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 overlooked."
  9   We have an opportunity to ensure that the needs of
 10   agriculture are not overlooked, and we ask the
 11   Clean Environment Commission to attach conditions
 12   to the environmental licence.
 13               The economics of modern agriculture
 14   require farmers to construct drainage improvements
 15   to their own lands and bring excess water to the
 16   public drains.  But without continual upgrading,
 17   public drains become overwhelmed, and water ponds
 18   on the fields and causes losses to the producers.
 19   That is one aspect of the District's concerns.
 20   Another aspect of concern to producers in the
 21   District is that existing surface water concerns
 22   prevent local producers from seeding higher value
 23   crops that currently provide greater returns to
 24   other Manitoba farmers.  This is the reality that
 25   the Cooks Creek Conservation District is faced
03371
  1   with and the rationale behind its request to the
  2   Clean Environment Commission which are as follows:
  3               1.  Require the Manitoba Floodway
  4   Authority to construct drop structures that
  5   incorporate the ability to handle further
  6   upgrading of the drains that feed the structures,
  7   with the suggested sill elevation being 1.4 metres
  8   lower than the current elevation.
  9               2.  Require the Manitoba Floodway
 10   Authority to investigate and report on all matters
 11   relating to the feasibility, including cost, of
 12   adding new drop structures at the areas identified
 13   in appendix B to the Cooks Creek Conservation
 14   District submission.
 15               The Cooks Creek Conservation District
 16   does not want to see such an important detail left
 17   to chance.  It is within your power to include, as
 18   a condition of the environmental licence, reduced
 19   elevation of drainage structures as well as
 20   additional drainage structures, and this is
 21   precisely what we request you do.
 22               Thank you.  Those are our submissions.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr.
 24   Chicoine.  I'm going to play slightly with the
 25   agenda based on time available and time that's
03372
  1   been indicated to me that will be required.
  2               Mr. Stevenson, are you prepared to go
  3   now?  We have half an hour before lunch.  Thank
  4   you.
  5               MR. STEVENSON:  Mr. Chairman,
  6   Commissioners, Manitoba Floodway Authority,
  7   intervenors and members of civil society.  First
  8   of all, I would like to congratulate the three
  9   Rural Municipalities and the Coalition for Flood
 10   Protection North of the floodway in their advocacy
 11   and defence of the aquifer resources.  In
 12   addition, to the communities immediately south of
 13   Winnipeg, I applaud your efforts in defending your
 14   rights as Manitobans and as Canadians.
 15               I would like to touch upon a few
 16   issues in the closing statement resulting from my
 17   observances in the hearing process.  I would like
 18   to acknowledge that the Manitoba Floodway
 19   Authority has stated that floodway expansion is
 20   for the benefit of all Manitobans.  As many may
 21   now be aware, the Peguis Reserve is at risk every
 22   year from artificial flooding.  This causes many
 23   problems, and I would like to thank Mr. Gilroy for
 24   his opening comments on February 15, 2005.
 25               Mr. Gilroy stated that the Floodway
03373
  1   Expansion project is about protecting the
  2   environment, and I'm not disputing this.  However,
  3   he goes on further to state,
  4               "The longer term damage caused by mold
  5               would be horrific and the
  6               environmental damage to the Red River
  7               and Lake Winnipeg would last for
  8               generations."
  9               For the record, Mr. Chairman, our
 10   citizens in Peguis live this long term damage
 11   every day of their lives.  Mold infestation has
 12   occurred in over 200 homes, and I have been
 13   advised that as many as 400 homes may now be
 14   contaminated by mold due to the 2004 spring flood.
 15   Just for the record, there are just under 1,000
 16   residential units in the Peguis reserve.
 17               A flood forecast for Manitoba Water
 18   Stewardship on February 25, 2005 states that on
 19   the Fisher River, which flows through our
 20   community, with normal weather from now on, the
 21   flooding would be somewhat less than that of 2004,
 22   or else the unfavorable weather scenario could
 23   produce serious flooding similar to that of 1974
 24   or 1979.
 25               Our concerns are legitimate and arrive
03374
  1   every spring and remain with us throughout the
  2   year.  We do not want to live through another
  3   artificial flood event such as 2004, 1979 nor
  4   1974.
  5               Many of the homes our people live in
  6   ought to be condemned, however, there are no
  7   alternative shelter options available.  Many live
  8   in overcrowded homes as it is.  Our quality of
  9   life compared to other Manitobans is poor.  The
 10   Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
 11   published in 2004 a comparison measuring the
 12   well-being of First Nations compared to other
 13   Canadians utilizing the United Nations human
 14   development index, which basically states that
 15   First Nations peoples are subject to disparities
 16   and show a lack of improvement in the well-being
 17   of the First Nations population in comparison to
 18   Canadians.
 19               We have not sat idly by while the
 20   environmental disaster was infiltrating our
 21   community.  In the period from 2001 to 2003, we
 22   have attempted to engage the Federal Government,
 23   Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and Health
 24   Canada in assisting our community in dealing with
 25   mold contamination.  In 2002, we engaged the
03375
  1   Province of Manitoba on this issue also.  I will
  2   read into the record the 17 correspondences
  3   related to mold from this time period.
  4               October 11, 2001 to Marilyn Kapitany,
  5   then regional director general for INAC, Manitoba
  6   region, from the Peguis First Nation, regarding
  7   mold in Peguis, mold remediation funding request,
  8   identifying over 200 homes with mold.
  9               October 12, 2001, again to Marilyn
 10   Kapitany, regional director general, INAC
 11   Manitoba, from Peguis First Nations, further
 12   classification and clarification with regards to
 13   the October 11th letter.
 14               October 17, 2001, to Peguis chief and
 15   council from Bob Buchan, manager of community
 16   services for INAC, Manitoba region, response to
 17   October 11, 12 letters, mold remediation, the
 18   responsibility of the First Nation, and that no
 19   funding program is available for mold remediation.
 20   All renovations, repairs, construction
 21   deficiencies, the responsibility of the First
 22   Nation.  I would like to point out that this is
 23   failure of the Federal official to recognize the
 24   cause of the problem and to blame the victim.
 25               November 8, 2001, to then Minister
03376
  1   Allan Rock, Minister of Health Canada from the
  2   Peguis First Nation.  The minister is requested to
  3   intervene regarding Indian and Northern Affairs
  4   Canada breach of fiduciary duty.  Included in that
  5   correspondence were some health reports from
  6   medical doctors in our community related to mold.
  7               May 14, 2002, to Richard Legault, who
  8   is the regional director for Manitoba First Nation
  9   Inuit and Health Branch, from AMA on behalf of
 10   Peguis First Nation regarding mold survey budget
 11   requirements.
 12               July 11, 2002, to AMA on behalf of
 13   Peguis First Nation, from Richard Legault,
 14   regional director, Manitoba First Nation Inuit
 15   Health branch, FNIHB unable to provide financial
 16   resources for survey in Peguis.
 17               July 18, 2002, to Richard Legault,
 18   regional director, Manitoba First Nation and Inuit
 19   Health branch, from AMA on behalf of the Peguis
 20   First Nation.  States the disappointment and lack
 21   of resources even after Assistant Deputy Minister
 22   Ian Potter recognized severity of issue at March
 23   2002 meeting in Peguis regarding mold problem.
 24               Letter number 8, July 26, 2002, to AMA
 25   on behalf of Peguis First Nation from Richard
03377
  1   Legault, regional director, Manitoba First Nation
  2   Inuit and Health branch, states, no resources are
  3   available, financial or human, to support this
  4   priority project.  The region approached
  5   headquarters and response was not favourable,
  6   suggested that AMA approach INAC or CMHC for
  7   funding.
  8               Letter number 9, November 25, 2002, to
  9   Donna Stewart, Aboriginal and Northern Affairs
 10   Manitoba, from Peguis First Nation, regarding mold
 11   assessment in Peguis be undertaken by the
 12   Provincial Health inspectors as suggested by
 13   Premier Doer in a July 2002 meeting in Peguis.
 14               Letter number 10, February 2003 to
 15   Mr. Rick Orto, manager Regional Environmental
 16   Health, First Nation and Inuit Health branch,
 17   Manitoba region, from Peguis First Nation.
 18   Regarding Manitoba Chief Medical Officer of Health
 19   is requested by Peguis to assist in assessing mold
 20   in homes, and also respecting the jurisdictional
 21   protocol for the First Nation.
 22               Letter number 11, February 28, 2003,
 23   to Peguis First Nation from Mr. Rick Orto, manager
 24   of Regional and Environmental Health, First Nation
 25   Inuit Health branch.  FNIHB mold protocol will be
03378
  1   followed, which states that homes undergo
  2   evaluation -- which Peguis First Nation requested
  3   in 2001, 2002 -- also states re-evaluation is
  4   necessary.  However, that correspondence was
  5   silent on funding and resources.
  6               April 14, 2003, to Chief Stevenson,
  7   Peguis First Nation from Mr. Dave Chomiak then
  8   Minister of Health for Manitoba.  Regarding, the
  9   minister appreciates that all federal avenues have
 10   been considered and recognizes that assistance
 11   from the provincial expertise is requested.
 12   Manitoba Health will send provincial health
 13   inspectors to the First Nation for an initial
 14   assessment.
 15               June 16, 2003, to Mr. Peter Rogers,
 16   Director of Professional Services, Directorate
 17   Health Canada, Manitoba region, from Dr. Joel
 18   Kettner, Chief Medical Officer of Health for
 19   Manitoba region.  Peguis residential mold report.
 20   Medical Officer of Health reports with input from
 21   a public health inspector and mold remediation
 22   expert based on April 16, 2003 visit to Peguis.
 23   Most important factor for mold infiltration is the
 24   overland flooding.  Second would be local
 25   landscaping and structure specific maintenance.
03379
  1               June 17, 2003, to Mr. Ian Potter
  2   Assistant Deputy Minister, FNIHB, Health Canada,
  3   from Acting Chief Lloyd Sinclair, Peguis First
  4   Nation.  Peguis First requesting the ADM to honour
  5   commitment made at March 2002 meeting.  History of
  6   correspondence outline regarding funding requests.
  7               Letter 15, August 6, 2003, to Chief
  8   Stevenson, Peguis First Nation from Dr. David
  9   Williams, Acting Director Professional Services,
 10   Directorate Health Canada, Manitoba region.
 11   Agrees with the findings of the report from the
 12   medical officer of health and the chief medical
 13   officer of health letter.  FNIHB does not provide
 14   funds for mold remediation, suggest approaching
 15   INAC for funding.
 16               September 29, 2003 to then Minister
 17   Anne McLellan, Minister of Health Canada, and then
 18   Minister Robert Nault, Minister of Indian and
 19   Northern Affairs Canada, from Mr. Dave Chomiak,
 20   then Minister of Health for Manitoba.  Manitoba
 21   requests assistance from both ministers to address
 22   the mold related health and housing issues on
 23   Peguis First Nation.
 24               Letter 17, December 16, 2003, to then
 25   Minister Pierre Pettigrew of Health Canada, and
03380
  1   then Minister of Indian Affairs, Minister Andy
  2   Mitchell for INAC, that's from Chief Stevenson.
  3   Peguis First requests action from Canada to deal
  4   with the mold contamination and flooding problem.
  5   Also a reference to the September 29 letter
  6   authored by Minister Dave Chomiak, Manitoba
  7   Health.  To date we haven't received any response
  8   from the December 16, 2003 letter.
  9               These are 17 letters dealing
 10   specifically with mold issues in Canada from 2001
 11   to 2003.  We have followed due process in terms of
 12   trying to get the situation dealt with, however we
 13   have again been stonewalled I believe at every
 14   effort we have attempted.
 15               Members of the Commission and to the
 16   public, I urge each of you to consider the
 17   consequences that we deal with on a daily basis.
 18   Manitoba and Canada have caused significant harm
 19   upon our community as a result of artificial
 20   flooding.  Our resiliency is slowly being eroded.
 21               Recent academic literature dealing
 22   with community vulnerability and their responses
 23   to natural and manmade disaster has made
 24   interesting conclusions.  I would like to point
 25   out one of them.  The literature notes that poorer
03381
  1   communities suffer greater losses and are less
  2   likely to recover than those with more economic
  3   resources.  As an example, comparison of the
  4   communities in the Red River Valley have
  5   demonstrated their ability to recover from
  6   devastating floods, mainly due to enhanced flood
  7   protection, versus our community which has no
  8   enhanced flood protection and limited economic
  9   opportunities, we are left at the mercy of mother
 10   nature and government.
 11               Academic literature has stated that
 12   post-disaster reconstruction processes are more
 13   likely to benefit the socially and economically
 14   powerful sectors at the expense of poorer, less
 15   powerful sectors in terms of mitigative measures,
 16   thereby perpetuating social inequities.
 17               I respectfully submit that we be
 18   treated the same way as other Manitobans are
 19   treated when it comes to flood protection.  I
 20   request that the Commission recommends flood
 21   protection for all Manitobans, including those
 22   communities not covered by the Red River Floodway.
 23               One other point that I would like to
 24   raise before I conclude, I would like to briefly
 25   outline the Canada, Manitoba, Shellmouth dam
03382
  1   consolidated agreement which is dated January 6,
  2   2003.  One of the objectives of this agreement,
  3   and I'm paraphrasing, is to compensate past and
  4   current landowners in the upper reaches of the
  5   reservoir in the Province of Saskatchewan, who
  6   have identified unintended negative impacts of the
  7   reservoir created by the Shellmouth dam and
  8   thereby protecting Canada and Manitoba from future
  9   damage claims.
