03476 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Wednesday, March 9, 2005 14 Delta Hotel, 350 St. Mary Avenue 15 Winnipeg, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 Volume 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 03477 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 03478 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 03479 1 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS 2 Presentation by David Andres 3483 Cross-examination by Floodway Authority 3501 3 Questions by Panel 3502 Questions by Mr. Moir 3509 4 Presentation by Mr. Moir 3509 5 Answer to Undertaking by Mr. Carson 3557 Closing - Rural Municipalities 3595 6 Closing - Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway 3681 7 Closing - Manitoba Wildlands 3706 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 03480 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 4 124 Presentation: Evaluation of the 3746 Effects of the Expansion of the 5 Winnipeg Floodway on Ice Levels Water Levels Downstream of the 6 Floodway Outlet, presented by David Andres, Northwest Hydraulic 7 Consultants 8 125 Submission: Evaluation of the 3746 Effects of the Expansion of the 9 Winnipeg Floodway on Ice Levels Water Levels Downstream of the 10 Floodway Outlet 11 126 Presentation: Improvements to 3747 Minimize Artificial Flooding 12 127 Closing statement: RM of 3747 13 Springfield - John Holland 14 128 Closing statement: Rural 3747 Municipality of East St. Paul, St. 15 Clements and Springfield by Orvel Currie 16 129 Cumulative Environmental Effects 3747 17 130 Closing Statement: Coalition for 3747 18 Flood Protection North of the Floodway presented by Jack Jonasson 19 131 Closing Statement: Manitoba 3747 20 Wildlands 21 22 23 24 25 03481 1 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005 2 Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. Could we 5 come to order, please. I think we have a 6 relatively busy agenda today. First we will deal 7 the ice jam matter. Following that, Mr. Carson 8 will report on an undertaking that the Floodway 9 Authority undertook to respond to a couple of days 10 ago. Following that, we will have two and perhaps 11 three closing statements. 12 I discovered yesterday that due to a, 13 I'll call it a loophole in our procedures, 14 somebody who registered as a participant but has 15 not participated up to this point may in fact be 16 entitled to make a closing statement. So we may 17 have a third closing statement this afternoon. 18 So first off, I'd like to call upon 19 Mr. Dave Andres. You will recall that I reported 20 to these hearings last week that the Clean 21 Environment Commission had contracted with 22 Mr. Andres to give us a third set of eyes to look 23 at the ice jam issue or the issue of ice jamming 24 north of the floodway outlet. Mr. Andres provided 25 us with a written report a couple of days ago 03482 1 which was available to people here yesterday. 2 Mr. Andres, first of all, under our 3 procedures, you are required to be sworn in so 4 I'll ask you to state your name for the record and 5 I'll have the Commission secretary swear you in. 6 MR. ANDRES: David Andres. 7 8 (DAVID ANDRES: SWORN) 9 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Andres. 11 If you could briefly introduce yourself and then 12 proceed with your presentation. Just let me note 13 that following your presentation, there will be 14 questions from the Floodway Authority, from 15 members of this panel and from the Coalition for 16 Flood Protection North. And I expect that Mr. Jim 17 Moir will conduct that questioning for them. 18 MR. ANDRES: I understand. My name is 19 Dave Andres. I am a professional engineer. I 20 graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1973 21 with a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering. I 22 subsequently went to Alberta where I worked with 23 the Alberta Government in the River Engineering 24 Branch where we looked at river issues in Alberta 25 including sedimentation and ice jams and ice 03483 1 related issues. I then got a masters degree in 2 engineering from the University of Alberta in 1981 3 after which I worked at the Alberta Research 4 Council where we did extensive research on river 5 ice and its impacts on the management of water 6 resources. 7 In about 1992, I went into the 8 consulting sector where I have been ever since 9 consulting to hydro power companies, local 10 authorities, governments on cold regions, 11 hydraulics and ice-related issues in rivers. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 13 MR. ANDRES: Last week, I was called 14 to provide an opinion on the issues related to ice 15 and ice jamming downstream of the floodway and on 16 the potential impacts that the existing floodway 17 and the expanded floodway may have on those 18 particular issues. So I reviewed a number of 19 volumes of material provided by the Floodway 20 Authority over the last week. I also looked at 21 the transcripts of the proceedings that have been 22 held to date, at least those that seem to relate 23 to the ice issues downstream of the floodway. I 24 provided a report to the Floodway Authority on 25 Monday. And what I'd like to do now is just 03484 1 highlight some of the important findings or talk a 2 bit about the process that I went through to come 3 up with my conclusions and then also summarize the 4 important conclusions related to what I was 5 charged to do in this investigation. 6 So the title of my presentation this 7 morning as an introduction towards further 8 questions is generally related to the effects of 9 the Winnipeg Floodway on ice conditions downstream 10 of the floodway outlet. And what I tried to do 11 for the most part is to analyze the historical 12 data that was available. I will review some of 13 the investigations that has been done relative to 14 that historical data and how the floodway may 15 affect water levels downstream during the ice 16 periods and then come up with some consensus or 17 some sense of what the potential impact of the 18 expanded floodway might be. 19 So the objectives basically were to 20 assess the impacts of the current floodway or the 21 existing floodway on ice-related water levels, 22 assess the impacts of the expanded floodway on 23 ice-related water levels downstream of the 24 floodway and provide an expert opinion on the 25 effects of existing and expanded floodway. 03485 1 The scope of the work that I generally 2 looked at was basically going back and trying to 3 understand what the channel characteristics, what 4 the issues were downstream of the floodway. And 5 that involved reviewing the channel geometry, the 6 flows in the system and the mechanics of breakup 7 downstream of the floodway. I then examined 8 operating protocols of the current and expanded 9 floodway and identified effects on flow conditions 10 and ice processes downstream. And the idea was to 11 see if there was anything in the operations of the 12 existing floodway or the proposed floodway, 13 expanded floodway that might exacerbate breakup 14 and subsequent ice-related water levels. 15 And I also conducted a very brief 16 assessment, and I have to underscore brief, 17 looking at options for possibly mitigating high 18 ice-related water levels downstream of the 19 floodway. 20 Now, in terms of ice conditions 21 downstream of the floodway, there is not a lot of 22 information available to try and characterize that 23 but certainly by putting together some of the 24 historical observations, looking at flows to the 25 Lockport gauge, you can come up with sort of a 03486 1 sense of what happens downstream of the floodway. 