6   CEAA, and we cleared that up.  Under CEAA we do
  7   not have to assess the existing structure, but
  8   under CEAA and Nav Waters, we have to assess the
  9   navigability, the effects on navigability of the
 10   alterations to the structures.  So that was
 11   clarified with Nav Waters.
 12               MR. MOTHERAL:  Okay.
 13               MR. J. OSLER:  And just to add to that
 14   Mr. Motheral, within the EIS itself, navigation
 15   and the use of waterways, both commercially and by
 16   recreation traffic was documented within chapter 8
 17   and within appendix 8(e).  And we did receive and
 18   respond to a variety of questions that are raised
 19   by TAC during their review of the navigation.  And
 20   I think the references I have are TAC MFA S-61
 21   which asks about the domestic and commercial
 22   fisheries and commercial waterway use and
 23   recreational waterway use; TAC MFA S-30, which
 24   asks about the effects of the project on
 25   navigation, in particularly we summarize erosion
03314
  1   protection control measures and the development of
  2   the outlet control structure and impacts on
  3   navigation with that.  And finally TAC MFA S-19,
  4   which talks about the information required
  5   concerning effects of the project on the operation
  6   maintenance of St. Andrews lock and dam, we
  7   provide a response to that.  So additional
  8   information is contained within the body of the
  9   EIS in those responses.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. McNeil,
 11   you have mentioned a couple of times now this
 12   meeting with the feds on February 24th.  And I'm
 13   trying to figure out if you figured a way to clone
 14   yourself, because we were in hearings all day that
 15   day.
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  Well, that was the
 17   Friday.
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Friday was the 25th
 19   then.
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  I'm sorry, then it was
 21   Friday, February 25th.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  That sounds better.
 23   Not that it really matters, but I was just
 24   curious.
 25               I have a handful of questions that are
03315
  1   scattered all over the place, or the subjects are
  2   scattered all over the place and I would like to
  3   go through them now.
  4               One of them is in respect to City of
  5   Winnipeg infrastructure, and I am well aware that
  6   it's outside of the scope of this review.
  7   However, we have heard from a number of the
  8   participants over the last week or two who
  9   expressed some concern that if the City of
 10   Winnipeg doesn't sort of look after their
 11   infrastructure, they may be getting a bit of a
 12   free ride.  And that there will continue to need
 13   to be more artificial flooding south of the city
 14   to protect areas within the city because they
 15   haven't raised the primary dykes or because they
 16   haven't addressed the sewage problems.
 17               Can you tell us what's being done in
 18   that regard, and is there a commitment?  We see
 19   small amounts in the city budget recently.  Is
 20   there a commitment on the part of the city or on
 21   the part of the three governments to work together
 22   to address those concerns?
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, there is -- well,
 24   there's two commitments.  First is the commitment
 25   by the city with their existing programs since
03316
  1   1997 primarily.  First let me add that I was the
  2   city's flood protection engineer for 13 years
  3   before I joined the MFA, so I know what those
  4   programs involved prior to me leaving.  I would
  5   suggest that the city be contacted for more
  6   details on the program now.
  7               And, yes, there is a commitment by the
  8   MFA and the provincial government and the city to
  9   continue to work together to outline what the
 10   program may involve in the future.  And
 11   particularly, the city is looking for cost sharing
 12   is what it's about.
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  I mean, that's obvious,
 14   but are serious discussions going on in that
 15   direction?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, we've had several
 17   discussions with the city to date, and we will be
 18   continuing with those discussions for a program
 19   and for what they hope will be a cost sharing
 20   agreement.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I want to
 22   turn to recreation now.  Initially, in some of the
 23   media stories that surrounded the first
 24   discussions of the expanded floodway, there was a
 25   lot of talk about recreational uses, some of them
03317
  1   were quite ambitious, and I think we realized that
  2   they are not practical.  I suppose I should
  3   declare a personal bias.  I was hoping for a
  4   bigger ski hill, but I realize that that is not
  5   practical.  But besides those early press
  6   releases, even in the application to Manitoba
  7   Conservation, the initial application, it talked
  8   about recreational uses, the EIS guidelines talk
  9   about recreational uses.  And there are a lot of
 10   things.  I mean, we heard from the Rivers West
 11   coalition, we've heard from others.  And I think,
 12   you know, any of us can imagine that there is a
 13   lot of fairly simple, fairly inexpensive
 14   recreational provisions that could be made.  I
 15   think you could almost build a handful of toboggan
 16   runs for free just by putting the dirt in the
 17   right places.
 18               Why isn't recreation part of the
 19   proposal at this time, and what is the commitment
 20   to recreation?
 21               MR. MCNEIL:  In the first place, from
 22   what we know today from the submissions by groups
 23   such as Rivers West and the Red River Floodway
 24   Trail Coalition, that those ideas are concepts,
 25   are things that could occur with the existing
03318
  1   floodway or the expanded floodway.
  2               One of the reasons that it was
  3   originally included in the project description,
  4   when we made application in August of '03, is that
  5   there were some of these ideas out there that
  6   could have been part of the project, that would
  7   have required the equipment that we're using to
  8   excavate to build a bigger ski hill or whatever
  9   the case may be.
 10               Not knowing what at the end of the day
 11   was reasonable and practical, the Manitoba
 12   Floodway Authority did in March, or February of
 13   '04, put an advisement in the paper a couple of
 14   times requesting that people submit expressions of
 15   interest for recreational components.  We did that
 16   primarily to determine if the recreation ideas
 17   were going to affect the design of the project.  I
 18   think I talked about previously that one of the
 19   ideas was white-water rafting.  That would have
 20   had a significant impact on the design of the
 21   project.
 22               We met with the white-water rafting
 23   people, and it was quite obvious that the floodway
 24   project and the white-water rafting project didn't
 25   match with respect to the grades and velocities of
03319
  1   water and guaranteed continuous water, for
  2   example, in the summer.  So that was carved off.
  3   The white-water rafting people agreed that it
  4   wouldn't work in this situation with the floodway.
  5               The recreation ideas that were
  6   submitted, for example, an expansion of the
  7   existing Spring Hill ski hill, or a new ski hill.
  8   The expansion of the existing Spring Hill ski
  9   hill, we have had lots of discussions with what I
 10   understand is now the previous owner.  And it was
 11   in his court to approach us and tell us whether or
 12   not he was going to go forward with that.  And at
 13   the end of the day, it was concluded that he
 14   wasn't going to go forward with that.
 15               The larger ski hill would have needed
 16   tremendously more material than what we are
 17   excavating for this project, and so that was a non
 18   starter.
 19               What it boiled down to at the end of
 20   the day was trails.  And trails require different
 21   equipment.  We're going to be using large earth
 22   moving equipment for cost effectiveness in
 23   excavating this project, likely scrapers.  Other
 24   equipment can be used by contractors, but in all
 25   likelihood scrapers.  And you don't use scrapers
03320
  1   to lay the base for a trail, you use a smaller
  2   piece of equipment.
  3               The other thing is, in consideration
  4   of work place safety and health, we don't want --
  5   so if you're using another contractor with smaller
  6   equipment to lay the trail base, you don't want
  7   them conflicting with the larger pieces of
  8   equipment, and that comes right out of workplace
  9   safety and health as well.  So you need time and
 10   space separation of those two contracts.
 11               I guess at the end of the day, we see
 12   trail development along the floodway almost like
 13   landscaping, it's done at the end of the day.  All
 14   the major work is done, finished.  The primary
 15   objective of this project is flood protection.  So
 16   we want to get that done, and at the end of the
 17   day, then the trail contractors can move onto the
 18   site.