 10               Another objective includes upgrading
 11   maintenance of the existing structure.  For the
 12   record, Manitoba Floodway Authority has stated
 13   that the Shellmouth dam is an integral component
 14   of the Winnipeg flood protection system.  My
 15   question would be, the fact that Canada and
 16   Manitoba are compensating landowners in
 17   Saskatchewan for flood protection works intended
 18   to protect the City of Winnipeg, where is the
 19   compensation for other communities suffering from
 20   artificial flooding?  Furthermore, I urge Canada
 21   and Manitoba to respond to the compensation
 22   required by Peguis for similar artificial flooding
 23   circumstances.  It seems that Canada and Manitoba
 24   are quite willing to compensate landowners in
 25   another province, but not citizens of Manitoba.  I
03383
  1   do not see that as logical, nor fair.
  2               To conclude, Members of the
  3   Commission, I respect the mandate of the
  4   Commission and the purview of this hearing
  5   process.  However, let me underscore the point
  6   that I have been making; the Manitoba Floodway
  7   Authority has stated on numerous occasions that
  8   the floodway expansion is to benefit all
  9   Manitobans.  To me that's a stretch, but I can
 10   agree somewhat.
 11               I also want to record to indicate that
 12   flooding occurs in other regions in Manitoba.
 13   Protection for those regions is required.
 14               Mr. Chairman, our leadership has
 15   engaged both Manitoba and Canada in discussion
 16   regarding our artificial flooding problem since
 17   1975.  The discussion continues to this day, with
 18   no long term resolution to this problem and no
 19   compensation for damage or economic losses.
 20   Negligence and liability lay with Manitoba and
 21   Canada because of our artificial flooding.  I have
 22   to resort to pleading our case in front of this
 23   esteemed panel, because we deserve recognition,
 24   justice, and compensation for the injuries that we
 25   have suffered since 1974.
03384
  1               We are no less Manitobans than our
  2   non-native neighbors.  In fact, I am more
  3   Manitoban simply because I am indigenous to this
  4   land.  I'm seeking evidence that we can be
  5   considered as peers and not as a marginalized
  6   people just because of who we are.  Help me in
  7   finding this evidence.
  8               We were victimized in 1907 when we
  9   lost our beautiful land along the lower Red River.
 10   Since 1974 we are victimized on an almost annual
 11   basis because of artificial flooding, because we
 12   were not involved in the watershed decision making
 13   process.  We need to be involved in watershed
 14   management associated with the Red River Valley.
 15   History must not repeat itself.  Do not allow this
 16   victimization to continue.  Our future depends on
 17   halting the abuse.
 18               With this submission I have attached
 19   two attachments.  It is the Peguis First mold
 20   issue correspondence from 2001 to 2003.  And I
 21   have also appended the Canada, Manitoba,
 22   Shellmouth Dam consolidated agreement for the
 23   record.  Thank you.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you,
 25   Mr. Stevenson.
03385
  1               Mayor Stefaniuk, are you ready to
  2   present at this time?
  3               Okay.  He has a very short
  4   presentation so that should just fill the time
  5   remaining.
  6               MR. STEFANIUK:  Good morning.  Let me
  7   begin by thanking the Commission for allowing me
  8   to return to these hearings with a closing
  9   statement.
 10               As you have so kindly recognized,
 11   there is no other area of our province that has
 12   greater interest in and concern about the
 13   expansion of the Winnipeg Floodway than Ritchot
 14   has.  Since my first appearance before you on
 15   February 28th, I have received many calls and
 16   comments, not just from Ritchot residents, but
 17   from Winnipeggers concerned with the dismissive
 18   way in which we were treated by the Manitoba
 19   Floodway Authority following our presentation.  To
 20   say we were shocked with newspaper headlines and
 21   media statements made by the MFA following our
 22   presentation would be a gross understatement.  In
 23   truth, we were devastated with their cavalier and
 24   arrogant attitude towards our concerns regarding
 25   the serious impact of artificial flooding on the
03386
  1   lives and livelihood of our people.
  2               What was most shocking, however, was
  3   their total disregard and apparent disrespect for
  4   the Clean Environment Commission, and the
  5   independent process that has yet to yield its
  6   decision regarding not just the economic, but also
  7   the human and social impacts of the proposed
  8   expansion.
  9               Clearly, in their rush to do it their
 10   way, the Floodway Authority seems all too willing
 11   to leap frog right over the CEC hearings and
 12   bulldoze over us with a flat out rejection of our
 13   concerns and our suggestions.  Honestly, how dare
 14   they circumvent the CEC process by rending a
 15   decision, a decision that's yours, not theirs,
 16   about the impracticality of saving Ritchot
 17   families from major flood events.  Perhaps they
 18   would like to come to Ritchot and see the faces of
 19   our families when they tell us that it is
 20   impractical to save homes, businesses, and entire
 21   communities, it is impractical to prevent stress,
 22   trauma and emotional destruction, it is
 23   impractical to treat all Manitobans the same with
 24   equal flood protection.  It is impractical to
 25   explore the many different options that can make
03387
  1   this expansion fair for all.
  2               Surely, the whole exercise that
  3   involves so much human trauma is not simply going
  4   to boil down to a cost benefit analysis?  Surely
  5   this process will follow its original mandate and
  6   study human and social impacts, in addition to
  7   economics.  Surely, we can count on you to really
  8   listen to our concerns, to weigh them and to
  9   represent us when no one else seems willing to do
 10   so.
 11               In summary, Mr. Chairman, I make the
 12   following comments on the Floodway Authority,
 13   their Environmental Impact Statement, and their
 14   mandate relative to the Floodway Expansion
 15   project.
 16               All the intrinsic shortfalls in the
 17   design of the original truncated floodway project
 18   are again being carried forward into the expansion
 19   project, this despite the fact that we now have
 20   more technical sophistication and broader flood
 21   experiences.  This should not be allowed to
 22   continue.
 23               The mandate of this project should not
 24   continue the blatant disregard for the genuine
 25   environmental concerns and marginalization of a
03388
  1   large number of Manitobans.  This once again seems
  2   to be a political decision to save money.
  3               Upstream mitigation measures must be
  4   included in the project so as to eliminate
  5   backwater effects of floodway operations.  Design
  6   of the project must remove the necessity of an
  7   upstream reservoir in an area that has been
  8   populated since settlement began in the Red River
  9   Valley.
 10               Summer operations should not be
 11   allowed under any circumstances, unless the inlet
 12   of the channel is widened and deepened to the
 13   extent necessary.
 14               A pumping station would also serve
 15   this purpose.  These solutions would allow the
 16   floodway to be operated at any time without
 17   creating artificial flooding and affecting
 18   upstream properties, wildlife, and fish passage.
 19               The Floodway Authority should be given
 20   the mandate to take alternate projects seriously.
 21   These alternatives require study, proper cost
 22   analysis, and cost benefit ratios that do not
 23   exclude thousands of residents who should be
 24   included in the project.
 25               Back of the envelope calculations are
03389
  1   not adequate and should not be used in the media
  2   to demean people who have genuine concerns and who
  3   are quoting costs previously stated by the
  4   authority.
  5               The Floodway Authority engineers
  6   should be required to act in accordance with their
  7   professional standards.  They should not advocate
  8   projects that are harmful to society.
  9   Professional engineering ethics should not be
 10   subservient to political influence and whims.
 11               The Red River Floodway Act must be
 12   abandoned since it is not worth the paper it is
 13   written on.  In its place a Federal/Provincial
 14   flood compensation agreement must be developed and
 15   brought to signature by both levels of government.
 16               At present, the Federal Government,
 17   who is the major funder, has no agreement with the
 18   province on cost sharing the huge liabilities
 19   resulting from this Act.  In order to truly
 20   comfort those residents who will be affected, this
 21   situation cannot continue to be overlooked.
 22               Finally, I again reiterate that this
 23   project is of the utmost importance and should
 24   start in some form as soon as practicable.
 25   However, if it does not commence this year, those
03390
  1   who have genuine concerns and fears should not be
  2   used as political scapegoats.
  3               The root cause of any delay rests
  4   entirely with the Floodway Authority and their
  5   so-called extensive public consultations.  If
  6   these consultations had been done adequately and
  7   had the concerns of Manitobans truly been taken
  8   seriously, things would be much different today.
  9   Instead, their attitude and their arrogance has
 10   forced us to your doorstep as the only legitimate
 11   avenue available to address our concerns.
 12               We hope you agree it is time to do
 13   this project correctly.  Once construction begins,
 14   we will be at the point of no return.
 15               It is also our sincerest hope that
 16   that Commission's recommendations will not endorse
 17   the continuation of poor political decisions made
 18   in the past on flood related issues in the Red
 19   River Valley.  The legacy will belong to all
 20   Manitobans for centuries to come.
 21               Mr. Sargeant, Mr. Motheral, and Dr.
 22   Webster, we all wish you well with your
 23   deliberations.  Thank you.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mayor
 25   Stefaniuk.
03391
  1               We will take a break now for lunch.
  2   We will come back at 1:00 o'clock.  Immediately
  3   following lunch, we will have the closing
  4   statement of the North Ritchot Action Committee,
  5   followed by Ritchot Concerned Citizens, and then
  6   others as time permits.
  7               (Proceedings recessed at 12:00 and
  8               reconvened at 1:00 p.m.)
  9   
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Can we come to order,
 11   please.  Just some slight shifting in the
 12   afternoon's line-up.  The 768 Association has a
 13   commitment, needs to be out of here by
 14   three o'clock.  So with the consent of Bob Starr,
 15   768 will go second and following that will be
 16   Ritchot Concerned Citizens.
 17               I had a last minute request of sorts I
 18   guess from the three municipalities at lunch time.
 19   One of their reeves is not available this
 20   afternoon so they asked if they could go tomorrow
 21   afternoon.  I have agreed to that although I did
 22   tell them that they may have to shorten their
 23   closing comments if we are time squeezed tomorrow.
 24               So first up this afternoon, the North
 25   Ritchot Action Committee.  And I will note that I
03392
  1   will be pretty strict on the 60 minute time line
  2   for the closing statements.  Dr. Stewart.
  3               MR. STEWART:  Thank you.  The
  4   following presentation summarizes NRAC's
  5   participations in these proceedings and our
  6   overall review of the project.  The information we
  7   have presented before the Commission represents
  8   only a small part of NRAC's submissions relies on
  9   all of this information and we assume that it's
 10   available to the Commission.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Dr. Stewart, in spite
 12   of my admonition on 60 minutes, can you just go a
 13   little slower so that the court reporter can get
 14   it all.  I will allow a little leeway on that
 15   basis.
 16               MR. STEWART:  I'll try not to panic.
 17   Thank you.  The CEC terms of reference specify the
 18   Commission shall conduct a public hearing to
 19   consider the potential environmental,
 20   socio-economic and the cultural effects of the
 21   construction and operation of the Red River
 22   Floodway Expansion Project.
 23               The proponent has indicated it is
 24   seeking a licence for this expanded project and
 25   its operation.
03393
  1               The job of CEC is to provide a
  2   recommendation on whether an Environmental Act
  3   Licence should be issued to the Floodway Expansion
  4   Management Authority for the Red River floodway
  5   expansion proposal.  What have you heard in the
  6   last few weeks that will help you make your
  7   recommendations?
  8               You've heard many points of view over
  9   the past few weeks expressed in various degrees of
 10   clarity and emotion.  There is obviously
 11   significant public concern about the floodway in
 12   either of its guises, the existing or expanded
 13   floodway, and the environmental impacts it will
 14   have especially on people not embraced by its
 15   design philosophy but people faced with the
 16   consequences.
 17                The lack on the part of the
 18   proponents of the project to recognize the serious
 19   consequences of the project on a minority sector
 20   of Manitobans has created a deep rift between
 21   stakeholders and the proponents, both the MFA and
 22   the Government of Manitoba.  Distrust with the
 23   proponent and the government was evident in so
 24   many of the presentations that you've heard, it
 25   has to make you wonder why.
03394
  1               We believe it stems from the initial
  2   design philosophy, a philosophy that does not look
  3   to address the needs of all concerned stakeholders
  4   but rather was designed to address the needs of
  5   one group, the majority, to the exclusion of the
  6   other, the minority.  Pitting neighbour against
  7   neighbour is not an acceptable means of gaining
  8   consensus.  This should be obvious to all,
  9   including those without a direct personal stake in
 10   the project.
 11               Ms. Hendrickson, in a presentation
 12   from the Rivers West Coalition, stated it very
 13   well.  She said there has been so much
 14   divisiveness and animosity in these proceedings
 15   and we certainly do not want this to be another
 16   issue that causes additional divisiveness and
 17   bitterness in the Red River Valley.  We are not
 18   advocating recreation over water quality, over
 19   mitigation or compensation.  All issues are
 20   important and must be considered and addressed in
 21   a manner acceptable to all.
 22               The parties involved need to meet
 23   their obligation to the people of the Red River
 24   Valley.  That is exactly what was called for by
 25   the IJC, the Manitoba Water Commission and what
03395
  1   has been advocated by NRAC since its inception
  2   some eight years ago.  Eight years is a long time
  3   to be voicing legitimate concerns and not being
  4   heard.
  5               Nonetheless, the disenfranchised has
  6   spoken at these proceedings with unanimity, not
  7   all on the same issue but in the way their
  8   individual issues have been neglected.  Even the
  9   Trails people whom I'm sorry to say we had viewed
 10   at one time as kids frolicking innocently on our
 11   gallows, have a firm grip on reality, a reality
 12   that has escaped the government, the proponent and
 13   their paid representatives.