2 And I'm not going to spend a lot of time and 3 terminology, but basically -- and I discussed many 4 of these things in my report, but basically both 5 thermal and dynamic events, types of breakup can 6 occur downstream of the floodway. And by thermal 7 events, what we mean is basically a non-issue. In 8 other words, the ice melts in place. We've had 9 discussion about this in these proceedings earlier 10 on sometimes called an over-mature type of 11 breakup. And typically things aren't -- high 12 ice-related water levels are not a problem. 13 Dynamic breakup can occur when you 14 have significant flows during the spring period 15 and it essentially breaks up the ice while it's 16 still in its more or less intact state. And 17 typically whether you have a thermal or dynamic 18 breakup depends certainly on the flow patterns in 19 the basin and also in the magnitude of flows that 20 might be experienced during breakup. 21 And typically when you look at the 22 historical record, low run-off usually produces a 23 thermal breakup. So if the flows are less than 12 24 to 1,300 cubic metres per second as a result of 25 the spring flood, then typically you'll get a 03487 1 benign breakup, thermal breakup and no real 2 significant issues appear to be evident. 3 On the other hand, a high run-off can 4 produce a dynamic breakup. In that sense, it's 5 very difficult. I mean the ice cannot respond 6 thermally to the melt period and the high flows 7 destroy the ice cover and lead to the formation of 8 ice jams. 9 Ice jams downstream of the floodway 10 can occur due to two basic I guess processes, the 11 congestion of ice whereby the ice that enters a 12 certain reach cannot exit at the same rate as it 13 enters and, therefore, you get an accumulation of 14 ice and you get a jam formed and by surface 15 blockages. And in this case, surface blockages 16 basically indicate that there's a solid ice cover 17 that interrupts the flow of the ice that's coming 18 into the region, causes it to accumulate and jam. 19 As far as I'm concerned, it's 20 irrelevant which of these processes dominate. 21 Both can cause jams to form. And once those jams 22 form, the severity of the jam and the height of 23 the water that is experienced is a function of the 24 discharge in the river. 25 And certainly, when you look at the 03488 1 channel conditions downstream of the floodway, 2 they are conducive to the formation of ice jams. 3 All those so-called traditional or closely-held 4 philosophical reasons why an ice jam should form 5 occur downstream of the floodway. We have 6 back-water conditions from Lake Winnipeg. We have 7 got a channel slope that's decreasing as you move 8 downstream. You've got some sense of a northward 9 flowing river that might have some effect on that. 10 But basically, given the channel geometry, the 11 heights of the banks, there is less ability to 12 transport ice downstream of the floodway than you 13 have, say, upstream of the floodway, further up 14 along the Red River. So that the area certainly 15 is susceptible to ice jamming. 16 Now, I just want to discuss very 17 briefly some of the salient breakup 18 characteristics downstream of the floodway that I 19 was able to identify. And I tried to look at what 20 causes jams and how severe are the jams and when 21 might flooding start to be apparent. 22 And it seems like when you look at the 23 historical record, the natural spring floods have 24 been about 50 per cent greater since the floodway 25 has been constructed. In other words, in the 30 03489 1 years prior to the floodway, it seems like the 2 flows were substantially lower than they have been 3 in 30 years after the floodway. So that would 4 sort of give a sense that perhaps the floodway had 5 some impact on ice jams and it certainly would 6 give a, you know, give a real I guess impression 7 and in fact probably true that the ice jams have 8 been more severe since the floodway has been 9 constructed. But that's simply a function of the 10 way the flows have changed in the spring period 11 over those 60 years, 30 years prior to the 12 floodway and 30 years after the floodway has come 13 into operation. 14 Ice-related issues appear to develop 15 when flow exceeds 1,300 cubic metres per second. 16 Now, when I looked at the discharge records at 17 Lockport that basically define what the flow 18 conditions are downstream of the floodway and into 19 the City of Selkirk and on towards Lake Winnipeg, 20 and you rank the years from the largest flow year 21 to the smallest flow year, all the historical ice 22 jam observations or all the historical records of 23 ice jams and ice-related flooding certainly occur 24 in the top half of those years. And basically, 25 1,300 cubic metres per second is about the medium 03490 1 breakup discharge and all of the ice jam events 2 that have been observed occur in the upper half of 3 that data. 4 The next thing that was obvious was 5 that the situation in the City of Selkirk as is 6 characterized by the channel characteristics 7 around Selkirk and as is reflected in the water 8 levels that are measured at Selkirk, both from a 9 Water Survey Canada type of gate systems, both at 10 the Manitoba Hydro generating station and from 11 general observations, is that noticeable flooding 12 seems to occur if jams form at flows as low as 800 13 cubic metres per second. That's a very small 14 discharge, a low discharge. And I think what it 15 demonstrates is the fact that the area around 16 Selkirk is very susceptible to ice jamming. And 17 should a jam form at 800 cubic metres per second, 18 you could get overflow of the road that leads to 19 the east approach of the bridge at Selkirk. 20 So it wouldn't take much to produce 21 high flood levels during breakup at Selkirk should 22 a jam form there. 23 Now the other observation was that ice 24 would be swept out of the channel that flows in 25 excess of 2,500 cubic metres per second. In other 03491 1 words, given the water levels that result because 2 of the flow and the ice that's in the channel, 3 once you get flows above that magnitude, the water 4 level is high enough such that you lose 5 containment within the river channel and you 6 basically -- the ice basically leaves the channel 7 more or less and that limits how high the water 8 level can get. Sort of an important concept that 9 comes up later on. 10 Exacerbation of ice conditions. 11 Obviously, if you want to look at what impact the 12 floodway may have on ice conditions downstream is 13 you have to identify first of all what would it 14 take to increase the outcome or the negative 15 aspects of ice jams. And there are basically two 16 ways in which you can exacerbate ice conditions. 17 And number one is by increasing the external 18 forces on the ice cover. And by doing that, you 19 promote perhaps an earlier breakup than you might 20 otherwise get. And if you do promote an earlier 21 breakup and you get a jam form, if you have higher 22 discharges during that period, then you will 23 ultimately get higher water levels. 24 The other method of course is by 25 increasing the resistance to the ice cover, and 03492 1 you can do that in a couple of ways. You can 2 increase the thickness in a philosophical sort of 3 way or you can increase the strength of the ice 4 cover or you can get a reduction in the slope of 5 the water surface, in other words, from back-water 6 effects from Lake Winnipeg that will cause an ice 7 cover to want to form over and above the situation 8 where it would not likely form if you had lower 9 back-water conditions. 10 So basically, however, it's very 11 difficult to systematically increase the 12 resistance to the ice cover. So when it comes to 13 ways in which you might exacerbate ice jam 14 conditions, it's simply by changing the flows in 15 the system in a way that they may, number one, 16 promote earlier breakup than what might otherwise 17 occur; and number 2, once that breakup has 18 occurred, you would then cause higher jams to 19 develop than otherwise might at a lower discharge. 