 19               So what I am saying is the earth has
 20   to be moved twice anyway.  There's no economy for
 21   trying to place the dirt while you're excavating,
 22   because of different size of equipment, because of
 23   contractor, prime contractor, workplace safety and
 24   health issues.
 25               The other thing is we believe there's
03321
  1   going to be a lot of work with the working group,
  2   all the different stakeholders.  There's motorized
  3   and non-motorized proposed uses for trails.
  4   There's concerns by the RMs around there and
  5   residents living along the floodway of the noise
  6   and the debris, you name it, trash.  So there's a
  7   lot of work that needs to be done.  All that can
  8   be done, aside from this flood protection project.
  9               At the end of the day, MFA will be
 10   authorizing whatever trail is proposed.  And what
 11   we're saying is, and we've said this in the EIS
 12   and the supplementary filing, is that we're not
 13   going to authorize any project that could have a
 14   significant adverse effect to the environment.
 15               However, the proponent of the trail or
 16   recreation feature will also be required to make
 17   sure that they adhere to all legislation, and
 18   acquire whatever permits or licences that may be
 19   required for their proposal -- and funded, too.
 20   All we have allowed for, and there's no specific
 21   number in the budget, although it is included
 22   under the special projects item, is we'll help out
 23   by moving earth that second time.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, in the Winnipeg
 25   Free Press, on I believe it was the day before we
03322
  1   started the hearing, so February 13th, there is a
  2   figure of $6 million for recreational purposes.
  3   Is that correct?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  No, that was incorrectly
  5   stated.  The $6 million line item is for special
  6   projects.  That's where we would utilize money for
  7   moving earth.  It's not entirely for moving earth
  8   or anything to do with the recreational features.
  9   For example, our virtual reality project which we
 10   demonstrated on our first day of presentations,
 11   that was funded under that line item, special
 12   projects, the 6 million, and there's more work to
 13   do on virtual reality as well.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, I note your
 15   comment that your primary job is flood protection,
 16   but it's also fairly common in many jurisdictions,
 17   including in Manitoba in the past, that in major
 18   public works there are ancillary activities that
 19   make the thing more attractive or more useful or
 20   just add to the benefits, value added, if you
 21   will.  And I think that rather than have this sort
 22   of boring ditch running around the city, we could
 23   make it somewhat more attractive and of some more
 24   use, but I may be showing a bias.
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  Mr. Chair, I don't
03323
  1   disagree, and we're not precluding any trail
  2   development at the end of the day.  What we're
  3   saying, though, is that it's got to be separate
  4   from our primary objective.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  I certainly understand
  6   your comments about timing in respect of
  7   construction equipment and all that.  I accept
  8   that.  That's a given.
  9               MR. MCNEIL:  And I guess the other
 10   thing is, we don't want to have anything outside
 11   the scope this project to delay this project.  And
 12   that's our primary objective.
 13               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Another
 14   question that came up last week when the
 15   municipalities were on the stand, and it's in
 16   respect of East St. Paul's, the waterline that
 17   runs under the floodway, and the fact that
 18   apparently they are going to have to pay half the
 19   cost of replacing that line.  Is that correct?
 20               MR. MCNEIL:  What happened there is
 21   that -- first of all, just for the record, Jim
 22   Thomson, and I had earlier meetings with the RM,
 23   all the RMs for that matter, all their councils
 24   about different issues.  That issue came up, and
 25   they raised it with us initially saying, you know,
03324
  1   we have two water lines under your floodway, and
  2   we said yes.  Are we going to have to cost share
  3   that or is it MFA going to pay for the cost of
  4   replacing that?  And our response was that that
  5   was something that obviously would have to be
  6   looked at.  They advised us that there was an
  7   agreement in place.  And I guess we are leaning
  8   towards initially that for that cost MFA would
  9   look seriously at paying 100 per cent, but we
 10   didn't make any firm commitment subject to legal
 11   review.
 12               Manitoba Government solicitors did
 13   review that agreement and they came to the
 14   conclusion, based on that, as well as some
 15   treasury board policies and approvals, that East
 16   St. Paul should pay 50 per cent of that.  And
 17   that's what they were informed of, that legal
 18   interpretation.
 19               Our suggestion to the Deputy Reeve
 20   Dave Gera was that part of that, his response
 21   should be having his legal people also review that
 22   and then go forward with discussions.  So we are
 23   willing to discuss that further with them.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  I mean, just by way of
 25   comparison, I understand that Esso has oil lines
03325
  1   that go under, Hydro has gas lines, there's a City
  2   of Winnipeg aqueduct.  Are they cost sharing, are
  3   any of them cost sharing?
  4               MR. MCNEIL:  It all depends on the
  5   terms of the agreement.  Some of the agreements
  6   are more firm as to who should pay than others.
  7   We are in discussions right now with the City of
  8   Winnipeg as well with respect to the aqueducts,
  9   the Kildare outfall, on their cost sharing for
 10   those as well.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  I
 12   don't want to go to the employment agreement
 13   business, but there has been a lot of talk about
 14   using this as a training initiative for people who
 15   could use the training, in particular, Aboriginal
 16   people.  And we heard a comment from the
 17   representative from the Peguis First Nation last
 18   week saying that they would like, or they would
 19   expect, in fact they say that it is imperative
 20   that the proponents guarantee a minimum set aside.
 21   Without looking at guaranteed set asides, can you
 22   tell us what, if any, initiatives are under way to
 23   train Aboriginal people, or other people that may
 24   need -- that could benefit from training in this
 25   area and acquire job skills?  Mr. Thomson?
03326
  1               MR. THOMSON:  Yes.  The authority is
  2   working with Manitoba Advanced Education and
  3   Training, developing some programs, first of all
  4   developing the labour component, what types of
  5   equipment operators, concrete finishers, et
  6   cetera, are going to be required on the project at
  7   any given time, trying to work out a planning
  8   program on that basis.  Then we will flesh that
  9   out and put together training programs for various
 10   facets of the works.
 11               Some of the people working on it are
 12   designated trades.  There is apprenticeship
 13   programs for carpenters and electricians, things
 14   of that nature.  Equipment operators are not a
 15   designated trade, so there are a number of
 16   different organizations that have training
 17   programs.  Whether we tie into one of those or
 18   develop a training program of our own, and how we
 19   work with our contractors to deliver the training
 20   program, because part of it is going to have to be
 21   hands-on experience on the project, so we are
 22   working through that in the tendering process.
 23   There will be some requirement on the contractors
 24   for providing training hours for us and things of
 25   that nature.
03327
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  So are you aware if any
  2   of these efforts specifically target Aboriginal
  3   peoples?
  4               MR. THOMSON:  Yes, sorry that was your
  5   question, yes, they will target the Aboriginal
  6   community, yes.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  And I
  8   really am all over the map at this point.  Last
  9   week we heard from Mr. Stuart Manness on the issue
 10   of the extension of the West Dyke, and he said
 11   it's going to remove 30 acres of usable land per
 12   mile?  Is that correct?  I think he said that the
 13   excavation on the water side would basically take
 14   30 acres of land per mile out of use.  Is that
 15   correct?
 16               MR. MCNEIL:  I don't know the figure
 17   exactly, Mr. Chair.  But what our designers did
 18   under pre-design was look at what was the most
 19   practical locations for removing or excavating
 20   adjacent to the dyke to bring it up to whatever
 21   height.  And it goes up in various heights,
 22   depending on the location of the dyke and
 23   depending on the analysis for wind and wave
 24   uprush.