 14               Regardless of their specific issue,
 15   bank stability, groundwater, recreation,
 16   infrastructure, artificial flooding, all others at
 17   these hearings have noted deficiencies in the EIS;
 18   deficiencies in considering structural and
 19   operational alternatives in scoping the project;
 20   deficiencies in defining the significance of
 21   impacts; in addressing biophysical, sociological,
 22   economic, health, psychological and recreational
 23   issues; deficiencies in meaningful consultation
 24   and dialogue with stakeholders and their
 25   engagement in project design and operation; and
03396
  1   deficiencies in transparency and candor.
  2               There are numerous information gaps
  3   identified relating to a lot of issues including
  4   groundwater, bank stability, artificial flooding,
  5   impacts on wildlife and fish and the environmental
  6   assessment itself.
  7               You've heard several times that the
  8   proponent is not aware of any data indicating
  9   adverse effect, when in fact there are no data,
 10   period.  The absence of data does not mean an
 11   absence of impact.
 12               In total, there is an overwhelming
 13   deficiency in conducting a proper EIS and it's not
 14   just the great unwashed masses, or in some cases,
 15   the great washed out masses who have expressed
 16   these opinions.  You have documents from Health
 17   Canada, Infrastructure Canada, Transportation
 18   Canada and others noting the same deficiencies.
 19               NRAC suggests the evidence of
 20   deficiency speaks for itself.  Let's look at some
 21   specifics.  The issue of cumulative environmental
 22   assessment has been a pivotal issue throughout
 23   these hearings and the materials originating from
 24   the CEAA guidance documents were submitted
 25   purportedly to defend the assessment approach used
03397
  1   by the proponent.  First it's unfortunate that
  2   someone from the Canadian Environmental Assessment
  3   Agency was not available to speak to the issues
  4   raised, particularly with regard to the existing
  5   environment and the requirements of a cumulative
  6   effects assessment.  Nonetheless, CEAA may have
  7   the final say in the matter.
  8               It's NRAC's view that much of the
  9   information presented in the EIS stems from
 10   misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the
 11   guidance information.  Common sense and legal
 12   precedence dictate that it's impossible to have a
 13   cumulative effects assessment without knowing what
 14   the environmental effects of the existing project
 15   are.
 16               The proponent has used tortuously
 17   convoluted arguments to reject the need for a real
 18   consideration of cumulative effects.  NRAC agrees
 19   with the Chair that one should consider the
 20   environment as a child who cannot speak for
 21   herself.  If the arguments get convoluted and hard
 22   to follow, they are not suitable for a child.
 23               When the heavy machinery leaves, there
 24   will be only one floodway.  Suggesting that all
 25   future impacts are caused by the old floodway and
03398
  1   the old rules just doesn't stand up.  Is somebody
  2   going to come out to me and say the year 2014 and
  3   say too bad about all this flooding, I'm so sad it
  4   was caused by the previous floodway.  The
  5   absurdity of such an assertion is obvious to all
  6   and the fact that it's obvious makes it an insult
  7   to those of us who are likely to be affected and
  8   deserve to be treated fairly.  The approach
  9   advocated by the proponent is so patently
 10   unreasonable, it merits complete rejection.
 11               The only reasonable proposition is
 12   that there will be one expanded floodway in the
 13   end.  As simply as possible, what are the real
 14   questions for our area?  One.  Will the expanded
 15   floodway have environmental impacts?  More
 16   specifically, will there be artificially high
 17   water in some areas as a result of operation of
 18   the expanded floodway?  Would the interaction
 19   between the city's infrastructure and floodway
 20   operation ever permit water levels below natural
 21   upstream?  Would the city's infrastructure
 22   interact with the floodway operation in a way to
 23   affect spring or summer operations?  Do the
 24   Shellmouth Dam and Portage Diversion interact with
 25   the operation of an expanded floodway?  For all
03399
  1   four very simple questions, there is a very simple
  2   answer.  Yes.
  3               The next step then should be to define
  4   and quantify the interaction.  The proponent
  5   hasn't done that for any of these.
  6               The evidence points in only one
  7   direction, that the proponent has presented
  8   virtually no information on the impacts of the
  9   operation of the expanded floodway.  Operation of
 10   the existing and expanded floodway are guided by
 11   the so-called rules of operation.  NRAC has made
 12   numerous presentations and generated numerous
 13   letters with respect to the rules.  We reiterate
 14   some of our concerns here because they are of
 15   particular significance to us.
 16               The Expansion Authority says that the
 17   rules already exist and, therefore, they need no
 18   review.  Indeed, they go so far as to say that the
 19   rules, specifically rule 2, define the baseline
 20   environment.  While the proponent used this
 21   definition as ironic, NRAC believes the rules for
 22   operation are a key component of the cumulative
 23   effects analysis.
 24               Now the proponent may try to convince
 25   you that the impact of the operation of the
03400
  1   expanded floodway need not be examined because the
  2   proponent predicts artificial flooding -- upstream
  3   impacts -- will be a little less frequent than
  4   stated under the previously approved rules.
  5   What's the evidence for supporting that phrase,
  6   "previously approved rules"?
  7               If we look at "previously", the IJC
  8   task force started contemplating an expanded
  9   floodway in 1999 and that's the conceptual start
 10   of this project.  In December of 1999, the
 11   committee reviewing the rules of operation
 12   completed its report.
 13               The province submitted its proposed
 14   new rules in December of 2000 and Minister
 15   Anderson, the Federal Minister for the
 16   Environment, responded with caveats on the 26th of
 17   April 2001.  That was two days after Mr. Doer was
 18   quoted in the Free Press as being fully committed
 19   to floodway expansion.
 20               So far, the development of a plan
 21   for -- new plan for floodway operation appears to
 22   be exactly concurrent with the development of the
 23   project of the expanded floodway.  They clearly do
 24   not precede the project under review.  They are
 25   clearly integral to that project and clearly, it's
03401
  1   within the scope of the EIS.  To pretend otherwise
  2   is to pretend that operation of an expanded
  3   floodway will not flood anyone.
  4               Then on top of all that, Rule 4 was
  5   added in November 2004 while the EIS supplementary
  6   filing was being finalized.  How something created
  7   unilaterally by the province while the project was
  8   under environmental review can be seen as baseline
  9   environment boggles the mind.  Clearly the
 10   operating rules are not part of past activities
 11   but are in fact concurrent with the planned
 12   physical expansion of the floodway and they must
 13   be part of the review.
 14               Now, remember that the rules are part
 15   of the baseline because they were previously
 16   approved.  Obviously not previously.  Were they
 17   approved?
 18               The Manitoba Environment Act includes
 19   under "development" the operation that's likely to
 20   cause the utilization of a natural resource in a
 21   way to pre-empt or interfere with other uses and
 22   it modifies the utilization of technology that may
 23   induce environmental change.
 24               NRAC reads floodgates for technology
 25   and recognizes that artificially high water
03402
  1   pre-empts the use of our lands and induces
  2   environmental change, environmental damage,
  3   clearly demonstrated in 1997.  Then NRAC
  4   interprets this to mean that the alteration of the
  5   operation is a development that requires an
  6   environmental licence under provincial
  7   legislation.
  8               The proponent provided supporting
  9   evidence in the supplementary filing noting that
 10   an environmental assessment would be required to
 11   change the rules to allow for summer operation.
 12               What applies for summer operation
 13   projected to stay at or below 760 feet above sea
 14   level must surely apply in spades for Rules 2 and
 15   3 that will put many feet of water above natural
 16   conditions on our properties and four feet of
 17   water over our current flood protection level.
 18               Others could comment with more
 19   authority but it seems to us that a development
 20   plans to flood Manitobans directly impacting their
 21   health, safety, society and economy must be a
 22   Class 3 development requiring hearings.  To our
 23   knowledge, no hearings have taken place to assess
 24   those rules at either a federal or a provincial
 25   level.
03403
  1               Let's go back to the simple question
  2   before CEC.  What are the environmental effects of
  3   the existing rules of operation?  Simple answer,
  4   we don't know.  They haven't been studied.  They
  5   were scoped out by the proponent.
  6               So we have a program of operation
  7   developed concurrently with the rest of the
  8   expansion project without due process but which
  9   has upstream impacts and has not been examined.
 10               Are they really rules?  The opinion of
 11   one engineer was that they were guidelines.  The
 12   opinion of another engineer was that they are hard
 13   and fast.  I am not going to offer my opinion as a
 14   scientist.  In any case, it's probably
 15   inappropriate for anybody other than the
 16   government to speak to the issue of the rules.
 17               What we have had mostly came from the
 18   Manitoba Floodway Authority, although the
 19   Authority neither formulates the rules nor applies
 20   them.
 21               It seems to us that if the rules are
 22   completely in some other domain, and their
 23   creation and application interact completely with
 24   the expansion of the floodway, then they are
 25   obviously part of the cumulative effects.
03404
  1               But whether they are rules or
  2   guidelines is paramount to an environmental
  3   review.  A bigger ditch has little impact on folks
  4   upstream until it's filled with water.  How it
  5   becomes filled with water is determined by the
  6   rules.
  7               The expanded floodway does not flood
  8   us, its operation does.  This is an important
  9   point that goes to the issue of defining the
 10   existing environment, as we had spoken to before.
 11               Did we hear any evidence to support
 12   the claim that the rules are hard and fast, that
 13   they are inviolate and fixed?  No, but we heard
 14   evidence to the contrary.
 15               During the proceedings, Mr. Bowering
 16   stated, I really can't think of a situation where
 17   we would violate them unless, and then lists a few
 18   exceptions.  What makes them inviolate?  What
 19   makes them any more fixed than the previous rules
 20   which were changed without environmental review,
 21   at least three times.  That were presented to the
 22   drafting committee as interim, according to
 23   testimony we heard, and then later unilaterally
 24   adopted.  And they remained in violate all the way
 25   from April 2001 to November 2004 when Rule 4 was
03405
  1   added, again without due process.
  2               What are the consequences to the
  3   operator for breaking them and who applies the
  4   disciplinary action?  None specified.  Is it
  5   sufficient for an environmental licence?  Can the
  6   issuers of an environmental licence assure
  7   themselves that the rules will not be changed
  8   again unilaterally?  That there are legal
  9   restrictions on violating rules?  That there are
 10   clear penalties for violating the rules?
 11               The evidence supports only part of the
 12   claim that the rules are hard and fast.  It
 13   supports the fast part as in fast and loose.
 14               All our comments with respect to the
 15   process of creating and modifying rules applies to
 16   the rules for both spring and summer operation.
 17   Again, for summer operation, there's insufficient
 18   information and the information that is provided
 19   is ambiguous and contradictory.
 20               The proponent maintains that emergency
 21   operation is required to prevent damages as seen
 22   in 1993.  But their supplementary filing says
 23   large portions of this damage were due to
 24   significant rainfall events and not necessarily
 25   due to high river levels.
03406
  1               Rule 4 uses, as one of its criteria
  2   for summer emergency operation, the risk of
  3   intense rainfall.  The supplementary filing says
  4   it is not practical to operate the floodway in
  5   response to rainfall forecasts.
  6               The evidence presented by the
  7   supplementary filing is so contradictory that huge
  8   uncertainty remains about what may or may not
  9   happen and why.  Uncertainty that has not been
 10   addressed in the project assessment.
 11               The supplementary filing also says
 12   before control of summer water levels, there
 13   should be further assessment and it lists a few
 14   things that that assessment should include.  It
 15   says, furthermore, damages associated with the
 16   disruption, personal and business loss during
 17   periods of flooding has not been considered in the
 18   assessment of benefits.  Increased stress and
 19   anxiety should also be considered for those living
 20   upstream of the floodway inlet control structure
 21   as well.  Obviously these factors have not yet
 22   been considered.
 23               The proponent would have you believe
 24   that a set of statements about how the floodway
 25   might or might not be operated at least until the
03407
  1   rules are changed without scrutiny or violated
  2   without penalty define the existing environment.
  3               NRAC commented on the absurdity of
  4   this review and its review of the EIS, it said,
  5               "This is at best an amusing approach
  6               as it suggests that the environment
  7               can be modified merely by changing the
  8               text of the operating rules for the
  9               existing floodway.  Clearly, that is
 10               not what is envisioned under CEAA.  It
 11               is the operation of the existing
 12               floodway that caused the environmental
 13               effects in the past and it will be the
 14               operation of the new, larger floodway
 15               which will produce those environmental
 16               effects in the future.  It is
 17               unreasonable to suggest that after
 18               completion of the new floodway that
 19               the existing floodway (which will no
 20               longer exist) will continue to produce
 21               environmental effects that somehow are
 22               not connected to the expanded
 23               floodway.  Conveniently, this analysis
 24               makes the environmental effects
 25               disappear."
03408
  1               Looking at upstream protection and
  2   alternatives.  You've heard a great deal of
  3   discussion about 778 feet above sea level, whether
  4   this is a new upper limit or not, whether the
  5   physical structure could ever have achieved this
  6   level, whether it's safe to bring water that close
  7   to the top of Winnipeg's protection.
  8               But for NRAC, the real concern starts
  9   at a much lower water level and at much more
 10   frequent floods.
 11               The EIS figure 5.3-4 has been
 12   discussed repeatedly.  I have attached a copy to
 13   the back of my written submission and also a copy
 14   of the original.  I wasn't sure you'd have it
 15   instantly available.