20 So basically, those two ways are the 21 only ways in which a floodway can possibly have 22 some impact on ice jams downstream. 23 Now looking at floodway operation 24 under the Rule 1 operating criteria, or criterion. 25 The existing floodway is operated so that there is 03493 1 no change in upstream water levels relative to 2 natural water levels upstream of the floodway. As 3 flow is shunted into the floodway, flow in the 4 river is throttled back by the operation of the 5 weir. So you're not increasing the flows through 6 Winnipeg, you're just simply splitting them into 7 two. 8 Travel times for the flow splits 9 between the floodway and the river are longer than 10 those for the river alone. And that's just a 11 fundamental hydraulic truism on the basis of the 12 hydraulic characteristics that you have of both 13 the floodway and the natural river. And I talk 14 about times and travel times and velocities and 15 impacts in my report that I provided on Monday. 16 The longer travel times certainly 17 ensure that flows do not cause a premature breakup 18 downstream. In other words, the fact that you are 19 lengthening the travel times means you're reducing 20 the rate in which the discharge is increasing 21 downstream and thereby you will not exacerbate the 22 formation or the creation of breakup downstream of 23 the floodway. 24 The natural water levels upstream 25 ensure that no flow increases during the periods 03494 1 when jam is present. So again, the floodway, the 2 existing floodway does not change or increase the 3 flows that you might have seen downstream of the 4 floodway relative to what would occur naturally. 5 So from that sense, there is no real 6 way in which a floodway can have any effect on ice 7 jams downstream. 8 Now in terms of the expanded floodway 9 operation under Rule 1, again, there will be no 10 change in the upstream water levels relative to 11 the current floodway. So you are not going to be 12 releasing any more water from the floodway. As 13 the flow is shunted into the floodway, flow in the 14 river is also throttled back and that again 15 prevents any sort of increases in the arrival -- 16 in advancing the arrival of the flood downstream 17 of the floodway. 18 The travel times for the flow splits 19 in between the floodway and the river are the same 20 as those for the current floodway at discharges 21 less than 2,000 cubic metres per second. And 22 again, those are identified in my report and we 23 can turn to that afterwards if required. 24 And slightly shorter travel times 25 along the expanded floodway are evident at Q's 03495 1 that are greater than 2,000 cubic metres per 2 second. But these are offset by longer travel 3 times in the river. And the change is only about 4 one hour out of 10 or one hour out of 15. So 5 there's a very very small reduction in the travel 6 times at flows greater than 2,000 cubic metres per 7 second with the expanded floodway operating. 8 Given the timing of the spring flood, 9 given the duration of the spring flooding and sort 10 of the variation in discharge that you get from 11 changes in channel storage as ice conditions 12 develop, as ice releases, as ice pieces accumulate 13 and water levels increase in change along the 14 natural river, this small change in what might 15 happen at flows greater than 2,000 cubic metres 16 per second will not significantly change the 17 breakup patterns. It won't change the flow 18 patterns and it won't have any significant effect 19 on ice jams downstream of the floodway. 20 Rule 2, floodway operation. Now Rule 21 2, and I'm sure we've talked about this 22 considerably in the proceedings up to now, occurs 23 at discharges greater than about 4,500 cubic 24 metres per second, natural flows upstream of the 25 floodway. Now, it could be plus or minus 100 of 03496 1 that, but approximately that number. 2 And under Rule 2, water levels 3 upstream of the floodway are allowed to rise above 4 natural levels for both the existing and the 5 expanded floodway which means that you are now 6 holding water back and you're not releasing as 7 much water downstream. Therefore, automatically 8 you are creating some benefits should ice 9 conditions be an issue at flows greater than 10 4,500 cubic metres per second. 11 The increased flood plain storage will 12 reduce these flows thus mitigating ice jam levels 13 relative to natural conditions. And on the other 14 hand, though, the expanded floodway will produce 15 higher flows than the existing floodway under the 16 Rule 2 operating condition because it certainly 17 reduces the rate of that rise upstream of the 18 floodway, therefore, it has to allow more flows to 19 move downstream into the area of Selkirk. 20 These changes are moot, however, 21 because neither a stable jam or a stable ice cover 22 could exist at flows encountered under the Rule 2 23 operation. So although I've talked a bit about 24 Rule 2 operations, there really is no way in which 25 the flows that are being regulated under the Rule 03497 1 2 criteria actually could, in any way, interact or 2 occur in the system while there's an ice cover 3 downstream. 4 Now, salient conclusions, and these 5 are just the important conclusion that I tried to 6 highlight from my report. Number one, the channel 7 morphology downstream of the floodway contributes 8 to ice-related floodway. I think that should be 9 an accepted fact. Higher spring floods in 10 post-floodway period than in the pre-floodway 11 period likely give the impression that the 12 floodway exacerbates ice-related flooding. And in 13 fact, what it is is simply a function of the 14 higher flows in that 30 year period. 15 Ice-related flooding is a serious 16 issue in the vicinity of Selkirk. It doesn't take 17 much to create high water levels or a flood 18 condition should a jam form. And these same 19 issues would occur upstream of Lake Winnipeg and 20 with or without the floodway. The floodway itself 21 has no impact on those particular ice levels. 22 There is no simple solution to 23 preventing this flooding short of building major 24 infrastructure. You can't sort of weaken the ice, 25 you can't drill holes in it, you can't blast it, 03498 1 you can't dust it, you can't do anything that's 2 going to have a significant impact on reducing 3 these ice jam risks other than building some sort 4 of infrastructure that's going to protect the 5 residents or the flood plain from flooding. 6 The two pipe concept of increased 7 flows downstream of the floodway is incorrect. 8 The gates on the Red River throttle back the flow 9 in the river to offset the extra conveyances 10 gained from the floodway. It may appear that 11 you've got this pool of water upstream, you've got 12 these two channels that more effectively convey 13 flow downstream; however, the gates throttle the 14 flow in the Red and, therefore, there is no 15 increase in flows from that pool of water relative 16 to what would occur under natural conditions. 17 And finally, the existing floodway 18 does not exacerbate ice-related flood levels 19 downstream of the floodway and the expanded 20 floodway also will not exacerbate ice-related 21 flood levels downstream of the floodway. There is 22 no way that the flows change in a manner that 23 would cause that to happen. 24 I looked at a couple of other issues 25 and I made some recommendations just on a cursory 03499 1 sort of basis. And I think what is evident is 2 that there's been a fair amount of work that has 3 been done on ice jams downstream of the floodway. 