 25               In initial discussions with the
03328
  1   landowners of that area at the public meeting, one
  2   of the suggestions was, why don't you take it from
  3   the dry side because they are benefiting from this
  4   dyke?  And so that was taken into consideration,
  5   and it will be looked at seriously during the
  6   final design.  But it also is related to the
  7   ongoing, or the discussions between land
  8   management services and the property owners when
  9   those discussions get under way.
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Will this require
 11   purchase or expropriation of land?
 12               MR. MCNEIL:  It definitely requires
 13   purchase.  We'd like to take the high road
 14   initially and come to a reasonable and amicable
 15   agreement on the purchase of the land.
 16               By the way, I've just been handed in
 17   chapter 8 of the EIS, on page 8-30, table 8.3-2,
 18   it does give in the last line an estimate of the
 19   land acquisition requirements for the West Dyke,
 20   which is 100 per cent in the RM of Macdonald and
 21   it's 115,000 hectares -- oh, I'm sorry, I read it
 22   wrong.  It's 165 hectares, which is approximately
 23   400 acres.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  That sounds better.
 25   That 158,000 hectares will be pretty near the
03329
  1   whole municipality.  Okay.  Thank you.
  2               Last week when Mr. Stinson made his
  3   presentation, he referred to something called the
  4   Floodway Advisory Board.  Is there such a creature
  5   and what is it, and who is on it?
  6               MR. MCNEIL:  Actually, I would like to
  7   turn that question over to Mr. Bowering because
  8   he's the chair of that board.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
 10               MR. BOWERING:  It is called the
 11   Floodway Operation Review Board.  Floodway -- no,
 12   you are right the Floodway Advisory Board.  It
 13   initially when we were -- it was initially put
 14   together to review the operating rules, so that
 15   was called the operation review committee, now
 16   it's called the Floodway Advisory Board, and there
 17   has been a small change in membership.
 18               The membership on that board is it's
 19   chaired by myself and Water Stewardship.  It has
 20   membership from Environment Canada and PFRA.  It
 21   has membership from three RMs of Macdonald and
 22   Ritchot and Morris, and also has representation
 23   from the area north of Winnipeg.
 24               The main purpose of this board is to
 25   provide the Department of Water Stewardship with
03330
  1   advice each year.  We'll be calling a meeting of
  2   the board probably the last week of March, first
  3   week of April, just before we operate the
  4   floodway.  So we have the final, we received the
  5   final forecast, the end of winter forecast of what
  6   situations are likely to be.  Then we call the
  7   board together and receive specific advice on
  8   issues that may arise out of that forecast.  And
  9   so it is just to advise the department on local
 10   issues that they are aware of that are related to
 11   operation.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Who represents the area
 13   north of the city?
 14               MR. BOWERING:  Bud Oliver is the
 15   member.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  So he is just there as
 17   a citizen nominated by Selkirk, or by the
 18   collected municipalities?
 19               MR. BOWERING:  I think he's with
 20   something like the Selkirk and District Planning
 21   Council or something.  I haven't got the list in
 22   front of me, but he's representing some umbrella
 23   group for that area north of Winnipeg.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  I
 25   think that finishes my questions.  Wayne, you have
03331
  1   one, Barrie you have some?
  2               MR. MOTHERAL:  Getting back to, in a
  3   way it's recreation and forward planning.  And it
  4   would be a shame in 20 or 30 years if we look back
  5   and say that we did not design these bridges that
  6   are crossing the floodway with pedestrian and
  7   bicycle paths.  It's something that -- has the MFA
  8   considered this in designing at all?  I'll maybe
  9   ask that question, Mr. Thomson?
 10               MR. THOMSON:  Yes.  We have been
 11   advised by the Highways Department that they very
 12   much discourage sidewalks on their highway
 13   structures.  Using our situation as an example,
 14   TransCanada highway or 59 north, there is going to
 15   be approach ramps right at the egress to the
 16   bridge and also at the exit end.  So you have
 17   traffic moving at high speed that aren't looking
 18   for pedestrians, they are looking to see if there
 19   are cars in the acceleration or deceleration lane,
 20   things of that nature.  So it's inherently unsafe.
 21               One thing that is now -- the standard
 22   has changed I guess is the simplest way of putting
 23   it since these bridges were originally
 24   constructed.  And what's referred to as shy
 25   distance, or the distance from the travelling
03332
  1   surface of the road to the curb, or railing on the
  2   side of the bridge has increased.  For example, on
  3   the TransCanada highway, the existing shy distance
  4   is at .6 metres, and on the new structures that
  5   will be 2 metres, so going from 2 feet to about
  6   6 feet.  So there is room there for cyclists to be
  7   much safer than they are now.  There is no barrier
  8   there or anything, obviously, but there is safety.
  9               And St. Mary's Road, the existing shy
 10   distance there is one metre, and that's going to a
 11   metre and three-quarters, so from about three to
 12   about five feet, a little more than five feet in
 13   that area.  So there is more room for cyclists on
 14   the structures, and I guess by definition then,
 15   people walking.  But as I say, highways very
 16   strongly discourage any pedestrian traffic on
 17   those bridges.
 18               And that's true of all of the
 19   structures.  The 44 will be similar to St. Mary's
 20   Road bridge, and both Highway 59 north and south
 21   and Highway 15 will be similar to the information
 22   I gave on TransCanada Highway.
 23               MR. MOTHERAL:  Thank you.  And just a
 24   small follow-up on the West Dyke and the concern
 25   that Mr. Manness brought forward with the
03333
  1   excavation of the dirt and the 30 acres he was
  2   missing.  Is there going to be any consideration
  3   that -- when he mentioned he does operate a hog
  4   enterprise there and there is going to be, he is
  5   going to have to find another 30 acres or so to
  6   dispose of the liquid manure.  And would there be
  7   any kind of consideration of that probably in the
  8   purchase of the land or whatever in the
  9   agreements?
 10               MR. THOMSON:  We have contracted with
 11   Provincial Land Management Service for the land
 12   acquisition, and I can't give you, you know, sort
 13   of a direct answer on that, but I know they do
 14   take into account different financial implications
 15   of land acquisition.  Whether, you know,
 16   something -- whether they find new land for a
 17   farmer like Mr. Manness, that I can't tell you, or
 18   how it's compensated, but I believe there is a
 19   mechanism there for compensation.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  I'd like to go a little
 21   further with the recreational question.  Both with
 22   the bridge design and with the earth moving, it
 23   seems to me that there are situations where design
 24   at the construction stage of the floodway could
 25   make the installation of recreational facilities
03334
  1   later much easier, and it seems to me that you
  2   need to take into -- or don't you need to take
  3   into consideration the fact that people are going
  4   to want to cross the floodway.  For instance?
  5   Should you not have built in, if you don't have
  6   the ability to accommodate trails that cross your
  7   bridges, should you not have some facility for low
  8   level crossing of the low flow channel, for
  9   instance, that would allow those trails to go
 10   through?
 11               MR. THOMSON:  Yes.  If there is a
 12   trail, we would make facility for that trail, if
 13   it's paralleling the floodway, to go under the
 14   structure, rather than again making a pedestrian
 15   or cycle crossing on the roadway itself.  We'll
 16   make facility for that trail to go under the
 17   structure.