 16               The proponent has emphasized the
 17   double-headed arrow at the top of the vertical
 18   line representing the 1 in 225 year flood.  This
 19   shows a reduction in the depth of artificial
 20   flooding.  This leads the proponent to conclude
 21   that artificial flooding has no significant impact
 22   but is that really the evidence in figure 5.3-4?
 23               If you go down that vertical line, the
 24   1 in 225 year line, you see first the two-headed
 25   arrow that denotes the reduction, not the
03409
  1   elimination of, but the reduction of artificial
  2   flooding which may benefit residents in the outer
  3   margins of the reservoir.  They may not yet be
  4   submerged at this stage.
  5               At the lower arrowhead is where the
  6   level of artificial flooding associated with the
  7   expanded floodway is about 775 feet above sea
  8   level.  That's about one and a half feet above our
  9   current flood protection level indicated by the
 10   dashed line.  The dashed line marks the top of our
 11   provincially required flood protection level,
 12   roughly 773.5 at the floodway.  Then way down to
 13   the natural level in a 1 in 225 at roughly 770
 14   using the proponent's own rating curve.
 15               As we noted in our written comments,
 16   the graph highlights a one metre difference in
 17   water levels between the existing floodway and the
 18   expanded floodway for the 225 year flood implying
 19   a positive environmental effect.  Clearly both the
 20   existing and planned floodway scenarios exceed the
 21   current flood protection level for upstream
 22   residents.
 23               At the same time, the expanded
 24   floodway still causes something in the order of
 25   one and a half metres of artificial flooding in
03410
  1   that 1 in 225 flood.  That's hardly a benefit for
  2   upstream residents.  So the advertised benefit is
  3   a non-benefit in our area.
  4               To have your homes ring dyked over top
  5   by one foot instead of two feet is not a benefit.
  6   If an inch comes in, it all comes in.  Water
  7   levels even with light switches in your
  8   living-room is pretty much the same as water
  9   levels a foot above the light switch.  Operation
 10   of the expanded floodway will put our flood
 11   protection under water by forcing water levels
 12   artificially high sometime between the 1997 flood
 13   and the 1 in 225 year flood.
 14               The much ballyhooed benefit, a
 15   reduction of artificial upstream flooding, occurs
 16   after the upstream flood protection levels have
 17   been topped in the 1 in 225.
 18               In discussing alternatives to this
 19   scenario of rural disaster, the proponent has
 20   repeatedly said that 100 million or 110 million
 21   has been spent to increase flood protection
 22   upstream so no further consideration need be
 23   given.
 24               Let's take a look at the individuals
 25   who received about 60 million in grants.
03411
  1               To get a $60,000 grant, individuals
  2   had to spend at least $10,000 of their own.  So
  3   individuals paid at least $10 million to get 1 in
  4   120 year protection which will be violated the
  5   moment Rule 2 is enacted and overwhelmed shortly
  6   thereafter.
  7               It's also clear from the evidence
  8   presented that our pre-1997 flood protection,
  9   approximately 1 in 100, has not been significantly
 10   improved by the reported 110 million.  This is
 11   particularly the case for those who live
 12   immediately upstream of the floodway, the
 13   residents of Ritchot, where the new flood
 14   protection barely restores flood protection lost
 15   through floodway operation in '97 which made the 1
 16   in 100 year flood two feet higher than natural.
 17   It should be obvious to anyone who examines this
 18   figure that there's little benefit on a flood
 19   frequency basis for anyone attempting to build
 20   beyond the rapidly rising -- check the slopes of
 21   those curves -- water once Rule 2 is invoked.
 22               The major point is that residents have
 23   spent that money to get a flood protection level
 24   that the proponent says is unacceptable for the
 25   city.  Apparently, it's good enough for us but not
03412
  1   good enough for them.
  2               Why hasn't there been any analysis of
  3   structural or operational options to let reservoir
  4   residents benefit from some of this expensive
  5   protection?  Why hasn't there been any risk
  6   assessment?
  7               Different presenters have offered a
  8   variety of structural options.  Virtually none was
  9   examined partly because the proponent considered
 10   it unnecessary.  We have heard the operator, Water
 11   Stewardship, say that there are a great many ways
 12   the whole system, including the Shellmouth Dam and
 13   Portage Diversion, could be used to share the
 14   benefit, but it wasn't considered because the
 15   flood controls were built for Winnipeg, an archaic
 16   and draconian design philosophy.
 17               Clearly there is a range of options
 18   between all the benefits going to Winnipeg and all
 19   the benefits going to Ritchot.  Any environmental
 20   assessment that ignores such blatant opportunities
 21   to mitigate impacts is not an environmental
 22   assessment.
 23               In terms of consultation, Mr. Gilroy
 24   proudly presented his score card on a
 25   consultation.  The proponent will likely tell you
03413
  1   he's heard most of what you have heard in the last
  2   few weeks before and they'll tell you they have
  3   acted on all of the relevant issues.  Ha ha, the
  4   relevant issues.
  5               The consultative meetings always
  6   started, just as Mr. McNeil did at these hearings,
  7   with a statement about what was not included, a
  8   list of issues the proponent chose not to
  9   consider.  Consultation doesn't mean saying we're
 10   here to talk about our project but not your very
 11   serious issues, any questions?
 12               You've heard from NRAC how the
 13   Manitobans most affected by the operation of the
 14   Winnipeg Floodway were excluded from meaningful
 15   participation in their review of rules of
 16   operation.  You've heard from Mayor Stefaniuk and
 17   Mr. Bowering how those statements were to be
 18   interim and reviewed again as part of floodway
 19   expansion and how this was not done.  You've heard
 20   from Rivers West and the Red River Floodway Trails
 21   Coalition how they were invited into discussions
 22   and invited out again.  You've heard from many
 23   people with long histories of trying to get
 24   information and resolution from the Government of
 25   Manitoba over many varied flood issues.  The few
03414
  1   success stories in these histories were hard won.
  2               While many of these personal histories
  3   arise from the original floodway and its
  4   operation, they are relevant here as testimony to
  5   the long-standing adversarial approach that
  6   thwarted meaningful consultations about floodway
  7   expansion.  Which leads us directly to the next
  8   topic, a review of significant impacts.
  9               The significance of the impact of
 10   operations on the floodway have been ignored and
 11   trivialized by the proponent because they were
 12   excluded by its flawed stance on what the
 13   environment is and what constitutes an
 14   environmental effect or a cumulative effects
 15   assessment.
 16               In your opening remarks, you noted
 17   participants do not have the same access to expert
 18   advice and resources available to the proponent.
 19   We concur about the resources, but many of the
 20   participants have expertise in areas completely
 21   unknown to most of the Floodway Expansion
 22   Authority.  They have been flooded.  They've had
 23   groundwater contaminated.  They've had ice jams.
 24   They suffered at the hands of their provincial
 25   government over water and water related issues as
03415
  1   well as trying to obtain fair compensation.
  2   You've had access to some very expert testimony on
  3   the significance of impacts.
  4               With the wealth of evidence before us,
  5   why should the proponent be at odds with the vast
  6   majority of participants?  Why is the proponent
  7   alone in thinking that there are only
  8   insignificant impacts?  Perhaps the most telling
  9   reason was given by Mr. McNeil in discussions with
 10   Ms. Clifton.  When asked if there had been any
 11   environmental impacts resulting from the operation
 12   of the Winnipeg Floodway in 1997, Mr. McNeil said
 13   he didn't think so but didn't really know.
 14               Well, of course in 1997, there were
 15   homes that relied on ring dykes that went under by
 16   a few inches, all artificial flooding.
 17               Mr. McNeil took perhaps too narrow a
 18   definition of environmental impacts and left out
 19   this rather severe example.  And therein lies the
 20   root of our problem, we've been simply left out.
 21               Upstream flooding was also dismissed
 22   as a rare event.  The proponent cites frequencies
 23   on the basis of one time events.  Upstream
 24   residents experience any number of these events
 25   and therefore must endure the cumulative frequency
03416
  1   of them.
  2               From our review of the EIS, we
  3   commented on this flawed argument.  With
  4   artificial flooding, levels above natural rating
  5   curve occurring roughly once in 90 years for the
  6   existing floodway and once in 120 years for the
  7   new floodway, the current flood protection levels
  8   being exceeded somewhere between the 1 in 125 and
  9   the 1 in 200 for the existing and expanded
 10   floodways, the EIS claims the apparent risk to
 11   residents is so small to be statistically
 12   insignificant.
 13               Whether risk at these probabilities is
 14   significant or not is not worth debating.  More
 15   significantly, what the EIS analysis overlooks is
 16   that these probabilities are for any given year
 17   and that residents living upstream are likely to
 18   live there for more than just one year.  The
 19   probabilities become cumulative with duration of
 20   frequency.  Many of the residents living upstream
 21   have been a part of the community for their entire
 22   lives and some families had been there for
 23   generations.
 24               Even using a conservative residence
 25   period of 25 years would mean that a resident has
03417
  1   roughly a 24 per cent or a 19 per cent chance of
  2   being artificially flooded and an 18 or 12 per
  3   cent chance of being inundated by the existing and
  4   the expanded floodways respectively.  To put this
  5   into perspective, any resident living upstream of
  6   the floodway for a period of 25 years would have
  7   roughly the same odds as someone playing Russian
  8   roulette, assuming a 1 in 6 chance.  Few people
  9   would accept such odds as being trivial or
 10   insignificant and the likelihood only gets worse
 11   for the longer term residents.  Any reasonable
 12   person would find such an effect to be
 13   significant.
 14               You've seen data from Mr. Bowering and
 15   Mr. Clifton that shows roughly half the time the
 16   gates have been used in the spring that produce
 17   artificially high water.  That's using the
 18   proponent's definition of natural.  It jumps to
 19   about 19 out of 23 times if natural is defined
 20   based on the amount of water actually coming from
 21   the west.
 22               So in spring operations, we have
 23   artificial flooding about 50 per cent of the times
 24   the floodway has been used, about 10 times in the
 25   last 30 years or so or about a 33 per cent
03418
  1   frequency.  Add the prospects of artificial
  2   flooding in the summer and we're virtually
  3   guaranteed of repeated impacts in our foreseeable
  4   future.
  5               Floodway operation that impacts
  6   reservoir residents is neither rare nor
  7   insignificant.
  8               You've heard several passionate
  9   presentations about the lingering effects of the
 10   1997 flood.  You've seen the psychological impact,
 11   heard the economic costs, learned about the
 12   sociological effects.
 13               You've extended your hearings from
 14   three weeks to four.  Why?  Because for so many
 15   people, the existing floodway and the expanded
 16   floodway loom over their heads every day like what
 17   sword.  How often did you hear those presenters
 18   blame the river, the water, the season, the
 19   environment for their heart break and anguish?  I
 20   didn't hear any.  I didn't see any in the
 21   transcripts.  I haven't heard any in eight years
 22   of discussing floods with friends and neighbours.
 23   That's because it's not the river that's harming
 24   us, it's the Province of Manitoba that chooses to
 25   manipulate the river in a certain manner.
03419
  1               What you have heard is a litany of
  2   broken promises; promises in 1968 when Rita
  3   Bartmanovich's father-in-law was told the floodway
  4   would help keep his upstream properties dry;
  5   promises in 1999 that the rules will be reviewed
  6   again; promises from then opposition leader Doer
  7   to get us all in a room and work it out; promises
  8   for full compensation regarding floodway
  9   expansion.
 10               What you have heard is a litany of
 11   denial from the province, the proponent, operator
 12   and arbitrator of floodway expansion and
 13   operation; denial of past artificial flooding;
 14   denial of impacts on groundwater; denial of
 15   impacts on both upstream and downstream of
 16   Winnipeg; denial of responsibility.
 17               Mr. McNeil, in an interview last week,
 18   said we should just trust government.  Mr. Chair,
 19   residents of the reservoir have absolutely nothing
 20   in their history of the floodway construction,
 21   operation and mitigation or compensation that it
 22   would support such trust.
 23               The EIS and the supplementary filing
 24   ignored serious aspects of a proper environmental
 25   assessment and promised to conduct studies on some
03420
  1   impacts such as bank stability and wildlife damage
  2   caused by summer operations.  And that defeats the
  3   purpose of an environmental assessment which is to
  4   examine the environmental effects such that
  5   informed decisions can be made.
  6               Finally, the proponent may dismiss,
  7   has dismissed these concerns because whatever the
  8   unknown impacts, any damage caused by this project
  9   in the future will be covered by the compensation
 10   legislation.  You've heard testimony from NRAC and
 11   many others who have no such faith in this
 12   compensation.
 13               First, the proposed legislation has
 14   not been proclaimed.  It's not in effect.  Second,
 15   as you've heard, it covers only material losses
 16   based on an assessment by the perpetrator of those
 17   losses, the Manitoba Government.  You have heard
 18   that compensation cannot possibly address the
 19   emotional and psychological and social impacts
 20   that you've seen in the past few weeks.
 21               Presenters at these proceedings,
 22   including NRAC, have testified that it is the
 23   social consequence that persists that cannot be
 24   redressed through replacing damaged goods and
 25   cannot be ignored.  That's why these people are
03421
  1   showing up here, some eight years after the flood.
  2   And you have also heard testimony that these
  3   impacts have not yet been examined.
  4               The health and socio-economic impacts
  5   brought about by changes in the environment are
  6   critical to upstream residents.  The International
  7   Joint Commission clearly summarizes its views on
  8   this matter in its assessment of the 1997 flood.