4 We've looked at -- the Floodway Authority and I 5 have looked at this information. And what I've 6 noticed is that a lot of that analysis has been 7 done from the perspective of the floodway, looking 8 at the impacts of the water levels downstream on 9 how the floodway may operate. I think that 10 perhaps it would be worthwhile that we should put 11 additional effort into investigating and more 12 formally describing and characterizing the ice 13 conditions at Selkirk and downstream from the 14 point of view of what those ice processes and the 15 outcomes of those ice processes, what impact they 16 have on the residents in that area. It's 17 important to look at it from the other perspective 18 also. 19 I also looked at a number of data that 20 were presented in this analysis to look at the 21 impacts of the flows downstream on the floodway 22 performance. And I would recommend that a more 23 extensive review be undertaken of the historical 24 ice related water levels at Selkirk to better 25 quantify the extent of the flooding issue and to 03500 1 come up with some definitive values or more 2 definitive flood levels than what had been used in 3 the report. 4 And finally, I think we should get a 5 more explicit assessment or description of ice 6 conditions of the floodway entrance in terms of 7 how ice conditions on the Red River through 8 Winnipeg affect when and how water flows start 9 entering the floodway. 10 And that concludes my summary of 11 findings in my report that you have before you. 12 Thank you very much. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 14 Mr. Andres. Does the Authority have some 15 questions for Mr. Andres? 16 MR. MCNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 17 Mr. Andres, I understand that you did confer with 18 another ice expert and could you tell us who that 19 was and that person's qualifications as well in 20 preparation for reviewing this work and doing your 21 presentation? 22 MR. ANDRES: Yes. I had some brief 23 discussions with a Mr. Charles Neal (ph) of our 24 office. He's a rather respected hydraulic 25 engineer in Canada and he had provided a mechanism 03501 1 for me to sort of vet my conclusions and the 2 results of my analysis. 3 MR. MCNEIL: Thank you. That's all, 4 Mr. Chair. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Barrie? 6 MR. WEBSTER: Just a brief expansion 7 on your comments about increased resistance 8 causing ice jams. I presume you were talking 9 about the presence of islands and channel 10 narrowing and bends and that sort of thing in the 11 river? 12 MR. ANDRES: Partly with respect to 13 that, yes. Typically, though, when you do an ice 14 jam analysis, you look at the channel geometry as 15 providing the framework or the -- of how the 16 flows, the characteristics of the flows in the 17 system. They sort of set the hydraulic 18 characteristics of what happens under an ice 19 cover. And the channel geometry itself would 20 basically reflect the presence of islands and 21 shoals and those kinds of things. 22 However, that is relatively stable 23 through time, not necessarily always stable, 24 relatively stable through time. But what can 25 change dramatically from year to year to year, 03502 1 depending on antecedent conditions, is the 2 elevation of Lake Winnipeg. And so if the 3 elevation of Lake Winnipeg is high, that creates a 4 backwater situation that reduces the ability for 5 that ice that enters upstream of that reach to be 6 flushed through the reach. So it contributes to 7 the formation of ice jams and it contributes to 8 higher levels being required before you can 9 release that ice from the reach. 10 So that's sort of the one aspect of 11 increasing the resistance I guess of their ice in 12 that reach. The other condition of course is some 13 way in which you can perhaps strengthen the ice 14 cover by artificially thickening it, building ice 15 roads or ice bridges and things like that. 16 MR. WEBSTER: And did you consider the 17 situation in which river ice can be released from 18 the banks by rising water and be moved in a single 19 chunk and then jammed in the downstream area? Is 20 that something that would change your conclusions? 21 MR. ANDRES: No, it -- I have 22 considered that, yes, but it would not change my 23 conclusions. Basically what happens is if the ice 24 remains as a strong single sheet, it will simply 25 rise up as the water levels rise up but it won't 03503 1 contribute to additional increases in stage 2 because it's unbroken, it's smooth. It's only 3 when that ice cover actually fractures and forms 4 individual ice pieces which then accumulate and 5 increase the resistance to the flow underneath 6 that broken ice cover that you actually get an 7 exacerbation in the river stage relative to the 8 solid ice conditions. 9 MR. WEBSTER: So the overall message 10 you're giving us then is that the floodway and the 11 expanded floodway should have no net effect on the 12 likelihood of ice jam related flooding downstream 13 of the Floodway outlet? 14 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, yes. 15 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andres, I'm just 17 referring to your main report. And pages 11, 12 18 and 13, you present four different tables that 19 summarize travel times. And the last column on 20 each page talks about potential benefits in flow 21 downstream. Could you describe those potential 22 benefits, please? 23 MR. ANDRES: It was just a general way 24 of characterizing if there would be a benefit to 25 of the floodway relative to the natural conditions 03504 1 in terms of number one, perhaps delaying the 2 arrival of the water to the downstream part of the 3 floodway -- downstream to the floodway and if in 4 fact, once we did get the water moving through the 5 floodway, it would sort of reduce the rate at 6 which the peak of that floodway would arrive 7 downstream. 8 So it was just a way of characterizing 9 whether in fact the condition was worse or better 10 than natural conditions for the various flows that 11 you might see upstream of the floodway. 12 And basically, what it says is that at 13 a discharge of 1,250 cubic metres per second 14 natural upstream of the floodway, there really is 15 no attenuation in the flow because of the 16 floodway, there's no reduction in the flood peaks 17 that might occur. 18 At flows greater than that, the 19 existing floodway does provide some benefit or 20 relief in terms of, number one, reducing the time 21 it takes for that water to get downstream and also 22 reducing the peak level that might occur because 23 of that. 24 So there are benefits from the 25 existing floodway relative to the natural 03505 1 conditions at flows at above 1,500 cubic metres 2 per second. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Table 5 on page 13, the 4 last three at 2,500, 3,000 and 4,000 cubic metres 5 per second, there is no benefit. Are there any 6 disadvantages or disbenefits? 7 MR. ANDRES: Well, this basically 8 looks at the impacts at which the floodway has on 9 the timing of the arrival of flows via the 10 floodway downstream -- to the area downstream of 11 the floodway. And above 2,500 cubic metres per 12 second, the travel times through the floodway are 13 slightly shorter than they would be under the 14 existing floodway. So we don't get a benefit 15 there. But in terms of there being a dramatic 16 exacerbation of ice conditions downstream, the 17 differences are so small relative to what's there 18 now that there would not be any huge effects on 19 ice conditions downstream of the floodway. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In your 21 presentation this morning, you said that short of 22 a lot of infrastructure changes, there is little 23 that can be done. What kind of infrastructure 24 changes might, assuming we had all the money in 25 the world, and we know from yesterday's budget we 03506 1 don't, but assuming we had all the money in the 2 world, what kind of infrastructure changes might 3 address the ice jamming issue? 