 18               We've also had some discussion about a
 19   potential low level crossing at St. Mary's Road
 20   for the cyclists and pedestrians.  That appears to
 21   be the most active I guess area for both,
 22   particularly cyclists I think, and some pedestrian
 23   traffic.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  I would assume that can
 25   be installed without interfering with the
03335
  1   hydraulics of the channel, of course, unless the
  2   channel has got water in it, in which case it
  3   makes it more difficult.
  4               MR. THOMSON:  That's correct.  I mean,
  5   the trail is not going to be an impediment to
  6   flow.  The low level crossing would be -- there
  7   would be a minor flow loss there, but we have, you
  8   know, Dunning Road is a low level crossing, these
  9   will be smaller, so.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  In the earth moving
 11   area, when you're finished under the current plan,
 12   you will have -- the gross earth moving will
 13   generate a fairly bland set of spoil piles along
 14   the side of the channel.  With integration, with
 15   recreation planning, perhaps those spoil piles,
 16   which are not required for the integrity of the
 17   floodway operation, perhaps those spoil piles
 18   could be shaped differently by your earth moving
 19   equipment, so that the recreational trails can be
 20   made more attractive.  And I wondered if you had
 21   considered that aspect because it doesn't
 22   interfere, it's completely consistent with what
 23   you say you have to do, you have to separate the
 24   contractors one from the other.
 25               MR. MCNEIL:  That's true.  But the
03336
  1   shaping wouldn't be a big deal.  I think I
  2   mentioned earlier that we're going to be using
  3   cats and scrapers to excavate and then place the
  4   spoil material.
  5               One of the things that we have been
  6   able to achieve on this project is not needing any
  7   additional land for the project.  We certainly
  8   don't need it for the widening, because the
  9   widening will be done mostly within the existing
 10   spoil piles.  But then the placement of that spoil
 11   material, about 25 million cubic yards -- no, 21,
 12   sorry, about 21 million cubic metres, about
 13   27 million cubic yards is -- the reason that we
 14   don't need additional land is that we will be
 15   adding to the top of some of the spoil piles, as
 16   well as into the back.  And you saw that in a
 17   diagram in my initial presentation on
 18   February 15th.
 19               So the general shape of the piles now
 20   has geotechnical considerations to it besides
 21   slope, and the height is based on whatever is
 22   necessary to get rid of that, to spoil that
 23   material.  So, yes, we see that in the future, and
 24   there is some concepts prepared by Rivers West and
 25   the Trail Coalition, that there could be a little
03337
  1   more molding of those spoil piles to be conducive
  2   to trails.  And again, that's separate and can be
  3   done later and can be done with smaller equipment
  4   at the end of the day.
  5               One of the things that I think is a
  6   big concern with respect to the trail proposals is
  7   how will that affect the existing hay leases?  And
  8   we certainly heard from the hay lease farmers and
  9   from Keystone that they are concerned about the
 10   lost production on the spoil piles of agricultural
 11   use.  And so when you are reshaping -- we are
 12   reshaping for geotechnical considerations, also
 13   can the farmers get their equipment on these side
 14   slopes and the tops?
 15               So I would expect that at the end of
 16   the day, and through this working group, we will
 17   come to some agreement with the two uses as to
 18   where is the best place to put that trail?
 19               I guess what I'm trying to say is, I
 20   can't see the trail going all over the place
 21   without having a detrimental effect to the hay
 22   lease operations.  And so all of this has to be
 23   worked out over the next months and likely years,
 24   with all of the potential stakeholders, interested
 25   stakeholders, for what I continue to refer to as a
03338
  1   landscaping project at the end of the day.
  2               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes, I understand what
  3   you're saying.  I think the impression you are
  4   leaving us with is you would prefer not to have
  5   the inconvenience of dealing with the kinds of
  6   activities that we are talking about, you'd rather
  7   just create the floodway and then have the other
  8   folks worry about it afterwards.  What I'm
  9   suggesting is that if you hold hands while you're
 10   doing it, you've got the four years that you're
 11   going to be in construction, that you may in fact
 12   get to the final objective rather more easily and
 13   with a lot more good feelings about what you
 14   finish with.
 15               MR. MCNEIL:  Again, Dr. Webster, I
 16   don't disagree with you.  I don't see it as an
 17   inconvenience to continue to work with the
 18   recreation working group as we move ahead.  And if
 19   we can take advantage of some things and do them
 20   today rather than later, in preparation, so be it.
 21   But the bottom line is that I don't want it to
 22   affect the environmental assessment of this
 23   project and the primary purpose of this project.
 24   But, yes, we have taken all these other
 25   suggestions into consideration and we will
03339
  1   continue to do so, and that's the primary purpose
  2   of the working group.
  3               We don't want to rush into the
  4   recreation aspect, because of some of the negative
  5   concerns out there, like debris, trash, traffic,
  6   headlights, noise, the whole thing, the concerns
  7   of the farmers who are leasing the land for hay
  8   right now.  So it has to be done in a more logical
  9   and slow approach, recognizing that everything
 10   that's being proposed on that side of things for
 11   recreation can be incorporated at the end of the
 12   day.
 13               If we can save some money by doing
 14   things in advance, then we will take that into
 15   consideration.
 16               MR. WEBSTER:  Aren't those simply
 17   conditions of proceeding with the project?  For
 18   instance, the fact that you want to leave an area
 19   on the outside of the floodway for agricultural
 20   production, that is for haying, I'm presuming
 21   you're talking about what's being grown there now,
 22   that, plus the fact that you want some operational
 23   trails, plus the fact that you want to discourage
 24   the dumping of derelict vehicles, plus all of
 25   these various things would need to go into the
03340
  1   planning.  I would have thought they need to go
  2   into the planning as you proceed and as you have
  3   time.  During the course of construction, surely
  4   that could be made part of the project, rather
  5   than waiting for five or six or ten years until
  6   it's done and sitting there and finally somebody
  7   says, well, let's make it look a little nicer.
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  No, and I agree.  I'm not
  9   suggesting that it be more than five years that
 10   the recreation be incorporated, I'm just saying it
 11   won't be this year.  There's a lot of planning to
 12   go into it in the next few months, and we'll do
 13   what we can as we are going through construction,
 14   because we have construction for four years.
 15               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  Good.  Let me go
 16   on to the agricultural question again.  I
 17   understand that the recommendation that's been
 18   made to change essentially what would be the
 19   cropping of the interior of the floodway from the
 20   alfalfa based cropping, which I think has been
 21   there, to something that's related more to wild
 22   native grasses and so forth.
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  No, that's not true.
 24   What we're looking at is, in the base of the
 25   channel, we -- first of all, there were the
03341
  1   non-native species incorporated into the original
  2   channel.  And on, above the actual existence of
  3   the channel, you know, on the natural ground and
  4   on the spoil piles is where the hay leases occur.
  5   On the bottom of the channel, native species have
  6   more or less taken over, because of the wide
  7   environment on occasion, because of constant flow
  8   in the low flow channel, there's kind of a wetland
  9   species, a native species flies in, establishes
 10   itself, and has mixed with the non-native species.
 11   What we are promoting is the eventual extension of
 12   that wetland into the area that we are excavating
 13   into, and possibly up the slope.
 14               But the areas that are typical for hay
 15   lease will continue with the non-native species,
 16   the bromes, the alfalfas and whatnot.
 17               However, during construction erosion
 18   is a really big concern, and we are going to be
 19   using best management practices.  In reviewing
 20   some of those best management practices, it may
 21   not be native species that we place down there.