  9   The IJC said there is no satisfactory way to sum
 10   up the collective trauma of over 100,000 people
 11   who were affected by the flood and who struggled
 12   to recover, even now, more than three years after
 13   the event.  The Commission knows from its many
 14   visits with local residents, public hearings and
 15   the study of the flood that the human toll is high
 16   and real.  There is no easy way to assign an
 17   economic benefit to the value of knowing one is
 18   relatively safe from future floods, or the
 19   economic cost of the trauma knowing that you may
 20   once again be flooded.
 21               The only mitigation possible is to
 22   share the benefits and stop flooding us.
 23               Turning to your duties.  I've just
 24   reviewed some of the reasons for the distrust.
 25   Other presenters have spoken to it more directly.
03422
  1   In fact, one common theme in the presentations
  2   before you is the history of Manitobans taking the
  3   Manitoba Government to court over water and
  4   floodway related issues.
  5               The CEC can start to the address this
  6   distrust.  In your remarks way back on
  7   February 15th, you said fairness must not only
  8   occur but there must be a perception of fairness
  9   and impartiality during the hearings.
 10               We would say that flood protection
 11   must also start with the perception of fairness
 12   and impartiality as well.  Don't set your sights
 13   too high though; you can't restore our faith
 14   eroded over 40 years by yourselves but you can
 15   start by protecting your own credibility.
 16               We expect your review to be
 17   compassionate.  We require that your review be
 18   logical.
 19               You have evidence that there are
 20   serious omissions in the EIS in the supplementary
 21   filing.  There are contradictory claims in the EIS
 22   and the supplementary filing.  You have evidence
 23   that there are information gaps identified in the
 24   EIS and promises to address them at some future
 25   time.  You have evidence that the Province of
03423
  1   Manitoba has a dismal record on following up on
  2   such promises and that licensing procedures for
  3   operations may not have been followed.
  4               Our logic says that an environmental
  5   licence cannot be recommended on the basis of the
  6   process and information on hand.  Our logic, based
  7   on our long history and the histories of other
  8   participants, says that a conditional
  9   recommendation is as good as a carte blanc for the
 10   proponent to carry on and ignore those conditions.
 11   If we don't get it right this time, when will we
 12   get it right?
 13               Our logic says that we'll see you
 14   again in about a year when a proper EIS is filed.
 15   Obviously our logic dictates a delay.  But had a
 16   proper EIS been prepared in the first place, there
 17   would be no delay.
 18               The proponent will argue and has
 19   argued that a delay of a year will add to the
 20   cost.  But you've also heard that the benefit to
 21   Winnipeg is so great, the current price tag has a
 22   cost recovery period of only 12 years.
 23               The project is to protect Winnipeg for
 24   future generations.  None of us here will get an
 25   opportunity of this magnitude again.  For the
03424
  1   proponent, this is just a project, a big project,
  2   maybe their crowning glory as engineers, but a
  3   project.  To us, it's our lives.
  4               I'd like to return to the presentation
  5   by the Rivers West and Red River Floodway Trail
  6   Coalition.  Virtually everyone else involved in
  7   this environmental review process has water
  8   protection as their basic issue.  It may be
  9   groundwater or artificial water or frozen water
 10   but most of us are interested in keeping water out
 11   of our homes and bad water out of our good water.
 12               The Trail people therefore stand alone
 13   as an interested and informed third party and they
 14   offer a tangible example of the cooperation NRAC
 15   has been seeking for years.  Rivers West and the
 16   Trail Coalition advocated the formation of a group
 17   that includes non-coalition stakeholders, be they
 18   municipalities, be they hay farmers, whatever.
 19   And that third group involved in this project team
 20   included the Manitoba Floodway Expansion
 21   Authority.
 22               Despite the apparent futility of our
 23   long history attempting to work with the
 24   proponent, NRAC still agrees with this approach.
 25   It's the great failing by the proponent not to
03425
  1   have adopted this approach from the start, not
  2   working together with stakeholders.
  3               To conclude, it's NRAC's position that
  4   the evidence before you does not support
  5   recommending approval for an environmental licence
  6   of floodway expansion at this time.  We ask that
  7   you collate numerous deficiencies we and others
  8   have noted in the EIS and recommend that those
  9   deficiencies be addressed by the proponent.
 10               In the interest of expediency with
 11   rigour, we ask that you recommend the revised EIS
 12   go to a joint federal/provincial panel where the
 13   requirements of CEAA can be fully considered.  The
 14   alternative of a separate federal panel, although
 15   it may be necessary, is not the most desirable
 16   option.
 17               As I noted at the start, the majority
 18   of testimony presented here was that the process
 19   for public involvement, for public recognition was
 20   neither inclusive nor comprehensive.  This is just
 21   more than a review of a floodway project.  This is
 22   about fairness and honesty, about working together
 23   towards a shared goal and about respecting the
 24   rights of all Canadian citizens.  If the
 25   provincial process cannot accommodate these
03426
  1   issues, then the federal government will have to
  2   assume its responsibilities.
  3               We sincerely hope that you will give
  4   everything that you have heard serious
  5   consideration and we hope that your decisions will
  6   be governed by information and wisdom, not
  7   expediency.  Thank you.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Dr. Stewart.
  9   You were well within the time constraints.  Can I
 10   just ask you one question about a point in your
 11   summation?  It's on page 10 and it's the
 12   highlighted or bolded statement.
 13               MR. STEWART:  My pages are slightly
 14   different.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  It's in the section --
 16               MR. STEWART:  This is the ballyhooed
 17   benefit?
 18               THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Can you just
 19   expand on that a little bit?
 20               MR. STEWART:  I may have to call on my
 21   technical advisor, but if you look at the
 22   annotated figure 5.3-4 that I gave you, the upper
 23   red triangle represents the presumed benefit in a
 24   1 in 225 year flood.  It's a reduction of
 25   artificial water between Rule 2 of the expanded
03427
  1   floodway and the existing floodway.
  2               The smaller triangle below that, the
  3   length of that wedge represents artificial
  4   flooding that exceeds our flood protection level
  5   in that 1 in 125 year flood.  So my main point is
  6   that we have gone under well before that so-called
  7   benefit could help us.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay, thank you.  I
  9   hadn't quite realized that until you put it in
 10   here.  So I thank you for that piece of
 11   information.  Thank you.
 12               Mr. Duerksen, 768 Association.
 13               MR. DUERKSEN:  Good afternoon.  As
 14   part of our closing statements, we would like to
 15   do two things.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we have some
 17   order in the room, please.  There's a little bit
 18   of chattering back there.
 19               MR. DUERKSEN:  For our closing
 20   statements, we would like to do two things.  I
 21   would like to read into evidence a letter from our
 22   consultant, Green Mountain Hydrotech that was
 23   addressed to the Chair of this Commission,
 24   Mr. Terry Sergeant.  And you should have received
 25   it on email this morning.
03428
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  I did.
  2               MR. DUERKSEN:  So I would like to just
  3   quickly read that into evidence and then we will
  4   proceed with our closing statements of the 768
  5   Association.  The letter is to the Clean
  6   Environment Commission.
  7               "Dear, Mr. Sergeant.  You may recall
  8               that on March 1, 2005, immediately
  9               after the presentation by the 768
 10               Association Inc. and subsequent
 11               cross-examination, the MFA delivered
 12               to me, Yaroslav Shumuk, Hydraulics
 13               Consultant of the 768 Association, a
 14               number of sheets of paper that was in
 15               response to an appeal relating to the
 16               information request that I had made to
 17               the MFA.
 18               I am taking the liberty of writing
 19               this letter to you to report on what I
 20               had received and some additional
 21               insight that this new information has
 22               provided.
 23               I am not aware whether or not the MFA
 24               provided you with a copy of the same
 25               information that I received which
03429
  1               consisted of five pages.  I attached
  2               scanned copies of these five pages to
  3               this letter in case you did not
  4               receive a copy.  Two pages showed maps
  5               of modeled flood water levels for
  6               Telemac model runs I1 and F1.  Two
  7               pages showed maps of modelled
  8               velocities for these same runs.  These
  9               figures covered a larger geographic
 10               area than the figures provided to me
 11               in response to the initial information
 12               request which addressed the essence of
 13               my complaint that the original
 14               coverage was too limited.  The fifth
 15               page was a repeat of information
 16               already provided in the initial
 17               information request, therefore added
 18               nothing new.
 19               I also attach a copy of my appeal
 20               letter dated 14th of January 2005
 21               which the new information handed to me
 22               at the hearing was supposed to
 23               address.
 24               The point of this letter is to advise
 25               you that the information handed to me
03430
  1               at the hearing was still incomplete.
  2               My appeal to 768 IR-1 and IR-12
  3               specifically asked whether the water
  4               levels and velocities shown in the
  5               figures were snapshots taken at a
  6               particular time during the simulation
  7               or whether these were accumulated
  8               maxima gathered up through each entire
  9               run.  The five sheets of paper handed
 10               to me at the hearing do not address
 11               this question at all.
 12               This is an important point because it
 13               would clarify whether the greatest
 14               simulated velocities and water levels
 15               appear on those figures or not since
 16               the maximum velocities and water
 17               levels do not necessarily occur
 18               everywhere over the entire area during
 19               any one instance in time.
 20               My appeal relating to 768 IR number 6
 21               for more specific information
 22               regarding calibration data used for
 23               the flow split between the floodway
 24               and the inlet structure was completely
 25               ignored.  It is worth noting that on
03431
  1               the attached figure entitled
  2               "Velocities Along the Dykes," the
  3               model results show velocities near the
  4               dyke protecting the west side of Ste.
  5               Agathe that have similar magnitudes to
  6               those modelled at Avonlea Corner.  You
  7               may recall that the MFA alluded to
  8               need for erosion protection at Avonlea
  9               Corner.
 10               The fact that another area near a dyke
 11               protecting a community has similar
 12               velocities underscores the point I
 13               tried to make at the hearing about the
 14               need for re-running Telemac over the
 15               whole flood plain using a finer grid
 16               and updated topography, then to
 17               monitor all critical locations through
 18               the entire design flood hydrograph to
 19               identify any locations where the
 20               velocity criteria for erosion are
 21               exceeded.
 22               I hope this information is of use to
 23               you.  Sincerely Green Mountain,
 24               Yaroslav Shumuk."
 25               Now for the closing statement of the
03432
  1   768 Association Inc.  March 8, 2005.  Dear
  2   Mr. Sergeant and esteemed panel.
  3               We thank you and the Commission for
  4   having allowed the 768 Association Inc. to present
  5   our views and concerns regarding the Red River
  6   Floodway Expansion Project.  To begin our closing
  7   statements, we would like to underscore our
  8   position of support for what other participants,
  9   such as NRAC, Health Canada, et cetera, have
 10   articulated better than we, that the scope of the
 11   EIS has been too narrow.
 12               It is our view that the impacts of the
 13   project should, by definition, have included the
 14   impacts of the floodway as a whole and not just
 15   the incremental impacts of making the existing
 16   floodway somewhat bigger.
 17               The importance of this fundamental
 18   difference in approach cannot be stressed enough.
 19   It is a very important key to addressing many
 20   concerns raised during these hearings by the 768
 21   Association and other participants.
 22               Having said that, we will move on to
 23   discuss additional points of importance to us.
 24               On September 20, 2004, we received a
 25   letter from the Minister of Conservation
03433
  1   indicating what funding we had received and how it
  2   was to be spent, that is, as recommended by the
  3   CEC.  The recommended use of the funds did not
  4   include our concerns regarding compensation,
  5   summer operation and operating rules.
  6               In our written submission and
  7   presentation to the CEC, we have articulated our
  8   concerns regarding the exclusion of these items.
  9   We trust that the CEC will take these concerns
 10   into consideration and bring them forward to the
 11   Government of Manitoba.
 12               To follow are some additional comments
 13   with respect to our concerns regarding the
 14   operating rules.
 15               During our presentation before this
 16   Commission on March 1, 2005, the CEC Chair
 17   clarified for us that the operating rules and
 18   their effects in fact were to be reviewed by the
 19   CEC.  In our submission for participant status and
 20   funding, one of the issues we listed is a concern
 21   with a change to the operating rules since the
 22   1997 flood.  Under the new rules, water levels
 23   inside the City of Winnipeg will only be allowed
 24   to reach an equivalent of 24.5 feet at James
 25   Avenue before artificial flooding of communities
03434
  1   outside the city dyke system is allowed.  The
  2   previous rule required the water to reach a higher
  3   elevation of 25.5 feet James before artificial
  4   flooding could take place.
  5               Specific to operating rules, none of
  6   the participants, including the 768 Association,
  7   were granted funds to investigate the revision to
  8   the rules and their effects.  In light of that
  9   letter and comments by the CEC at a preliminary
 10   meeting with participants on June 1, 2004, we were
 11   of the understanding that the operating rules were
 12   not going to be a topic of discussion during the
 13   hearings.
 14               Later in a letter to the Director of
 15   Environmental Approvals dated November 11, 2004 --
 16   the CEC was copied on this letter -- we again
 17   requested that we be provided the ability to
 18   review and comment on the impact of the new
 19   operating rules.  The response was that we were to
 20   focus your, as in our, participation in the review
 21   and hearing in accordance with the funding award
 22   letter.
 23               Subsequently, we decided not to
 24   discuss operating rules in our submission for fear
 25   of being ruled out of order and possibly risk
03435
  1   losing part or all of our funding.
  2               In light of the Chairman's comments on
  3   March 1, 2005, we will, however, take the
  4   opportunity during these closing statements to
  5   register a serious concern regarding the operating
  6   rules and their impact.