4 MR. ANDRES: Well, that's a really 5 difficult question to answer off the cuff. Like I 6 say, given the economic realities from a purely 7 philosophical perspective, I guess there's two 8 ways in which you can mitigate those ice jams. 9 The best way in my mind is dyking. I mean if you 10 provided dyking in the lower areas, that would 11 certainly reduce the flooding. It wouldn't change 12 how often jams occur. And in fact, it might 13 perhaps make the jams a bit higher than they would 14 be now because you are confining the flow to the 15 river channel. It's a very narrow channel. So 16 dyking is the best method that I can sort of see 17 as being a way to alleviate the flooding down 18 there. 19 The other way could be via some sort 20 of bypass channel but that is not clear in my mind 21 that that would necessarily operate given the 22 backwater conditions from Lake Winnipeg and the 23 type of terrain that we have to deal with there. 24 It is something you would have to certainly 25 examine more closely and not be so arbitrary about 03507 1 defining as being a solution. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 Mr. Jonasson and Mr. Moir, if you'd come to the 4 front table. Now, given the nature of this 5 particular discussion, I'm prepared to allow a bit 6 of an exchange of ideas rather than a strict 7 question and answer process between Mr. Moir and 8 Mr. Andres at this point. 9 MR. JONASSON: Yes, we're as 10 interested in getting at the truth as the 11 Commission is. And we want to present all the 12 evidence that we think is relevant. Jim was asked 13 by Mr. Webster if he could gather information that 14 may help us in finding a solution the last time 15 that Jim was here, and he has done that. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I think in fact what 17 Dr. Webster asked was whether Mr. Moir and 18 Mr. Carson could sit down over that beer and come 19 to some solution, which I understand they were 20 unable to do. 21 MR. JONASSON: They were unable to do, 22 that's correct. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe it was the lack 24 of beer at 9:00 in the morning. 25 MR. JONASSON: We don't know. And 03508 1 we're talking about a subject that's irrelevant. 2 I'd like to get us on to the question of ice 3 jamming and get us at a way of dealing with ice 4 jamming. 5 We still have the empirical evidence 6 with respect to the observed height of water and 7 the number of ice jams that have occurred during 8 the operation, the time of operation of the 9 floodway. As a matter of fact, we had a drought 10 year in 2003. The highest level ever recorded, 11 water level ever recorded north of the floodway 12 outlet occurred in spring of 2004 when there was a 13 massive ice jam during the operation of the 14 floodway. 15 MR. MOIR: I have a number of 16 questions and discussion points, I have four 17 discussion points for Mr. Andres. I guess first 18 comment, please say hi to Charlie for me. I 19 hadn't seen him for a very long time. 20 MR. ANDRES: He also passes on his 21 regards. 22 MR. MOIR: Thank you very much. My 23 first comment is along the adequacy of their 24 review, the time that you were allotted. I 25 believe I heard you say you were provided with 03509 1 materials last week sometime, you had two, three 2 days to go through it. Do you think that time was 3 sufficient for you to develop a thorough 4 understanding of the ice jamming, the operations 5 of the floodway, the possible impacts of the 6 expansion? 7 MR. ANDRES: Yes, it was. 8 MR. MOIR: It was? 9 MR. ANDRES: Yes. 10 MR. MOIR: So you are quite content 11 that your decisions could, with your decisions or 12 your recommendations, lead into the design, 13 construction of a major project based on three 14 days of work? 15 MR. ANDRES: Well, what I was asked to 16 review was the potential impacts of the floodway 17 on ice conditions downstream. There are lots of 18 other issues related to the design of the floodway 19 that I certainly didn't look at, geotechnical, 20 groundwater, et cetera. Relative to the very 21 narrow question about the impacts of the floodway 22 on the ice conditions downstream, the information 23 I had certainly made sense to me. There was no 24 information there that conflicted with the other 25 information. I was able to draw out a relatively 03510 1 consistent view of the ice jam situations at 2 Selkirk. And given the very defined, narrowly 3 defined operation of the floodway under the Rule 1 4 criteria, yes, I had enough information to assess 5 whether the floodway would actually have an impact 6 downstream or not. 7 MR. MOIR: So are you able to make 8 categorical yes/no statements about the impact of 9 expansion on ice jamming. 10 MR. ANDRES: Yes, on the basis of the 11 hydraulic characteristics of the river, the 12 floodway, and the operating guidelines, I can, 13 yes. 14 MR. MOIR: Your report includes some 15 recommendations for understanding, further work on 16 the ice jamming downstream of the Lockport area. 17 First two recommendations I believe -- 18 MR. ANDRES: Yes. 19 MR. MOIR: -- I'm having a little 20 trouble understanding, being able to say 21 categorically, no, but we should do more work. 22 MR. ANDRES: The reason for those 23 recommendations were because I think the ice jam 24 situation downstream of the floodway is 25 significant. I mean, there certainly is evidence 03511 1 that jams occur at relatively low flows, can 2 occur -- sorry, if jams should occur even at 3 relatively low flows, you would get significant 4 flooding in the vicinity of Selkirk. So I think 5 that's an important issue that has to resolve 6 further. 7 In terms of what impact the floodway 8 has on those levels, I'm very confident to say 9 that it has virtually no impact on those levels. 10 MR. MOIR: Second, just general 11 comment, you had done a lot of work for the last 12 almost 30 years now on ice jamming -- 13 MR. ANDRES: That's right, yes. 14 MR. MOIR: -- mostly in Alberta and 15 whatnot. Have you done any work on hydrology 16 modeling? 17 MR. ANDRES: Yes, I have. 18 MR. MOIR: You've used various 19 hydrology models? 20 MR. ANDRES: Yes, I have. 21 MR. MOIR: Which ones have you used? 22 MR. ANDRES: Well, HSP, HSPS, HEC 1, 23 variations of HEC 1, SAR modeling. We've built 24 many of our own models to look at weekly flows in 25 natural basins and, of course, we have also done 03512 1 some modeling for regulated conditions also. 2 MR. MOIR: Any of those models include 3 reservoir routing? 4 MR. ANDRES: The ones we built, yes, 5 they include reservoir routing, yes. 6 MR. MOIR: And do you do any small 7 scale modeling on say storm water ponds? 8 MR. ANDRES: Storm water ponds? 9 MR. MOIR: Yes, the effect of storm 10 water ponds. 11 MR. ANDRES: No, I have never looked 12 at rural, or urban sort of issues related to water 13 management and storm water detentions. 14 MR. MOIR: You've not done work on 15 retaining water and the effects of retaining 16 water, like in a pond? 17 MR. ANDRES: Not explicitly, no. 18 MR. MOIR: Okay. Third point has do 19 with presence or non-presence of ice cover in the 20 area downstream of Lockport. For this review, did 21 you do any calculations related to whether an ice 22 cover would be stable or not stable downstream of 23 Lockport? 24 MR. ANDRES: You mean a solid ice 25 cover or broken ice cover? 03513 1 MR. MOIR: Ice cover. 2 MR. ANDRES: Yes, I did. 3 MR. MOIR: And what were those 4 calculations related to? 5 MR. ANDRES: They were related to the 6 ability for the ice to remain stable at a 7 particular discharge in the river, given an 8 accumulation of ice and the subsequent water 9 levels that develop under that accumulation. And 10 the results of my analysis show that at flows in 11 excess of about 2,500 cubic metres per second, it 12 would be very difficult, impossible to maintain an 13 ice cover, either broken or solid, in the reach 14 downstream of the floodway. 