 22   Because they may not take as well in the soil and
 23   whatnot.  So we may be using the non-native
 24   initially to get vegetation there to prevent
 25   erosion, because we'll be exposing bare soil
03342
  1   obviously in certain sections of the floodway as
  2   we move from upstream to downstream.  We are
  3   working on that vegetation plan as we speak.  And
  4   again, if we decide to go with the non-native
  5   sorry, a native species later on, what we do now
  6   does not preclude us from doing that.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  I think your plan to
  8   keep it vegetated to the maximum as you do the
  9   construction is an impressive plan, and I must say
 10   it's one of the things that I found very
 11   interesting as I read through your plans.  I'm
 12   going to do a little bit of jumping around here
 13   too in my questions.  I want to go back, first of
 14   all, to the question of artificial flooding.  And
 15   this may be something Mr. Bowering should be
 16   answering.  But it's a simple question in terms of
 17   the wording of the question, it may not be a
 18   simple answer.
 19               Could the current floodway be operated
 20   such that artificial flooding could be avoided?
 21   And could the expanded floodway be operated so
 22   that artificial flooding could be avoided?  In
 23   other words, is that artificial an artifact of the
 24   operation or artifact of the design?
 25               MR. BOWERING:  The simple answer is,
03343
  1   yes, it could be operated to never have operation
  2   flooding, artificial flooding.  What that would
  3   mean, though, is that there would be considerable
  4   flooding and damage in Winnipeg in the larger
  5   floods.  So we could continue to pass more flow
  6   through the City of Winnipeg and just hold to
  7   natural, but that means there would be, for large
  8   floods there would be extensive damage and
  9   flooding in the City of Winnipeg.
 10               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.  Let's go on
 11   to the virtual reality model, again, something
 12   that was very interesting the very first day of
 13   presentation to see what a flood would look like
 14   in the city, a little bit disturbing for some of
 15   us who live in lower lying areas, but nevertheless
 16   a very interesting model.  Clearly, something you
 17   don't want to throw away once the project is
 18   constructed.
 19               Is this virtual model going to be part
 20   of the interaction with the public after you are
 21   finished?  Are you going to make it available to
 22   people to sort of see and play with at sites where
 23   the floodway is described and celebrated?
 24               MR. MCNEIL:  Yes, that's the plan.  In
 25   fact, on the day that we made that presentation,
03344
  1   CD's of that model were handed out to the media,
  2   and anybody interested, we'd be happy to hand out
  3   a CD.
  4               The plan is to expand the virtual
  5   reality model to look at other areas, including
  6   Southern Manitoba, throughout the floodway and
  7   then move to a 3 D model.  And some of the ideas
  8   we have is to show how, for instance, the inlet
  9   control structure works.  You know, take it to
 10   that 3 D level and expand on what I showed you on
 11   February 15 with respect to operation at different
 12   stages and whatnot, and look at other things as
 13   well.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  Do you think that might
 15   in fact work to enhance the understanding of what
 16   the floodway does and how it operates?
 17               MR. MCNEIL:  That's one of the primary
 18   reasons we're doing this, is to help people
 19   understand how this system works.
 20               MR. WEBSTER:  The next question has to
 21   do with compensation.  And that question is, what
 22   measures will be taken to facilitate claims
 23   against the floodway should problems arise for
 24   residents nearby?  And I realize this is not
 25   usually what compensation bodies do.  They have
03345
  1   enough work to do without encouraging people to
  2   come and see them.  But the fact is, the fact that
  3   claims can be made is of little comfort to those
  4   who believe that they will be impacted.  In other
  5   words, the current project, the current
  6   procedures, pardon me, are long and arduous.  Is
  7   there going to be some effort made to make that
  8   easier for those folks who are in a position to
  9   claim compensation?
 10               MR. ANDERSON:  Yes, there's been a
 11   number of ways, I think we've heard since disaster
 12   assistance programs aren't -- we communicate
 13   disaster assistance programs through standard
 14   media article, and mostly through word of mouth.
 15   There's been a number of ways we're considering
 16   that would make the knowledge or the availability
 17   of compensation more broader.  For example,
 18   following the emergency operations in the summer
 19   of 2004, we used a combination of tax assessments
 20   and GIS mapping, and we actually mailed out and
 21   informed people that we felt were in the area that
 22   had incurred artificial flooding.  So it was an
 23   active offer of the compensation versus waiting to
 24   see if they approached us.
 25               MR. WEBSTER:  So this is actually in
03346
  1   place and progressing as we were talking about it.
  2               MR. ANDERSON:  Well, it was very
  3   rudimentary at that time, we were kind of
  4   compiling a number of systems together, but I
  5   would envision that would become part of our
  6   standard procedures.
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  I suppose if it's done
  8   that way, it even has the effect of lowering the
  9   cost of the overall compensation system because
 10   you're spending less time litigating compensation
 11   claims?
 12               MR. ANDERSON:  I haven't really
 13   thought of it in those senses, but obviously
 14   whatever we can do to reduce the administrative
 15   burden, we would like to see the overall cost of
 16   the compensation reduced by reducing the
 17   administration versus reducing the amount of
 18   compensation that's paid out.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  Thank you.  The next
 20   question has to do with what we've heard about
 21   illegal dumping on the floodway, and I wondered
 22   what the Floodway Authority was planning to do.
 23   What evidence, first of all, do you have for that
 24   illegal dumping, and then what are you planning to
 25   do about it?
03347
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  Sorry, Dr. Webster, I'm
  2   having trouble hearing this morning.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  The acoustics aren't the
  4   best in the room here.
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Could you repeat the
  6   question for me please?
  7               MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.  What evidence do
  8   you have of illegal dumping along the floodway?
  9   And we understand it's taking place.  I wondered,
 10   given that there is evidence of it taking place,
 11   what are you planning to do about it to discourage
 12   it?
 13               MR. MCNEIL:  When the Floodway
 14   Authority takes over the maintenance aspect of the
 15   expanded channel, we will -- and we'll be doing
 16   this in advance of that transfer date -- but we
 17   will be putting a maintenance program together.
 18   And because we have heard a lot about that aspect
 19   of it, we will include some funding for monitoring
 20   the channel, and removing illegally dumped items,
 21   whether that's a car or a bag of trash.
 22               MR. WEBSTER:  Would you be patrolling
 23   that area?  Will you be over flying it?  Would you
 24   be patrolling it on the surface?  What will you
 25   likely be doing?
03348
  1               MR. MCNEIL:  I think primarily the
  2   monitoring will be done by patrolling by vehicle.
  3               MR. WEBSTER:  Along the length of the
  4   floodway?
  5               MR. MCNEIL:  Yeah.
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  And it could be done
  7   without difficulty?
  8               MR. MCNEIL:  That's correct.
  9               MR. WEBSTER:  There is an access road
 10   for that sort of vehicle?
 11               MR. MCNEIL:  We travel along the spoil
 12   piles now where there aren't -- you know, so that
 13   we're not affecting the hay leases, but we do
 14   travel along access roads now.
 15               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  We talked about
 16   the MIKE 2 or MIKE 11 models, I am not quite sure
 17   which it is, but you know the model I'm talking
 18   about, the one dimensional model for determining
 19   possible flooding levels.  Were the results, or
 20   were the modeling results for the use of that
 21   model peer reviewed?  That question came up during
 22   our discussions earlier with other people.
 23               MR. MCNEIL:  I'd like to turn that
 24   over to Rick Bowering.  He's quite familiar with
 25   the use of the MIKE 11 model.