  7               As per our submission and presentation
  8   at this hearing, we have taken the approach that
  9   the definition of existing floodway should be that
 10   which existed just prior to the 1997 flood.  In
 11   our opinion, the EIS did not adequately define
 12   what existing is.
 13               One of the main reasons for our
 14   suggested definition is that changes to the flood
 15   protection system in the Red River Valley which
 16   had been implemented during and since 1997 have
 17   not been the subject of any environmental approval
 18   process.
 19               In addition, these changes have not
 20   been subjected to a public review forum such as
 21   this hearing, where questions and concerns by the
 22   common folk can be heard and evaluated.
 23               The change to operating rule number 1,
 24   that is 24.5 versus 25.5 James, is a detriment to
 25   the residents represented by the 768 Association
03436
  1   and those living in the forebay area.  We were not
  2   given assistance to investigate the exact impact
  3   from a hydraulic perspective but our feeling is
  4   that it could be in the order of a few feet of
  5   additional artificial flooding as well as the
  6   prospect of having higher water levels for a
  7   longer period of time.
  8               Furthermore, we are concerned over
  9   such statements as was made in a memo from Rick
 10   Bowering to Maurice Sydor dated December 11, 1997,
 11   a copy of which can be found in NRAC's submission,
 12   where it is suggested that operating rules are
 13   really only guidelines and not rules in the sense
 14   of legal regulations.
 15               Depending on how the gates are
 16   operated, the detrimental effects of these
 17   operations on our community would be even greater
 18   than what can be deduced from operations in strict
 19   conformance with the stated rules.
 20               After the 1997 flood, there was a
 21   flood proofing assistance program offered to
 22   residents who met the criteria.  This program
 23   required the residents to pay 25 per cent of the
 24   cost to a maximum of $10,000.  For a variety of
 25   reasons, the 768 Association was unable to take
03437
  1   advantage of this program at the time it was
  2   offered.
  3               The 768 Association would like to take
  4   this opportunity to register a serious concern
  5   which we may not have fully articulated in our
  6   previous submission and presentation to the CEC.
  7   Whereas, the residents outside of the Winnipeg
  8   dyke system had to contribute up to 25 per cent of
  9   the cost of their flood protection out of pocket,
 10   the Floodway Expansion Project is fully funded by
 11   taxpayers' dollars.
 12               Furthermore, the operating rules were
 13   changed since 1997 to the benefit of the city
 14   residents and to the detriment of those living
 15   south of the floodgates, reducing considerably the
 16   protection provided by our dykes.  Furthermore,
 17   the Floodway Expansion Project does not require
 18   any proactive measures by the city in order to
 19   alleviate artificial flooding to the south.  By
 20   any standard, all of this can only be viewed as
 21   unfair.
 22               It is left to the residents south of
 23   the floodgates to hope that the government
 24   operates the gates within the rules, to admit to
 25   artificial flooding, and then to compensate
03438
  1   fairly.
  2               We request that the Government of
  3   Manitoba and the MFA include in the project a
  4   detailed plan as to how the residents represented
  5   by the 768 Association will be protected from
  6   artificial flooding.  All reasonable efforts must
  7   be made by the proponent to protect us from
  8   artificial flooding, including investigating all
  9   other viable options.  This has, to date, not been
 10   addressed properly in the EIS.
 11               Flood protection for us may involve
 12   the raising of our dyke, a sandbagging plan, some
 13   other means or a combination thereof.  Whatever
 14   method is employed, it must be recognized that we
 15   deserve the same level of consideration as those
 16   taxpayers protected by the city dyke.  It is only
 17   as a last resort that compensation for artificial
 18   flooding or even natural flooding for that matter
 19   should be considered as a mitigating measure.
 20   Every reasonable effort must be made beforehand to
 21   avoid the scenario.
 22               During the last number of months, the
 23   CEC has heard passionate pleas, including our own,
 24   from those of us living in the flood zone of the
 25   Red River but who are not protected by the
03439
  1   floodway and city dyke.  We trust that the CEC
  2   will give full weight to our concerns and ensure
  3   that recommendations are made so that the
  4   proponent and the Manitoba Government proceed in a
  5   way that is acceptable to all.  We are depending
  6   on you as our last resort.  Thank you.
  7               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
  8   Mr. Duerksen.  Next up is the Ritchot Concerned
  9   Citizens Committee.
 10               MR. STARR:  Good afternoon,
 11   Mr. Chairman, commissioners.  My name is Bob
 12   Starr, Chair of the Ritchot Concerned Citizens
 13   Committee.
 14               Before I read our prepared
 15   recommendations, I just wanted to go over a few
 16   things that bothered me from yesterday's
 17   proceedings.
 18               We found yesterday there was very good
 19   questions asked by the Commission, questions on
 20   mental health, property values.  And after three
 21   weeks, they still go unanswered by MFA.  Why?
 22   Because there are no upstream studies.  The
 23   Commission is left with no information.  And why?
 24   Because MFA clings to this 778 baseline.
 25               And I don't want to beat a dead horse.
03440
  1   I'm not going to go over that.  But Health Canada
  2   also asks the same questions and they are very
  3   serious questions.  And into our fourth week, they
  4   still go unanswered.
  5               These letters also repeatedly show MFA
  6   trying to deceive Infrastructure Canada and I
  7   believe the CEC, saying there will be no upstream
  8   adverse effects.  The destruction of thousands of
  9   homes upstream is a significant adverse effect.
 10   And then what about our lives?  No where in the
 11   entire EIS do we even have the courtesy of it
 12   being mentioned that our homes will be destroyed.
 13   That's inevitable.  It's guaranteed.  The
 14   Commission has to understand that.  We have to
 15   live with that.
 16               The second point from yesterday is the
 17   proceedings are becoming far too legalistic and
 18   MFA is not being open and transparent with
 19   participants and the CEC.  We were always led to
 20   believe this would be an open transparent process.
 21   It seems to be becoming a battle of lawyers.  And
 22   we would like to just put it on record that
 23   without funding for legal counsel, we feel we are
 24   at a distinct disadvantage.
 25               With that, I would proceed to our main
03441
  1   presentation that you have.  Before I read the
  2   actual closing statements, I would just ask you to
  3   focus for a minute on the photo on the front
  4   cover.  We put this photo here because it
  5   represents the devastation that a few inches of
  6   artificial flooding caused to hundreds of homes
  7   and Ritchot residents in 1997.  In the background
  8   on the right, you can clearly see where just a few
  9   inches of artificial flooding breached my dyke in
 10   1997.  This few inches resulted in the eventual
 11   tear down of the home.  We lost most of our
 12   contents and it changed my life forever.
 13               Now with the proposed floodway
 14   expansion, this photo also represents our future.
 15   We know this will happen again for thousands of
 16   upstream residents.
 17               If you look at the water in this
 18   picture, calm, early in the morning, that was the
 19   highest level reached in 1997.  Our flood-proofing
 20   level is about the top of the white sandbags in
 21   the foreground, 1997 plus two feet.  Artificial
 22   flooding guaranteed in the future at some point is
 23   six and a half feet higher than that.  So this
 24   picture is our future.  Even if you are to accept
 25   every recommendation I propose today, we have to
03442
  1   live with the fact that we are going to lose our
  2   homes again.  So please consider the photo
  3   carefully when you make your recommendations.
  4               The Ritchot Concerned Citizens
  5   Committee fully supports the protection of
  6   Winnipeg.  Because we experienced the '97 Flood of
  7   the Century, we know better than anyone about the
  8   horrendous lifelong adverse effects of flooding,
  9   and in good conscience, we can't stand in the way
 10   of such adverse effects being prevented for
 11   others.  At the same time, however, based on our
 12   experiences to date that cannot be described
 13   without using words such as mistrust, unfairness,
 14   exasperation and hopelessness, we feel strongly
 15   that the proposed Floodway Expansion Project
 16   should not be approved by the CEC without firm
 17   conditions pertaining to the interests of upstream
 18   residents.
 19               In this regard, we note the following
 20   deficiencies in the EIS and the overall approach
 21   taken by the Floodway Authority to people living
 22   upstream.  The flood study region upstream did not
 23   include the areas between Morris and Emerson that
 24   will experience artificial flooding.  This leaves
 25   thousands of unsuspecting residents totally
03443
  1   unaware of the adverse effects that await them.
  2   Upstream residents are guaranteed to be flooded
  3   artificially in the future.  Hundreds, if not
  4   thousands, will lose their homes.  Some will lose
  5   their health and possibly their lives.  Many are
  6   the same people who are still struggling with the
  7   aftermath of the '97 Flood of the Century.  This
  8   is too much to ask of any group in our society
  9   without going to extraordinary lengths to
 10   demonstrate with clarity and complete openness
 11   that prevention of adverse effects is either
 12   impossible or too costly.
 13               In this regard, we note that the
 14   Floodway Expansion Project does not provide for
 15   any upstream mitigation whatsoever, zero.
 16               The environmental impacts experienced
 17   at elevation 778 at the inlet have never been
 18   quantified.  This makes the entire EIS meaningless
 19   for upstream residents and leaves the Commission
 20   without cost figures and impacts against which to
 21   evaluate benefits to Winnipeg residents.
 22               The public participation process in
 23   the upstream area did not result in a single
 24   beneficial change to the proposed project from our
 25   perspective.  In fact, and I'm not sure if the
03444
  1   Commission realizes this, the only change was that
  2   our level of flood protection was reduced from 1
  3   in 250 year protection to 1 in 120 year protection
  4   as a result of widening rather than deepening.
  5               This change was made to protect
  6   downstream wells without regard for the upstream
  7   effects.
  8               The EIS states that upstream interests
  9   will be dealt with through the Red River Floodway
 10   Act but that Act is not proclaimed, there are no
 11   regulations, no details.  As a result, the CEC is
 12   being asked to recommend licensing of the proposed
 13   project without any specific information about
 14   compensation for artificial flooding.  And
 15   upstream residents are being asked to have faith,
 16   that the vaguest of plans will result in our being
 17   treated fairly and in a timely manner.
 18               This continues the uncertainty for us
 19   and the related stress which apparently is not
 20   within is the scope of the EIS and is a recipe for
 21   protracted and costly disputes and confrontations
 22   that could largely be avoided with better advanced
 23   planning.
 24               Mr. Chairman, and with apologies for
 25   using the vernacular, upstream residents believe
03445
  1   we have been screwed in the past and we are going
  2   to get screwed again unless this Commission makes
  3   any approvals subject to certain firm conditions.
  4   Therefore, the Ritchot Concerned Citizens
  5   Committee asks that the CEC include
  6   recommendations in your report along the following
  7   lines.
  8               Recommendations.  This would be our
  9   recommendation number 1.  Any licence for the
 10   proposed projects must be conditional on the
 11   province or the Floodway Authority or another
 12   appropriate body setting up and funding a process
 13   with affected stakeholders to develop a detailed
 14   comprehensive compensation program including
 15   easements for adverse effects resulting from
 16   artificial flooding in all seasons.
 17               The process must have milestones and a
 18   tight but realistic firm deadline, possibly six to
 19   eight months.  To help overcome years of mistrust
 20   and to create a sense of urgency among all
 21   participants, the development of this program must
 22   be overseen by the Clean Environment Commission.
 23               Recommendation 2(A).  Following
 24   development of the detailed compensation program
 25   and to ensure that it is practical and can achieve
03446
  1   fair results in a timely manner in most cases, the
  2   Clean Environment Commission initiate a test by
  3   overseeing the application of the program to the
  4   outstanding claims from '97, 2002 and 2004.  Of
  5   course, this could be only to the extent that the
  6   parties are willing to set aside existing court
  7   processes for a period of time and would have to
  8   be without prejudice to their ability to return to
  9   court in the event that the program does not
 10   produce satisfactory results.
 11               Recommendation 2(b).  As per our
 12   supporting documents.  The mediation process the
 13   province initiated in 2004 in an attempt to settle
 14   outstanding claims from '97 was protested as
 15   restrictive and unfair.  Minister Steve Ashton
 16   promised to investigate the process on June 7,
 17   2004.  To date, this has not happened.
 18               This process and the so-called
 19   settlements should be reinvestigated as promised
 20   and all claims re-examined to be certain claimants
 21   were treated fairly.  This process must also be a
 22   part of the test and must be overseen by the Clean
 23   Environment Commission.
 24               Our recommendation 2(C).  Any
 25   outstanding anomalies from 1997 such as mould in
03447
  1   homes or shifting flood-proofing causing
  2   socio-economic impacts should be investigated and
  3   mitigated.
  4               Number 2(D) is our appendix A
  5   compensation summary.  This is developed by
  6   Mr. Cas Booy, a professional engineer.  Mr. Booy
  7   was a technical expert on the committee for
  8   recomputation of natural water levels and he is
  9   also a Ritchot resident and I believe one of the
 10   teachers of Mr. McNeil.  His compensation summary
 11   is an integral part of our recommendations.  And I
 12   would direct you now to the last two pages where
 13   it says appendix A compensation summary.
 14               Mr. Booy has some very good, very
 15   clear common sense recommendations that could form
 16   the basis of a compensation agreement if parties
 17   were willing.  I'd like to read them.  They make a
 18   lot of sense.
 19               "Flood control offers two benefits;
 20               the prevention of actual flood damage,
 21               which is highly uncertain, since no
 22               one knows what the future will bring,
 23               and annual flood risk reduction which
 24               provides a security that benefits the
 25               recipients here and now.  Both
03448
  1               benefits are taken into consideration
  2               when deciding whether or not to go
  3               ahead with the flood control project.