15 MR. MOIR: Well, what processes were 16 you basing those calculations on? What was the 17 physical circumstance that you were calculating 18 against? If you could describe -- you have a 19 mental picture of what the ice would look like in 20 that reach and you are doing calculations to that 21 description -- could you describe what that would 22 have looked like when you are doing the stability 23 calculations? 24 MR. ANDRES: Well, it would relate to, 25 first of, all the ability of the solid ice sheet. 03514 1 Once the water levels increase under an increasing 2 discharge, to maintain its integrity on the basis 3 of the forces that develop on that ice cover, on 4 one hand, and also the rate at which that ice 5 cover deteriorates on the other hand. So it first 6 of all examined the stability of solid ice cover 7 under rising water levels and rising discharges, 8 and it also then looked at the -- once that ice 9 cover was broken, of course, that doesn't 10 necessarily suggest that it's not an issue 11 anymore, but once the ice cover breaks up and you 12 start getting accumulation of broken ice, then at 13 that point you can also assess whether the cover 14 will be stable. And I found that at 2,500 cubic 15 metres per second or thereabouts, it would not be 16 able to exist in the river. 17 MR. MOIR: Were you using Pariset, 18 Hauser's criteria, or strength of the ice sheet? 19 MR. ANDRES: I was using initially the 20 strength of the ice sheet and considerations about 21 the rate at which it deteriorates, and the 22 geometry and the plan form of the river and the 23 kind of forces that can develop on that ice cover. 24 And then in terms of the broken ice cover, or the 25 jam situation, it was basically related to the 03515 1 ability of the channel to contain that ice jam 2 once it got to the particular level associated 3 with the 2,500 cubic metres per second discharge. 4 MR. MOIR: I'm getting confused here. 5 Are you telling me that the ice cover was limited 6 because it would float above the top of the banks? 7 MR. ANDRES: That's right. 8 MR. MOIR: And that would be all the 9 way down from, say from Lockport down to below 10 highway 44 bridge, that at 2,500 CFS the ice would 11 float out of the channel? 12 MR. ANDRES: Under an ice jam 13 condition, yes. 14 MR. MOIR: Are you sure of that? 15 MR. ANDRES: Yes. 16 MR. MOIR: Absolutely 100 per cent 17 sure of that comment? 18 MR. ANDRES: As best as the 19 information I have before me, I am sure of that, 20 yes. 21 MR. MOIR: So you have some ambiguity 22 there, do you? 23 MR. ANDRES: I am sorry? 24 MR. MOIR: There is some ambiguity in 25 your answer there? 03516 1 MR. ANDRES: No. 2 MR. MOIR: So what you are saying is 3 that the ice floats out of the river channel at 4 2,500 CFS. 5 MR. ANDRES: Once the ice jam forms, 6 yes. 7 MR. MOIR: Okay. And what elevation 8 were you saying that would be at Selkirk? 9 MR. ANDRES: If I can refer to -- 10 THE CHAIRMAN: For the record, 11 Mr. Moir, it would be 2,500 cubic metres per 12 second, not CFS. 13 MR. MOIR: Correct, thank you. 14 MR. ANDRES: At about 224 metres. 15 MR. MOIR: Which would be in feet? 16 MR. ANDRES: I don't know. 17 MR. MOIR: It is about 730, isn't it? 18 MR. ANDRES: 730 plus, something like 19 that, yes. 20 MR. MOIR: And the elevation in the 21 recent ice jams, '97, 2004, the peak of water 22 elevation at Selkirk was, at the Selkirk bridge? 23 MR. ANDRES: In the vicinity of 220.5 24 and 222.5. 25 MR. MOIR: I thought it was somewhat 03517 1 higher than that. What's the bottom of the 2 bridge, the Selkirk lift bridge? 3 MR. ANDRES: 222.5. 4 MR. MOIR: The bottom core? 5 MR. ANDRES: The low core of the 6 bridge is 222.5, yes. 7 MR. MOIR: Fourth comment would be 8 towards ambiguity and whatnot. There has been a 9 diversity of opinions described here. In my 10 engineering experience, for example, if you and I 11 were designing a steel structure, there will be no 12 disagreement about what we were talking about, 13 would there be? I mean, we might have some 14 different approaches on how to move the loads 15 around or not, but in terms of the design 16 procedures we were using, there would probably be 17 no ambiguity whatsoever if we were designing a 18 steel structure? 19 MR. ANDRES: I guess design of steel 20 structures are codified to the extent that there 21 will be little room for disagreement on major 22 significant issues. 23 MR. MOIR: And the physics that goes 24 behind designing a steel structure is extremely 25 well defined, is it not? 03518 1 MR. ANDRES: I expect it is. I'm not 2 an expert in that, but I drive across bridges 3 everyday so I presume it's well understood. 4 MR. MOIR: Is it at all possible that 5 some of the ambiguity and differences here are 6 being caused by lack of knowledge in the science, 7 or lack of agreement in the physics, or a lack of 8 understanding in the physics of ice movement and 9 ice jams? 10 MR. ANDRES: Possibly, possibly, yes. 11 MR. MOIR: If there is ambiguity 12 amongst well meaning people, or differences 13 between well meaning people, I mean, in designing 14 a billion dollar project with consequences to 15 human health and safety, wouldn't it be prudent to 16 take the safe course? 17 MR. ANDRES: I think we always would 18 take the safe course, and certainly it would be 19 prudent to do that, yes. That's why we spend 10 20 per cent of the cost of the project in designing 21 it. 22 MR. MOIR: So if there were 23 differences between highly experienced 24 professionals -- I mean, I've designed structures 25 that have been around for 20 years now in high ice 03519 1 environments, I have designed half a dozen 2 structures in the Beaufort Sea that took huge ice 3 loads. You have been researching ice for the 4 Alberta Government for 20 years and you've been a 5 consultant for ten years. You are highly 6 experienced. If you and I are having differing 7 views, is it likely that there is some ambiguity 8 in the science and the engineering behind ice 9 jamming? 10 MR. ANDRES: Well, it's either that, 11 or there's ambiguity in one's understanding of 12 what those processes are when it comes to ice. 13 MR. MOIR: Is that likely in this 14 circumstance, given our professional careers and 15 what we've done? 16 MR. ANDRES: I can't speak, I mean, if 17 you want me to -- 18 MR. MOIR: No, I'll speak for myself. 19 I think I understand ice, I think you understand 20 ice. 21 MR. ANDRES: I have met a lot of 22 people who operate in cold regions hydraulics sort 23 of technology who do not have a very good 24 understanding of issues, and who misapply a lot of 25 the theory and a lot of the formula that have been 03520 1 developed over the past, certainly. So, I mean, I 2 guess from my perspective, I think I understand it 3 very well, and I think I have analyzed, and like I 4 say, everything makes sense to me in terms of the 5 lower Red River here. But to say that everybody 6 would necessarily agree with what I say, I would 7 give them the prerogative to disagree. 8 MR. MOIR: That would suggest that the 9 science and engineering isn't well defined, 10 because a knowledgeable professional would be able 11 to go right to the physics and engineering and say 12 that's it. And they might differ on their 13 designs, but at least they will be basing it on 14 the same engineering and same science, would they 15 not? 16 MR. ANDRES: Well, the physics are 17 clear, the formulae are clear, where you would get 18 any sort of a sense of disagreement might be in 19 the application of those formulae, that relates to 20 individual's experience and their ability to 21 conceptualize what major and significant issues 22 are in a particular project. 23 MR. MOIR: I assume that I'm going to 24 have an opportunity to present some of the 25 findings I have got over the last two weeks. 