03349
  1               MR. BOWERING:  The model itself, as I
  2   mention earlier, has been reviewed, and
  3   particularly by people until the U.S. portion of
  4   the basin.  MIKE 11 is a model that is widely
  5   used -- and it is MIKE 11, it's a one D model,
  6   quasi two D to get specific.  It's a widely used
  7   model in most of the world, except not often used
  8   in the United States.  And the reason is, is that
  9   the United States, the corps of engineers has an
 10   equivalent model, it's not quite as user friendly
 11   but it's a made in America model.  So they tend to
 12   use that in the United States.
 13               When modelers though looked at this
 14   MIKE 11 model that we had developed in Manitoba,
 15   there was interest in extending it into the United
 16   States.  So in that respect, it has been peer
 17   reviewed.  Not peer reviewed for the purpose "is
 18   it doing a great job for Manitoba," but more peer
 19   reviewed to say this is a really good tool to
 20   apply to the whole basin.  And so what they have
 21   hired is the original model developer, David
 22   Sellers, from Richmond, British Columbia, and he
 23   is in the process of extending that model to the
 24   U.S. portion of the basin.
 25               So it has been peer reviewed in that
03350
  1   respect.  It hasn't been peer reviewed in a formal
  2   sense specifically for all of the details in
  3   Manitoba.  But its results compare very favourably
  4   with the Telemac model, which was developed for
  5   looking at site specific issues in the Red River
  6   Valley.  And so we have a lot of confidence in the
  7   model, a lot of confidence.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  How might you go about a
  9   further review of that, of both modeling systems?
 10               MR. BOWERING:  Well, I suppose to do a
 11   formal peer review, what typically happens is it
 12   gets, the modeling results get written up and put
 13   in a publication, you know, a scientific
 14   publication, and it gets reviewed.  The other way
 15   of doing, that we do peer reviews is sometimes we
 16   bring people from outside of Manitoba in, and we
 17   do a presentation, and they review it through some
 18   kind of a workshop setting.
 19               And such things are possible.  In my
 20   view, they are not necessary because the model
 21   calibrates very well to the data that we have, but
 22   such things could be done.
 23               MR. WEBSTER:  Okay.  This brings us to
 24   the question of error.  One of the citizen
 25   presenters, Eileen Wazny, raised the subject of
03351
  1   error and uncertainty, I think it was last week.
  2   And she quoted in fact from an engineering, a
  3   university engineering lab manual in doing so.
  4   And I think what's useful that could come out of
  5   that presentation is a discussion, or an
  6   indication of the kinds of error that are
  7   involved, the kinds of uncertainty I guess that
  8   are involved in your water level determinations,
  9   from the use of models and from the actual
 10   measurements that are made during an event, a
 11   flood event.
 12               MR. BOWERING:  The water levels at the
 13   primary hydrometric stations, as I mentioned, are
 14   measured by and published by Environment Canada.
 15   That is available on the web for anybody that
 16   wants to get at it.  So that primary data is
 17   available and widely used and depended on all
 18   across Canada, and similarly all across North
 19   America.
 20               Where it gets complicated is what are
 21   the water levels behind all the roadways and all
 22   of the barriers and things like that.  So right
 23   after the '97 flood, we sent crews out all over
 24   Southern Manitoba to mark high water marks at
 25   literally thousands of places, and this was the
03352
  1   primary data we used for calibrating the details
  2   of the MIKE 11 model.  And I suspect next time we
  3   have another major flood, we will do the same
  4   thing again, because that really is useful
  5   information, relatively easy to pick up.  I mean,
  6   it takes a few man months of work, and then to
  7   process the information takes quite a bit of
  8   effort.  But that supplementary information was
  9   really useful in fine tuning the model.  The
 10   model, of course, is fairly easy to calibrate to
 11   the detailed recorded data and, of course, those
 12   are time series, so you get the whole series of
 13   it.
 14               But then once you have got the model
 15   running, then to look in specific areas and say
 16   what does that show for the high water level,
 17   those additional data were very useful in the
 18   calibration of the model.
 19               MR. WEBSTER:  So what is the actual
 20   uncertainty in measuring levels like that?  Is it
 21   in the order of a couple of inches, or is it less
 22   than that, or is it more than that?  You mentioned
 23   a six inch difference between taking the lip out
 24   and not.  What kind of uncertainty is involved in
 25   that determination?
03353
  1               MR. BOWERING:  Well, the uncertainty,
  2   you know, these are very accurate monitoring
  3   devices so what they give us is data, you know
  4   down to a portion of a millimeter.  But, of
  5   course, the uncertainties come out of, has that
  6   been tied into a benchmark recently?  And so
  7   Environment Canada has standard procedures that
  8   three times a year they check benchmarks, and if
  9   benchmarks tend to, if they show some variation,
 10   then they have an increased program.  And then
 11   every once in a while you have to say, has the
 12   benchmark moved?  So you have to survey that back
 13   into the -- so probably most of the uncertainty
 14   comes out of that kind of thing.
 15               And then another kind of uncertainty
 16   that can come is it is actually, they have a
 17   pressure sensor that lays in the bottom of the
 18   channel and that's how they are measuring the
 19   depth of water above the pressure sensor.
 20   Sometimes siltation can affect that, and so in
 21   some critical areas they put actually two sensors
 22   in so they can compare them one against the other.
 23               In real time, we have access to those,
 24   but it's a little hard for our operators to decide
 25   which one is correct, if they start wandering, one
03354
  1   from the other.  And they have ways after the fact
  2   of determining which is correct.  So that was the
  3   issue I said that is probably the greatest
  4   uncertainty that we are -- what happens from the
  5   real time data to the final published data.
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  I don't want to belabour
  7   the point, but I guess the kind of uncertainty
  8   that is probably the easiest to conceive of is the
  9   kind that occurs when you have a stick stuck in
 10   the water, and you are measuring a line on the
 11   stick to tell how high the water is?
 12               MR. BOWERING:  Um-hum.
 13               MR. WEBSTER:  What's the uncertainty
 14   in measuring that kind of level in that situation?
 15               MR. BOWERING:  For measuring against
 16   the stick, you know, it is probably a quarter to a
 17   half an inch or something like that.
 18               MR. WEBSTER:  And so when you're
 19   taking levels that are of that nature, your
 20   uncertainty then is well below the kinds of levels
 21   that we have been discussing with respect to
 22   people's flooding --
 23               MR. BOWERING:  Yes, correct.
 24               MR. WEBSTER:  -- of their places, of
 25   their properties?
03355
  1               Okay.  The other question of
  2   uncertainty is in calculating the actual flows.
  3   Now, you've talked in thousands and millions of
  4   whatever the units are we discussed.  And just a
  5   fraction of a per cent of uncertainty in those
  6   figures is quite a large amount of water.
  7               MR. BOWERING:  That's correct.
  8               MR. WEBSTER:  What's your confidence
  9   in those?
 10               MR. BOWERING:  Typically Environment
 11   Canada talks of uncertain between 2 and 5 per
 12   cent, so if you have 100,000 CFS, that's 2,000 to
 13   5,000 CFS.
 14               MR. WEBSTER:  And it really isn't
 15   possible to do any better than that?
 16               MR. BOWERING:  They have continued to
 17   work on new technology.  They had developed some
 18   Acoustic Doppler systems that -- where this
 19   uncertainty comes from is the micro changes in
 20   flow paths as it works its way down the river.  We
 21   think of flow going laminar, straight, but of
 22   course it doesn't.  And so some of these Acoustic
 23   Doppler systems allow you to get that, and they
 24   are doing some work on that kind of thing.  But
 25   it's just on the edge of being an operational
03356
  1   tool.  I was just asking them last month whether
  2   we can use that more in future floods, and they
  3   are quite confident that it will help them to tie
  4   down their accuracy at some of our critical sites
  5   that are really important to us.