  4               By the same token, if a project
  5               involves unnatural flooding of private
  6               property, there are two disadvantages:
  7               Flood damage, if and when it occurs,
  8               and increased annual risk of flooding.
  9               The increased risk is just as real for
 10               the upstream residents affected by the
 11               project as the decreased flood risk is
 12               for the City of Winnipeg.  It is,
 13               therefore, not sufficient to promise
 14               upstream residents restoration if and
 15               when the flooding occurs.  That does
 16               not compensate for the increased risk
 17               inflicted on them."
 18               Mr. Gilroy, CEO of the MFA, stated in
 19   an interview.
 20               "Under the proposed compensation plan,
 21               people affected by unnatural flooding
 22               would be financially restored to their
 23               pre flood position.  That is certainly
 24               necessary but does not take into
 25               account the loss of intangibles or the
03449
  1               serious and lengthy disruption that
  2               accompanies flooding of residences."
  3               I'll just add to that.  We heard today
  4   from Mr. Bowering that it can take up to a year
  5   before we would even know what kind of
  6   compensation we're getting.
  7               With natural floods, the intangible
  8   damage must be accepted as a fact of life.  With
  9   man-made floods, those that cause it must take
 10   responsibility for it.
 11               Legislating financial restoration
 12   after the flood damage has occurred is no
 13   guarantee of adequate compensation.  Legislation
 14   can always be changed and is always subject to
 15   legal interpretation.  Easements, which was also
 16   talked about today by Mr. Bowering, offer a
 17   greater guarantee of providing the intended
 18   compensation than legislation that does not bind
 19   future governments.
 20               Man-made flooding of private property
 21   is a serious infringement on property rights.  In
 22   the event that such flooding is required in the
 23   design of an engineering project, it is standard
 24   engineering practice to purchase the land that is
 25   affected or to obtain the right to raise water
03450
  1   levels by obtaining an easement that is entered on
  2   the property title.
  3               Exceptions to this rule are unheard of
  4   since purchase of all properties affected is
  5   evidently not practical, easements must be
  6   obtained.
  7               The terms of the easements must
  8   address compensation for increased annual risk as
  9   well as compensation for flood damage, if and when
 10   it occurs.
 11               Fairness requires that present and
 12   future owners of the property share equally in the
 13   compensation for increased annual flood risk,
 14   since the risk remains associated with the
 15   property.
 16               I'll just say we heard Mr. Bowering
 17   say they had trouble with easements because the
 18   original owner could benefit from it, future
 19   owners would not.  This gets rid of that.
 20               Fairness can be achieved best by
 21   annual compensation payments associated with the
 22   property, similar to tax credits.  The annual
 23   compensation for increased annual risk must be
 24   proportional to the annual risk that the natural
 25   flood levels at the floodway inlet are exceeded,
03451
  1   and proportional to the value of the property at
  2   risk.
  3               The annual risk that the water level
  4   at the floodway intake is exceeded depends on the
  5   rules and the practice of the control structure
  6   operation.
  7               We heard NRAC talk about that.  It's
  8   not the floodway, it's the operation of the inlet
  9   that raises the water.  So this could be
 10   determined reliably by an independent engineering
 11   firm.
 12               The estimate must be reviewed
 13   periodically to take care of change conditions and
 14   practices.  Whenever inlet water levels are raised
 15   above the natural, all tangible flood damage,
 16   direct and indirect, must be compensated for
 17   without attempting to distinguish damage that
 18   would have been caused from natural flooding
 19   alone.  Since compensation for intangible losses
 20   is not achieved, this is not unfair.
 21               Now, we heard Mr. Paul Anderson today
 22   talk about that and they are moving in that
 23   direction.  And I had a discussion with him at
 24   coffee and they would probably be open to that.
 25   You cannot distinguish, and he agrees it would be
03452
  1   a nightmare, between artificial and natural in a
  2   flood.
  3               The availability of a fair remedy is
  4   an important consideration in disputes about
  5   rights.  It is, therefore, important to point out
  6   that this can be achieved.  The Royal Commission
  7   on flood cost benefit considered obtaining
  8   flooding rights in its discussion of the Ste.
  9   Agathe detention basin.  It concluded that paying
 10   present owners for these rights would not be fair
 11   to future owners who might well be the ones
 12   experiencing the damage.  But this objection can
 13   be answered by insisting on the annual payments
 14   associated with the property and they stay with
 15   the property as well as compensation for actual
 16   damages.
 17               It is also important to insist that
 18   the government must be held responsible for all
 19   flood damage in the region that is affected by a
 20   natural flooding whenever the inlet water level
 21   exceeds the natural flood level; otherwise there
 22   will be an incentive for the government to raise
 23   the intake level whenever the dollar value of the
 24   incremental flood damage appears to be somewhat
 25   less than the incremental savings on flood
03453
  1   fighting costs to the City of Winnipeg.
  2               Recent experience has demonstrated
  3   conclusively that operating rules will be broken
  4   whenever that appears to be in the interest of the
  5   City of Winnipeg.  The agreement should therefore
  6   stipulate that any deviation from the operating
  7   rules will automatically trigger a review of the
  8   magnitude of the annual flood risk to upstream
  9   residents which may lead to adjustments in the
 10   annual payments.
 11               If the government protests that the
 12   proposed compensation is too expensive, it should
 13   be pointed out that water resource projects always
 14   include the cost of land acquisition or flood
 15   easements as necessary.  These costs can be
 16   reduced by increasing the floodway capacity.  It
 17   would be standard engineering practice to optimize
 18   economic benefits by seeking the solution that
 19   minimizes the sum of the costs of floodway
 20   excavation and compensation.
 21               Compensation should include the full
 22   cost of legal representation needed to initiate
 23   and conduct the necessary negotiations with the
 24   government and to prepare the terms of the
 25   easements.
03454
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Starr, I think you
  2   missed point 10 above.  I think you may want to
  3   read that into the record.
  4               MR. STARR:  I did.  It's an important
  5   one.  That's point number 10 I think.
  6               Uniform terms of the easements should
  7   be negotiated with the upstream property owners in
  8   the entire region where water levels may be raised
  9   by two inches or more above the natural.  And this
 10   would get back to my point that the people between
 11   Morris and Emerson don't know their risk.
 12               I would direct you back to page 11 and
 13   I'll carry on.
 14               We believe settlement of all the
 15   issues I have gone over and development of
 16   easements and the proposed compensation program
 17   would cost less than 0.5 per cent of the expansion
 18   project or 3.3 million.  Bearing in mind our
 19   sacrifice saved Winnipeg 7 billion in 1997, we
 20   feel the cost of the recommendations are
 21   justified.
 22               Our recommendation number 3 is that
 23   Canada and Manitoba should immediately refund the
 24   flood proofing deductible to all Ritchot residents
 25   residing outside of the ring dyke communities.
03455
  1   These residents are the only ones in Ritchot
  2   paying for a portion of their flood proofing.
  3               Future artificial flooding is
  4   guaranteed to overtop this flood proofing.  And
  5   further, flood proofing to the extreme levels
  6   required is impossible.  These residents paid
  7   deductibles in the 1979 flood proofing program and
  8   many have paid deductibles during eight years of
  9   artificial flooding only now revealed at these
 10   hearings.  For further details, we would ask you
 11   to see our submitted documents from the Red River
 12   Valley Committee.  They were quite detailed in
 13   that regard.
 14               The Ritchot Concerned Citizens
 15   Committee feels the only alternative to our
 16   recommendations would be the buy-out of thousands
 17   of homes and hundreds of businesses.  The costs
 18   would be prohibitive.  Residents may find the
 19   upheaval after barely rebuilding from the '97
 20   flood unacceptable.
 21               We do feel that there are better, not
 22   yet fully studied options as per the Winnipeg Free
 23   Press editorial of January 20th, 2002.  Now this
 24   might be outside the Commission's scope but I'd
 25   like to read it.
03456
  1   
  2               "Everywhere there are some who see
  3               that the answer to all the competing
  4               interests and concerns appear to lie
  5               in options that are not now on the
  6               table, a water management scheme for
  7               the entire southern basin and the
  8               creation of a super floodway that
  9               would carry the biggest flood
 10               imaginable directly to Lake Winnipeg
 11               without putting anyone anywhere at
 12               risk.  Upstream and down, some people
 13               at least wonder why, if we are
 14               prepared to spend hundreds of millions
 15               to improve the flood situation, we are
 16               not discussing spending hundreds of
 17               millions more to finish the job once
 18               and for all today.  Such speculation
 19               seems unrealistic.  Even the
 20               $660 million projected cost of an
 21               expanded floodway is staggering to
 22               contemplate, the largest public works
 23               project ever undertaken in Manitoba.
 24               The prospect of doubling that
 25               expenditure seems impossible.
03457
  1               The nagging question, however, that
  2               hearings to date have raised and one
  3               that eventually will have to be
  4               clearly addressed is not whether
  5               Manitoba can afford to satisfy every
  6               concern but whether it can afford not
  7               to."
  8               The Commission, Manitoba and Canada
  9   must fully realize that our recommendations are
 10   the absolute bare minimum that residents may find
 11   acceptable as their proposed project still
 12   requires us to accept the inevitable sacrifice of
 13   thousands of upstream homes.  No amount of
 14   compensation will address the stress and losses
 15   that will result.
 16               The responsible authorities will have
 17   to look long and hard in the mirror before
 18   approving this project because they will be
 19   approving a project guaranteed to cause
 20   unprecedented upstream damages.  We believe there
 21   is no precedent in Canada for this.
 22               The City of Winnipeg has a 39 per cent
 23   chance of being inundated over the next 50 years.
 24   Our chances are far greater.  I think you heard
 25   from Dr. Stewart, 26 to 18 per cent.  And it's far
03458
  1   greater because of the unstudied risk of ice jams
  2   and effects of the West Dyke.  No firm date to
  3   upgrade Winnipeg's primary dyke system also
  4   increases that risk.
  5               It must also be fully realized that we
  6   may have to demand an independent federal panel
  7   review or take the necessary legal action as
  8   outlined in our supporting documents by Mr. Cas
  9   Booy.  The Commission has to realize that we have
 10   our homes and our families to protect.
 11               It's important to note that should we
 12   be forced to do this, it will not be us holding up
 13   Winnipeg's flood protection, it will be the very
 14   authorities proposing it.
 15               Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we have
 16   tried to formulate these recommendations in
 17   recognition of what we understand your mandate to
 18   be.  But in any event, we respectfully urge that
 19   your recommendations in respect of upstream
 20   interests be as firm and as directive as your
 21   mandate permits.
 22               Respectfully submitted, Ritchot
 23   Concerned Citizens Committee.  Thank you.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much,
 25   Mr. Starr.  Mr. Frank and Ms. Hendrickson from the
03459
  1   Rivers West Red River Corridor Association, do you
  2   have copies of your presentation, Mr. Frank?
  3               MR. FRANK:  No, I do not.  We will
  4   simply be referring to previous submissions.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay, thank you.
  6   Proceed.
  7               MR. FRANK:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  8   Panel members, everyone else.  We trust that our
  9   previous proposal and our previous submission have
 10   sufficiently illustrated what we believe to be an
 11   entitlement for recreation to be included as part
 12   of this project.  We note as well that other
 13   groups, specifically the adjacent RMs, have argued
 14   in favour of planned recreation being part of the
 15   project.  And this represents I think a
 16   significant step in addressing one of the
 17   environmental impacts identified in the
 18   Environmental Impact Statement, that being the
 19   concern of the adjacent municipalities and the
 20   adjacent residents who, through reading the
 21   transcripts, appear to support the planned
 22   recreation activities as opposed to the ad hoc
 23   recreation activities that currently take place.
 24   So that's by way of introduction.
 25               Again, referring back to our previous
03460
  1   presentations and the entitlement that we believe
  2   that we have argued in favour of.  What we have
  3   included in our formal submission to the
  4   Commission are a set of proposed environmental
  5   licence provisions that we respectfully submit
  6   will adequately address recreation as an integral
  7   part of the project.  And I'd just like to go
  8   through these briefly now and describe the
  9   motivation behind each of the points.
 10               First, the licensee shall establish
 11   the recreation project team within one month of
 12   the issuance of the licence.  The recreation
 13   project team membership shall be made up of an
 14   equal number of representatives from the licensee
 15   and the Red River Floodway Trail Coalition, RRFTC.
 16               The responsibilities of the recreation
 17   project team shall be determined by the licensee
 18   and the RRFTC, but at a minimum it shall be
 19   responsible for overseeing the planning, design,
 20   tendering, construction, monitoring and
 21   commissioning of recreation facilities, greenway
 22   developments, and related public accesses to be
 23   incorporated into the construction of the
 24   floodway.
 25               Prepare the master plan, which is
03461
  1   described in the definitions at the front of this
  2   document, prepare the master plan integrating the
  3   recreation program needs of the public and
  4   greenway conservation amenities with the
  5   requirements for the construction and operation of
  6   the floodway.  The master plan shall identify the
  7   recreation facilities and greenway developments to
  8   be incorporated into the construction of the
  9   floodway, including access for recreation purposes
 10   across the floodway channel, phase 1.
 11               Phase 1 must provide a set of
 12   substantially complete recreation facilities
 13   suitable for use as intended by the master plan.
 14   Phase 1 must provide a significant initial
 15   greenway presence, demonstrating greenway
 16   principles and methods.  As a minimum, a portion
 17   of the floodway corridor link must be developed as
 18   a greenway.  The master plan shall also identify
 19   the recreation facilities and greenway
 20   developments to be implemented following
 21   construction of the floodway, and identify the
 22   institutional structure to implement, manage and
 23   administer the master plan over the long term.