03521 1 THE CHAIRMAN: That wasn't on our 2 agenda. Our agenda today was to hear from 3 Mr. Andres, and give you an opportunity to, if not 4 challenge, at least discuss with Mr. Andres. 5 MR. MOIR: To do so, particularly on 6 the issue of hydrology, I would -- 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you speak into 8 the microphone please? 9 MR. MOIR: To further the discussion 10 on the hydrology issue, I think there is some 11 comments I would like to make using my computer. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll just take a time 13 out on that. 14 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION) 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Moir, we will allow 16 you to make a presentation as long as it is brief. 17 MR. MOIR: It will be brief. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: So what do you need to 19 do? 20 MR. MOIR: Set up my computer. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Handlon. 22 MR. HANDLON: Sorry to interrupt, but 23 if I could just speak to that matter and perhaps 24 just make sure that the Commission is aware of the 25 evolution of this issue. And just as I understand 03522 1 it, there was the report Mr. Moir was an author 2 in, Conestoga-Rovers, that you saw when we were in 3 Oakbank. There were a number of pages from that 4 report which were authored by Mr. Moir. And if 5 you recall, the analysis in those pages was 6 recitation essentially of what was in the reports, 7 the engineering appendices, that related to ice 8 jamming as authored by Mr. Carson. There was no 9 critique in those pages relating to Mr. Carson's 10 analysis. It was only when Mr. Moir attended that 11 he provided an analysis that was a critique that 12 challenged some of those findings. We went 13 through a cross-examination on Mr. Moir's 14 presentation, although we had just seen it that 15 morning for the first time. And subsequent to 16 that, there was a question as to whether Mr. Moir 17 would meet with Mr. Carson and if he could throw 18 some greater light onto that. 19 My understanding of that was an 20 opportunity of Mr. Moir to meet with Mr. Carson, 21 and if there is something further that he was 22 going to present, that is Mr. Moir, that it would 23 be prepared in writing and submitted. 24 We understand that that meeting did 25 not occur, and although representatives were 03523 1 available to meet with Mr. Moir, that he chose not 2 to continue discussion. We are now here. The 3 Commission has taken perhaps an unusual step, but 4 appropriate step in retaining an outside expert to 5 look at this issue, and we have the presentation. 6 Mr. Moir has been given the right to ask questions 7 of Mr. Andres. But at this stage, I think given 8 the evolution of the history of this matter, that 9 at some point in time there has to be closure on a 10 subject. And given the fact that Mr. Moir chose 11 not to enter into a dialogue that he was invited 12 to, and chose not to present any further analysis, 13 at this stage, how can there be an informed review 14 of what he may have to present? And that's really 15 the question that we have. 16 And I'll certainly leave that to the 17 Commission to make that decision on, but I think 18 that's really the question. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Handlon. 20 We certainly intend to bring closure to this 21 issue. I think, given the nature of how this 22 issue unfolded, I think it's certainly in the 23 interest of the three members of this panel, if 24 not the public, that we get as much information on 25 the table as we can. 03524 1 I realize that, I mean, both having 2 Mr. Andres coming here today, as well as allowing 3 Mr. Moir to make a brief presentation at this time 4 are unusual for our processes. However, as we've 5 said all along, our processes are somewhat more 6 informal than a court room. We will entertain 7 Mr. Moir's presentation. I will insist that it be 8 brief. 9 You and officials of the Floodway 10 Authority will have an opportunity to question 11 Mr. Moir. If there is any information that unduly 12 prejudices your ability to cross-examine him on 13 short notice, I will entertain comments to that 14 effect at that time. 15 Now, Mr. Moir, what do you have to do 16 to make a presentation? Do you have to set up a 17 computer? 18 MR. MOIR: Yes. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: And how long will that 20 take you? 21 MR. MOIR: Five minutes. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll take a five 23 minute break. And I do insist that it be a brief 24 presentation. 25 And Mr. Andres, I would appreciate it 03525 1 if you would either stay there or somewhere so we 2 can ask you questions in respect of Mr. Moir's 3 presentation, or invite your comments on it. 4 MR. ANDRES: I will certainly, yes. 5 (HEARING RECESSED) 6 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Could we come 8 back to order? 9 Mr. Moir, I notice at the bottom of 10 that screen it says 1 of 32 slides. I don't 11 consider that to be brief. 12 MR. MOIR: What I did, Mr. Chairman, 13 was add three or four slides to the top of the 14 other presentation to keep it all in one place. 15 And I actually had nine new slides, but I think I 16 will only talk about four of them. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I would ask you just to 18 deal with new issues and not revisit your 19 previous -- 20 MR. MOIR: Absolutely, 100 per cent. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, you may proceed. 22 MR. MOIR: I'm just going to do this 23 informally too. So I will just allow to move back 24 and forth a little more quickly so I can find the 25 slides. 03526 1 I think there are two points that I am 2 concerned about. I'm not trying to derail or 3 delay in any way whatsoever the floodway. I want 4 to have it done right. And I think there were a 5 couple of issues where the engineering is not 6 wrong, but not complete. And I just want to show 7 two examples, just two narrow messages. I think 8 there are quite a number of issues that need to be 9 addressed, but I'm going to just focus on two. 10 One is the impact of hydrology, what we call the 11 hydrology issue, which is the change in hydrograph 12 shaping from adding more conveyance. This whole 13 issue of the storm water pond and what the impact 14 is on that. I do question the issue of the ice 15 clearing discharge, but I'm not going to get in 16 that today. I may deal with that in writing to 17 save your time, sir. 18 I do understand the operating rules. 19 I do understand the intent of the operating rules. 20 In our discussion that was unfortunately 21 truncated. I was trying to get into conveyance 22 ratios and may have confused, and I apologize. 23 I think the underlying assumption 24 there was the operating rules simply take water 25 that would have been the peak of the hydrograph 03527 1 and put it into the floodway, therefore there was 2 no change. At low flows that may be entirely the 3 case. High flows, when you have flooding over the 4 banks and significant flooding south of the city, 5 I think the situation becomes much more 6 complicated. And this is being picked up in part 7 in the MIKE 11 model, but I'm not sure that it's 8 entirely being picked up. In other words, what 9 I'm saying to you, this is not so much an ice 10 issue, it's a hydrology issue. 11 Mr. Andres has completely demonstrated 12 I think, without putting words into his mouth, 13 that the river downstream of Lockport in terms of 14 ice jamming is delicate. It's a delicate area. 15 And that's all that needs to be said about ice 16 jamming in that area. The issue -- 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, what that word, 18 it's a delicate? 