  6               MR. WEBSTER:  Thanks very much.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
  8   Mr. Handlon, any redirect at this time?
  9               MR. HANDLON:  Perhaps it would be
 10   appropriate to take a break.  If we do, it would
 11   just be five minutes or ten minutes.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  We'll take a
 13   break and we'll come back at ten after 11:00.
 14   Following any redirect by the Floodway Authority,
 15   we will have closing statements.  First up is
 16   Cooks Creek Conservation District, followed by
 17   North Ritchot, and Peguis First Nation.  I would
 18   assume that we may only get one in before lunch
 19   and the others will come after lunch.
 20               (Proceedings recessed at 10:55 a.m.
 21               and reconvened at 11:10 a.m.)
 22   
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could I ask the
 24   representatives from Cooks Creek to come forward,
 25   please?  One moment.  Mr. Handlon.
03357
  1               MR. HANDLON:  Mr. Chair, just to put
  2   on the record, we have no questions on
  3   re-examination, thank you.
  4               The one outstanding matter was an
  5   undertaking made yesterday by Mr. Carson in
  6   respect to some questions dealing with the lip at
  7   the floodway inlet, and the issue of summer
  8   operation that required some review.  Mr. Carson
  9   wasn't able to be here this morning, but he is
 10   prepared to deal with it first thing on Wednesday
 11   morning.
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  That's fine.  Thank you
 13   very much, Mr. Handlon.
 14               MR. CHICOINE:  Good morning, Mr.
 15   Chairman, Commissioners, participants and members
 16   of the public.  My name is Daryl Chicoine and I'm
 17   counsel to Cooks Creek Conservation District.  I
 18   will be presenting closing statements on behalf of
 19   Cooks Creek.
 20               I will let the district's presentation
 21   and written materials speak for themselves and,
 22   hopefully, provide you with a brief summary of
 23   Cooks Creek's issues and why it is felt that they
 24   merit the attention of the Clean Environment
 25   Commission.
03358
  1               First and foremost, the Cooks Creek
  2   Conservation District supports the granting of an
  3   environmental licence to the Manitoba Floodway
  4   Authority for floodway expansion with some
  5   conditions.  The primary concern of the district
  6   is, for the purposes of these hearings, is the
  7   issue of adequate provision of surface water
  8   drainage infrastructure to meet the present and
  9   future needs of agriculture in the district.
 10   Other issues of concern to the district include
 11   the transportation and groundwater issues, as
 12   thoroughly discussed by the rural municipalities
 13   of East St. Paul, St. Clements, and Springfield,
 14   as well as may of the individual presenters.  The
 15   district hopes that the Clean Environment
 16   Commission will attach conditions to any
 17   environmental licence granted to the Manitoba
 18   Floodway Authority for the floodway expansion
 19   project that addresses those concerns.
 20               Surface water management falls under
 21   the mandate of the Cooks Creek Conservation
 22   District, and the reality of surface water
 23   management in the district since the original
 24   floodway was built is that the only outlet for
 25   surface water is the floodway.  Therefore, the
03359
  1   district requires the ability to discharge excess
  2   surface water into the floodway.  With continual
  3   upgrading of the surface water management system
  4   within the district, many channels emptying into
  5   the existing drop structures have caught up with
  6   the drainage capabilities of those structures.
  7   That is to say, those channels cannot be upgraded
  8   further, as the elevation of the channel bottoms
  9   has reached the elevation of the sills of the
 10   current drop structures.  Local producers are
 11   unsatisfied with the way the current surface
 12   drainage infrastructure performs and the
 13   limitation on future upgrades, and one only has to
 14   look at figure 4 of the district's written
 15   presentation to understand why.  It is clear that
 16   improvements must be made to bring the
 17   infrastructure to meet today's needs and the needs
 18   of tomorrow.
 19               As noted in the written submission, an
 20   effective water management system is critical to
 21   the areas which form the Cooks Creek Conservation
 22   District, particularly as it relates to
 23   agriculture.  Before the construction of the
 24   existing floodway, streams and drainage channels
 25   in this area found their way from the region
03360
  1   westward into the Red River and the Seine River.
  2   When the floodway was constructed, those streams
  3   and drainage channels were funnelled into seven
  4   drainage drop structures and, therefore, drain
  5   into the floodway instead of the river.
  6               At several points in their
  7   presentation, the Manitoba Floodway Authority
  8   freely acknowledged that the existing floodway
  9   disrupted surface drainage.  Perhaps Springfield's
 10   Reeve Holland put it best when he commented that
 11   the east embankment of the floodway serves as a
 12   large dyke across the west end of the Rural
 13   Municipality of Springfield.  But for the
 14   existence of the drop structures, this water would
 15   accumulate on the land at the foot of the floodway
 16   east embankment.  And, because the district's
 17   drains rely on sloping elevations to move the
 18   surface water to the drop structures, the sill
 19   elevation at the drop structures is the critical
 20   determinant of how efficient the drainage network
 21   is at moving standing water off agriculture lands
 22   before it negatively impacts farm operations.
 23               As I mentioned moments ago, the
 24   primary issue of concern for the Cooks Creek
 25   Conservation District is the adequate provision of
03361
  1   surface water drainage infrastructure that will
  2   meet the present and future anticipated needs of
  3   agriculture in the district.  Practically
  4   speaking, what this means is more drop structures
  5   and lower sill elevations at all drop structures
  6   to allow for the future lowering of the drains
  7   which feed into the drop structures.
  8               Due to the widening of the channel,
  9   the existing drop structures must be replaced.
 10   This has been acknowledged by the Manitoba
 11   Floodway Authority.  It is the district's belief
 12   that the most cost effective use of resources is
 13   to build sufficient upgrade capacity into the
 14   draining systems now, while they are being
 15   replaced by necessity of the Floodway Expansion
 16   design.  Most, if not all, of the existing drop
 17   structures have been in place since they were
 18   built in the 1960's.  Clearly these structures
 19   have a long product life.  Given that long life,
 20   it is important that we use this opportunity to
 21   build them for use beyond the immediate need, as
 22   it may be decades before they need to be replaced
 23   and the opportunity arises again.
 24               The Manitoba Floodway Authority has
 25   consulted with the district about preliminary
03362
  1   design of the replacement drop structures,
  2   including discussion of possible upgrades.
  3   However, there is some disagreement about the
  4   extent and magnitude of improvements to be made to
  5   the drainage infrastructure.  As you heard
  6   numerous times over the last three weeks, the
  7   Floodway Expansion has not yet entered the final
  8   design phase.  Accordingly, there has been no
  9   final design of the drainage infrastructure to be
 10   built and the actual capacity improvements to the
 11   replacement structures has not been decided.  As
 12   indicated by Mr. Buhler under cross-examination,
 13   the lowering proposal by the Manitoba Floodway
 14   Authority probably meets the District's needs
 15   today.  But when we have the opportunity, why not
 16   plan for tomorrow?
 17               Despite the current good relationship
 18   between the Cooks Creek Conservation District and
 19   the Manitoba Floodway Authority, Cooks Creek is
 20   requesting that the inclusion of additional
 21   drainage drop structures, as well as provision for
 22   adequate future upgrades, be included as a
 23   condition of the Clean Environment Commission's
 24   environmental licence approval.  If you recall the
 25   cross-examination of the Manitoba Floodway
03363
  1   Authority by the district, page 894 of the
  2   transcript, the proponent has stated that it does
  3   not need to increase the capacity of the drop
  4   structures as part of the floodway project, but it
  5   is willing to make some changes to be a good
  6   neighbour.