 24               Next point.  Consult as necessary with
 25   stakeholders such as Rivers West, City of
03462
  1   Winnipeg, municipalities impacted by the floodway,
  2   Manitoba departments, and other affected parties.
  3   And finally under this point, provide an annual
  4   report to the director outlining its activities
  5   and such other reports as required by the
  6   director.
  7               This one clause of our recommendation
  8   really relates to an obligation that we believe is
  9   in the project's interest, and the public's
 10   interest to first of all properly plan and
 11   properly implement, and be accountable for the
 12   planning and implementation of the recreation
 13   components of the floodway project.
 14               It specifically addresses two phases.
 15   One, being as we discussed in our proposal, an
 16   initial phase that is integral with the floodway
 17   planning and design.  And a second phase that
 18   takes a long term view, the master plan that we
 19   envision, the investment in floodway recreation
 20   will lever additional investments over time, and
 21   that initial seed investment is necessary in order
 22   to stimulate that.
 23               We believe that it is necessary that
 24   this be part of the licence and that, as such, it
 25   be reported to the director as one of the
03463
  1   obligations to the licence as to its progress in
  2   implementing these actions.
  3               Second point.  The licensee shall
  4   provide for safe crossings for recreation purposes
  5   across the floodway channel as warrantied by
  6   existing and potential future demonstrable needs
  7   as identified in the master plan.  This is simply
  8   an acknowledgment of what we talked about with Mr.
  9   Thomson in the cross-examination early in the
 10   hearings, and within our presentation, that
 11   continuity across the floodway is essential that
 12   it be integrated into the design of the bridges
 13   and other crossings.  And this we believe needs to
 14   be as part of the licence.
 15               We described this as "warranted."  So
 16   we have no expectation that this be done ad hoc,
 17   but rather that due consideration be given to
 18   where it is warranted.
 19               Third point, the licensee shall ensure
 20   the master plan is finalized and approved by the
 21   recreation project team no later than March 31,
 22   2006.  The licensee shall provide a copy of the
 23   master plan to the director.
 24               Again, this is stipulating a time
 25   limit, that this is something that's important,
03464
  1   that if it be integral to the design of the
  2   floodway, then it must be completed in a timely
  3   fashion in keeping with the floodway schedule.
  4   The date of March 31, 2006 is roughly a year from
  5   now and something that we believe is achievable
  6   from a planning perspective, and necessary for an
  7   integrated design perspective.
  8               The fourth point, the licensee shall,
  9   if floodway construction work is to start before
 10   completion of the master plan, consult with the
 11   recreation project team in the planning stage and
 12   before the detail design of such work is
 13   concluded.
 14               You will recall in our presentation
 15   that we made reference to a whole series of
 16   project milestones that are identified in the
 17   floodway's description of its work -- I'm sorry,
 18   the Floodway Authority's description of its work.
 19   Each one of these actions is likely to occur,
 20   subject to successful issuance of a licence to the
 21   floodway authorities, likely to occur prior to
 22   completion of the master plan.  Nevertheless, it's
 23   important that each of these steps be considered
 24   with regard to recreation, and this point is
 25   intend to address that.
03465
  1               Next point.  The licensee shall
  2   support RRFTC in applying for and obtaining
  3   funding for the RRFTC's costs for participating,
  4   technical, consulting, and other costs, on the
  5   recreation project team.  If no such funding is
  6   obtained by May 31, 2005, the licensee shall fund
  7   the RRFTC's costs of participating backdated to
  8   the date of establishment of the recreation
  9   project team.
 10               The Floodway Authority has stated
 11   previously that they have no money for recreation,
 12   they have indicated to us, and supported the Trail
 13   Coalition in seeking funding from other sources in
 14   order to undertake the master plan.  We have no
 15   assurance that that funding will be forthcoming,
 16   and as such, we are asking that you consider
 17   including a provision in the licence that obliges
 18   the master plan to be done, regardless of the
 19   funding intentions of third parties.
 20               Next, the licensee shall construct the
 21   recreation facilities and greenway developments
 22   identified in phase 1 of the master plan.  The
 23   construction costs shall be no less than 1 per
 24   cent and no more than 3 per cent of the overall
 25   project costs, excluding bridge enhancements.  The
03466
  1   recreation project team operating costs are
  2   included in this amount.  The timing of such
  3   construction must be as set out in phase 1 of the
  4   master plan.
  5               And again, as we indicated in our
  6   presentation to you last week, we believe it's
  7   essential that this project be seeded with
  8   funding.  We have struggled a great deal with the
  9   value of the funding that's appropriate for this,
 10   and have sought extensively for some reference
 11   point as to what would constitute a reasonable
 12   amount of funding.
 13               We have been unable, through the
 14   Canadian Federal Government, through the U.S.
 15   Federal Government, and through our Google
 16   searches, to identify a specific ratio of
 17   recreation or public amenity investment in
 18   relation to an overall project cost.  So this
 19   amount is a guess.  However, for reference, we
 20   goggled -- is that an official term now, can we
 21   use that, I don't know -- this phrase, "floodway
 22   protection recreation budget," and we got 390,000
 23   hits.  So I've printed them all for you here, or
 24   perhaps just a few of them.
 25               I think what that indicates is that it
03467
  1   is common practice for major infrastructure
  2   projects, including flood protection projects, to
  3   incorporate recreation.  The amount, the 1 per
  4   cent that we are indicating is a nominal amount.
  5   The 3 per cent is something that we envision is
  6   within the budget of the discretionary funds that
  7   are identified in the budget, as well as
  8   contingency funds that may be available at the end
  9   of the project, where it can be further invested
 10   in recreation as opposed to some other activities.
 11   So we believe that's a prudent amount.
 12               I have some of these examples for
 13   references and I can forward them if you like.  We
 14   referred to some of them in our presentation, but
 15   the conservation authorities of Ontario, for
 16   example, are mandated to address environmental
 17   management, natural resources on a watershed
 18   basis.  Recreation is an integral part of their
 19   activities.
 20               The U.S. Department of Transportation
 21   Federal Highways Administration, we presented some
 22   of the information regarding that program to you.
 23   This is just an example of a 1996 biennial award
 24   for excellence in highway design.  What it refers
 25   to is the widening of route 527 from two to five
03468
  1   lanes was an opportunity to provide safety
  2   improvements and environmental enhancements.
  3   Pedestrian sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bus pullouts,
  4   storm water detention, wetland mitigation and
  5   stream relocation were incorporated into the
  6   project.
  7               As we stated in our presentation, this
  8   is common practice for any federally funded
  9   highway project in the United States to
 10   incorporate these kinds of recreation amenities.
 11               The San Antonio River improvement
 12   project, 2003, an investment over ten years of
 13   $140 million, $37 million of which was for
 14   recreation and amenities, and the remainder for
 15   flood protection.
 16               I'll reiterate a previous comment from
 17   our last presentation regarding the U.S. Army corp
 18   of engineers.  A total $4.8 billion a year budget,
 19   approximately 5 per cent, 268 million of which is
 20   spent on recreation, compared to 390 million on
 21   flood protection.  Similarly, the Bureau of
 22   Reclamation in the States, et cetera, et cetera.
 23               So as you can see, there's lots of
 24   precedent for integrating recreation and public
 25   amenities into major infrastructure projects.  And
03469
  1   I'm afraid I can't provide for you a specific
  2   percentage or a specific budget, other than that
  3   this amount that is indicated here certainly, if
  4   anything, is below what is commonplace for such
  5   projects.
  6               The next point in our recommendation
  7   to you is that the licensee shall apply for and
  8   obtain required approvals, permits, or licences
  9   from Canada and Manitoba, as is necessary to
 10   construct, operate, and maintain the recreation
 11   facilities and greenway developments.
 12               Mr. McNeil, in his opening
 13   presentation, indicated that the Floodway
 14   Authority was not prepared to do that.  We believe
 15   it should be their responsibility to do that.
 16   They are in fact the owners of this facility.  We
 17   believe that we have indicated that recreation
 18   needs to be part of this project, and as such it
 19   needs to be their obligation to ensure that these
 20   requirements are dealt with.
 21               The next point is with regard to the
 22   operation and maintenance of phase 1 facilities.
 23   The licensee shall operate and maintain the
 24   recreation facilities and greenway developments
 25   constructed under phase 1 of the master plan in
03470
  1   good condition.  The licensee may enter into
  2   agreements with third parties to provide such
  3   operation and maintenance, providing the required
  4   standard of operation and maintenance is met.
  5               I guess this can be equated to
  6   something similar to a lease, that ultimately it
  7   is the owner's responsibility for the operation
  8   and maintenance, however, they can oblige a lessee
  9   to undertake that maintenance.
 10               Certainly with regard to the Trails
 11   Coalition, it is an expectation of the members of
 12   the coalition that they will be involved in
 13   operation and maintenance.  However, the
 14   negotiation of those arrangements and the
 15   formalization of them needs to be the
 16   responsibility of the owner, the Floodway
 17   Authority.
 18               And finally, implementation of the
 19   long-term master plan recommendations, and it
 20   includes two points.  The licensee shall use its
 21   best efforts to implement and carry out the
 22   long-term master plan recommendations.
 23               So with this point, we have no
 24   expectation that the Floodway Authority will
 25   necessarily be forthcoming with additional funding
03471
  1   to implement that; however, by best efforts, we
  2   need to say that they will be partners in
  3   implementing that long-term master plan.
  4               And finally, the licensee shall
  5   promote other funding to compliment phase 1
  6   implementation, and implementation of the master
  7   plan's long-term recommendations.  That is again,
  8   as a partner, we envision the Floodway Authority
  9   cooperating with the Trail Coalition in making
 10   those representations and utilizing the seed of
 11   funding that is part of the project to lever other
 12   funds, as has been illustrated by such projects as
 13   the Meewasin Valley, which we presented to you
 14   with our presentation.
 15               And that respectfully is our list of
 16   wants.  And we think they are quite fair.  We have
 17   gone to great efforts, I believe, as a committee
 18   in crafting these proposed licence provisions and
 19   conditions.  And we wish you luck in your
 20   deliberations in incorporating them into your
 21   recommendations.  And we thank you very much.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Frank.
 23   We had no indication from the Save our Seine
 24   organization that they wish to make closing
 25   statements.  For today, everyone else who was to
03472
  1   make closing statements has now done so, so we may
  2   get an early afternoon.
  3               Just let me comment a bit on
  4   tomorrow's agenda.  In the morning we will have
  5   Mr. Dave Andress, who will make a presentation on
  6   his review of ice jamming issues north of the, or
  7   in the northern part of the river.  He will be
  8   subject to cross-examination by the Manitoba
  9   Floodway Authority, by the Clean Environment
 10   Commission panel members, and by the Coalition for
 11   Flood Protection North of the Floodway.  None of
 12   the other participants will be given an
 13   opportunity to cross-examine.  My guesstimate is
 14   that that may take the better part of the morning.
 15               In the afternoon we will have closing
 16   comments from the Flood Protection, or Coalition
 17   for Flood Protection North, and from the three
 18   municipalities.  And that will be the order of the
 19   business tomorrow.
 20               Thursday morning, and I presume for
 21   about a full morning, we'll have closing comments
 22   by the Floodway authority?
 23               MR. HANDLON:  Yes, we'll be -- that
 24   was on the schedule.  I don't know that it will
 25   take the whole morning, though.
03473
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Do you have some
  2   administrative?  Oh, yes, we have I believe as
  3   well tomorrow morning Mr. Carson will be
  4   responding to an undertaking.  We'll do that first
  5   thing.
  6               MS. JOHNSON:  Just to clean up our
  7   administration here.  This is a leftover from
  8   yesterday, the presentation on aquatic and
  9   terrestrial environment will be Exhibit 115.
 10   Heritage resources presentation will be 116.  The
 11   Cooks Creek Conservation District closing
 12   statement is 117.  The Peguis First Nation closing
 13   statement is 118.  The RM of Ritchot is 119.
 14   North Ritchot Action Committee summation is
 15   Exhibit 120; 121 is a letter from Yuroslav Shumuk
 16   to Mr. Sargeant; 122 is the closing statement of
 17   the 768 Association; and 123 is the closing
 18   statement of Ritchot Concerned Citizens Committee.
 19   
 20               (EXHIBIT 115:  Presentation:  Aquatic
 21               and Terrestrial Environment)
 22   
 23               (EXHIBIT 116:  Presentation: Heritage
 24               Resources)
 25   
03474
  1               (EXHIBIT 117:  Closing Statement:
  2               Cooks Creek Conservation District)
  3   
  4               (EXHIBIT 118:  Closing Statement:
  5               Peguis First Nation)
  6   
  7               (EXHIBIT 119:  Closing Statement: RM
  8               of Ritchot, Bob Stefaniuk)
  9   
 10               (EXHIBIT 120:  Closing Statement:
 11               North Ritchot Action Committee)
 12   
 13               (EXHIBIT 121:  Letter:  March 7, 2005
 14               from Yuroslav Shumuk to Terry
 15               Sargeant)
 16   
 17               (EXHIBIT 122:  Closing statement:  768
 18               Association Inc.)
 19   
 20               (EXHIBIT 123:  Closing statement:
 21               Ritchot Concerned Citizens Committee)
 22   
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  We stand
 24   adjourned until 9:00 tomorrow morning.
 25   
03475
  1               (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 2:49 P.M.)
  2   
  3   
  4   
  5   
  6   
  7   
  8   
  9   
 10   
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25