  7               The district has concerns that this
  8   attitude may result in final design decisions
  9   being made that merely maintain the surface water
 10   status quo, rather than making the most of the
 11   opportunity to plan for the future.  Accordingly,
 12   the district is hesitant to let an issue as
 13   important as the future drainage needs of
 14   agriculture to be left to the sole discretion of
 15   the proponent once an environmental licence has
 16   been granted.
 17               This is not to suggest that the
 18   district does not look forward to continued
 19   involvement in the design process, but rather is a
 20   reflection of the reality that this project has
 21   changed in many ways since its original
 22   conception.
 23                The Cooks Creek Conservation District
 24   would like to remind the Clean Environment
 25   Commission that until as recently as the second
03364
  1   week of February of this year, deepening of the
  2   channel was contemplated.  At this point only the
  3   Manitoba Floodway Authority knows for sure what
  4   the next change might entail.
  5               In his opening statement to the Clean
  6   Environment Commission, Mr. McNeil noted that one
  7   of the Manitoba Floodway Authority concerns was
  8   that expenditures have a positive effect.  Would
  9   drainage drop structure upgrades have a positive
 10   effect?
 11               In response to a question posed on
 12   cross-examination by the District, the Floodway
 13   Authority indicated that to include building
 14   drainage drop structures to an elevation lower
 15   than the suggested .6 metres, and incorporate
 16   provisions for future lowering, the total project
 17   cost would be increased by an additional
 18   $2 million, which is an increase in project cost
 19   of about one-third of 1 per cent.  However,
 20   according to figures obtained by the District,
 21   almost half of the $7.4 million in crop insurance
 22   paid out to area farmers could be avoided with an
 23   improved drainage system.  That works out to
 24   $3.7 million in losses that could have been
 25   avoided in 2004 alone.  I note these figures were
03365
  1   not challenged when presented.
  2               In effect, with drop structures placed
  3   at a lower elevation, thereby allowing drainage
  4   improvements to be made within the district,
  5   within a year of those improvements, the reduced
  6   payout of crop insurance to area producers is
  7   expected to exceed the incremental cost of
  8   upgrading drop structures to the elevations
  9   requested by the district.  Clearly, this is a
 10   positive result of Floodway Expansion
 11   expenditures.
 12               You will recall from our submission
 13   that the primary soils in the Cooks Creek
 14   Conservation District area are clay soils which
 15   have low permeability.  We have heard a great deal
 16   about soil permeability over the course of these
 17   hearings.  The very quality that makes clay an
 18   ideal protector of the groundwater aquifer causes
 19   severe problems for area producers who do not have
 20   ready access to efficient surface water management
 21   systems.
 22               As noted by both Mr. Dubinsky and
 23   Mr. Johnson, each year producers in the District
 24   face significant losses due to crops having been
 25   forced to endure standing water.  Some crops are
03366
  1   lost completely, some are devalued.  In many
  2   instances, the lack of surface water results in
  3   land being so wet that farmers are unable to seed.
  4   The Cooks Creek Conservation District has
  5   determined that in 2004 Manitoba Crop Insurance
  6   paid out approximately $959,000 to farmers who are
  7   unable to seed.  This figure is part of the larger
  8   estimate of 7.4 million in 2004 crop losses
  9   suffered in the District.  The District asks you
 10   to compare that with the one time $2 million cost
 11   of upgrading draining infrastructure to the
 12   standard suggested in the District's written
 13   submission.
 14               Related to drop structure performance
 15   is the number and location of drop structures.
 16   The Cooks Creek Conservation District also
 17   requests that consideration be give to
 18   construction of additional drainage drop
 19   structures at new locations.  It may be that seven
 20   drop structures for 14 streams and channels was
 21   appropriate at the time of the existing floodway's
 22   construction in the 1960s, however, a lot has
 23   changed in the past 40 years.
 24               We note that in their submission the
 25   rural municipalities of East St. Paul and St.
03367
  1   Clements have expressed interest in a drop
  2   structure on the west side of the floodway, an
  3   area that is not presently served by a drop
  4   structure.  Cooks Creek believes it is time to
  5   revisit the number of drainage drop structures
  6   into the floodway.  Are there enough by today's
  7   standards?
  8               While it is accepted by the District's
  9   engineering consultants that it may be technically
 10   feasible for a combined drop structure to be as
 11   efficient as separate drop structures, this often
 12   requires drains to be rerouted several kilometres
 13   until they can intersect with the drop structure,
 14   often travelling parallel to the floodway.
 15   Anecdotal evidence provided to this Commission by
 16   local producers and persons residing near the
 17   floodway is that there have been instances where
 18   the drains that link the District's drains to the
 19   drop structures have been allowed to become
 20   overgrown with vegetation, which impairs the
 21   efficiency of surface water drainage system by
 22   creating a bottleneck that backs the water up on
 23   to the surrounding lands.  More drop structures
 24   would permit shorter distances between the drains
 25   and the drop structures and, therefore, it is
03368
  1   hoped, less likelihood that water will encounter a
  2   bottleneck and back up on to the surrounding
  3   lands.
  4               There are clear benefits to the
  5   improvements being sought by the Cooks Creek
  6   Conservation District, backed by sound engineering
  7   data that was not significantly challenged by the
  8   Manitoba Floodway Authority.  The district
  9   forecasts additional need and requests that the
 10   Clean Environment Commission require, as a
 11   condition of environmental licence approval for
 12   the floodway expansion, that specific technical
 13   changes for the design of the drainage drop
 14   structures be made so that incoming drains can be
 15   lowered by up to 1.4 metres from their current
 16   elevations.
 17               During the course of the hearings some
 18   concerns were increased drainage, in particular
 19   whether increased drainage is a good thing.  The
 20   evidence from the Cooks Creek Conservation
 21   District supports the conclusion that increased
 22   drainage in the District is a positive
 23   development, and this conclusion was not
 24   challenged by either the proponent, participant
 25   groups, or members of the public.  In fact, the
03369
  1   proponent has indicated at these hearings that it
  2   is open to upgrading the capacity of the drainage
  3   drop structures.
  4               The Clean Environment Commission need
  5   not be concerned that an upgraded, more efficient
  6   drainage systems in the Cooks Creek Conservation
  7   District might overwhelm the capacity of the
  8   floodway.  Under cross-examination by the
  9   District, Mr. McNeil indicated that the existing
 10   low flow channel was designed to handle 95 per
 11   cent of the water that the District's drainage
 12   network could provide.  Further, the District's
 13   drainage network is primarily in operation during
 14   the summer months when the floodway is not in an
 15   active operation mode.  Accordingly, the concern
 16   expressed by some members of the public about the
 17   effect of increasingly effective drainage and
 18   higher flood levels south of the floodway is not
 19   related in any way to the existing or proposed
 20   drainage network in the Cooks Creek Conservation
 21   District.
 22               Furthermore, it is the belief of the
 23   District that its recommendation are in line with
 24   the spirit of the recommendations made by the
 25   International Joint Commission.  This panel has
03370
  1   already noted that recommendation 9 of the
  2   International Joint Commission states,
  3               "Governments at all levels should
  4               ensure that in the development of
  5               flood mitigation strategies for the
  6               basin, the needs of small communities,
  7               individual isolated d farmsteads and
  8               agriculture are not