19 MR. MOIR: Delicate, it's a delicate 20 river, that portion of it. When I was here last I 21 made comments about hydrology and storm water 22 ponds, and to help you to clarify that thought, we 23 put together a very straightforward, simple 24 hydrology model using a companion program, the 25 HEC-RAS, which is HEC HMS. HMS gives you how much 03528 1 water, when. RAS gives you what the depth of 2 water is given the water. And we have made a very 3 simple model. At the top of the graph would be 4 the water coming in from upstream. The reservoir, 5 the triangle in that area, would represent the 6 flooded area of Manitoba. The diversion is where 7 the rivers split, where the control structure is, 8 where the floodway entrance is. To the left on 9 that diagram would be the floodway, and then on 10 the right reach 4 is the Red River, and then the 11 junction at Lockport. So what we're trying to do 12 is look at how the floodway moves through this. 13 Now, we put the dimension in of these 14 channels. We put in the operating rules at the 15 diversion for high flow. By the way, we did this 16 on Friday afternoon. 17 We put in several floods in the system 18 under several circumstances. This one is where we 19 are showing a very high flood, very high flood, 20 very high flow rate, total flow. And this isn't 21 simultaneous, this is four different 22 circumstances. And this is why I do not get 23 excited about travel times. The blue line, which 24 is right here, this blue line here represents the 25 hydrograph of the combined Red River and existing 03529 1 floodway. 2 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, could we ask 3 the presenter to put it on movie mode so we can at 4 least read some of the figures on this, because we 5 don't have a handout from his presentation. 6 MR. MOIR: Actually, I do have a 7 handout for you. 8 MR. MCNEIL: Can he still put it onto 9 the movie mode though? 10 MR. MOIR: Yeah, I will. 11 Is that clearer? The dark blue line 12 represents what would happen where the current 13 circumstances with the Red River and the existing 14 floodway. It would -- this is the same input 15 hydrograph to the model, this is two output 16 circumstances, this is what would be happening at 17 the output of the model at the outfall of the 18 floodway where the floodway and the river come 19 together. 20 The hydrograph under today's 21 circumstances would peak in this circumstance on 22 about the 8th of May. If putting the same -- now 23 let's expand the floodway as proposed to as in the 24 proposal. The floodway peak, putting the same 25 hydrograph in, would now peak at this larger 03530 1 discharge eight days earlier. It's that eight 2 days that's at issue here. Because in that eight 3 days, the ice in the Red River, according to 4 Mr. Andres and his -- well, he has this plot in 5 there of ice out dates, and it follows a curve 6 trending down when this happens, but it's a two to 7 three week period there between the earliest and 8 the latest ice out. So in this circumstance, one 9 could argue that on average this floodway peak is 10 hitting against rotted ice, whereas this floodway 11 peak is hitting against solid ice, cold ice. And 12 that's the difference. That is the single point 13 that I'm trying to bring to your attention, that 14 expanding the floodway moves the peak of the 15 hydrograph forward. 16 It must do so. This is the whole 17 theory behind storm water detention ponds. 18 If the Manitoba Government decides 19 that this is not the case, then I will gladly 20 quote you for the rest of my career to every 21 client going to the government that says you have 22 to have a storm water detention pond, because I 23 will say no because they have no effect, it has 24 been proven. It's that basic a concept. 25 Now, obviously our model is a good 03531 1 deal simpler than the extensive modeling, I mean, 2 we did it on Friday afternoon. And the various 3 consultants, Klohn-Crippen and Manitoba Water 4 Stewardship have done a considerable amount of 5 modeling since. But even looking at their 6 hydrographs, here is the existing floodway, here 7 is the expanded floodway. The peak is sooner and 8 higher. That's all my point. That has to be 9 resolved. There are other issues with this 10 hydrograph that give me a great deal of concern; 11 for example, this leading edge here. And I will 12 strongly advise that this model be sent out for 13 thorough peer review, which can not be done in 14 three days. We're talking many months of work to 15 thoroughly review this model. That should not 16 halt construction, design, or whatnot, but this 17 model must be reviewed. And I was going to go 18 onto talk about ice cover, but I won't do that at 19 the moment. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Moir. 21 Mr. Andres, do you have any comments on that? 22 Could you speak into the microphone, please? 23 MR. ANDRES: Could you just put the 24 previous slide up for a second, please? It's my 25 understanding that the floodway doesn't become 03532 1 operable until flows at least in excess of 2 1,200 cubic metres per second, which is about 3 50,000 CFS, I guess. And I'm wondering how you 4 can sort of explain the differences? 5 MR. MOIR: Sorry, these are not 6 simultaneous, these are or -- so this is not the 7 floodway running and then -- these are different 8 circumstances. 9 MR. ANDRES: Oh, okay. 10 MR. MOIR: When I went back to this on 11 Monday morning after doing other things on the 12 weekend, I made the same mistake, jumping up and 13 down. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Could somebody explain 15 what that means to us laypersons over here? 16 MR. MOIR: This is not meant to show 17 that this is the amount of water coming down the 18 river and this is the total amount of water. This 19 is a case, totally separate physical case. So 20 this blue line represents what would happen with 21 the existing floodway. This one represents, the 22 purple line, with the separate, entire separate 23 case of an expanded floodway. And this shows you 24 how little more benefit you get by expanding it to 25 400,000 CFS. These are three separate cases. 03533 1 These are not simultaneous flow through the 2 various channels. 3 MR. ANDRES: So what are we to draw 4 from that? I don't understand what the point of 5 that is? 6 MR. MOIR: The peak of the flow is 7 moved earlier, so the peak, the flow is operating 8 with the -- notice the hydrograph is entirely 9 moved forward. 10 MR. ANDRES: Well, from where, though, 11 from what base case? 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order, please, 13 one at a time. 14 MR. MOIR: Operating in stronger ice, 15 that's my point, the ice has not had time to rot 16 in place. That's it. 17 MR. ANDRES: So what is the -- I'm 18 sorry, I can't make very much of that chart, 19 Mr. Chairman. I guess Mr. Moir, I would just ask, 20 what are you comparing, what is the base case here 21 then, and what is the change situation, and which 22 two curves should we compare here to demonstrate 23 the fact that the floodway in fact exacerbates 24 flows downstream? That's all I'm asking. And I'm 25 not sure that -- I sort of can't see that chart 03534 1 telling me anything like that. 2 MR. MOIR: Well, this is a hydrology 3 issue, this is why I ask about hydrology modeling. 4 This is compare blue to purple. Blue is the way 5 it is now, this one is the way it is now. This is 6 the way the proposal would show, which is the same 7 thing that the actual MIKE modeling is showing. 8 What I'm saying is this is not so much 9 an ice issue as a hydrology issue. 10 Now this blue line here, down here -- 11 well, actually the base case was way down here, 12 but we couldn't model that because we don't have 13 enough geometry information to show what was 14 happening within the city. 15 MR. ANDRES: So, again, I guess the 16 next question I have is, which two curves 17 represent the same flood? 18 MR. MOIR: They are the same flood. 19 MR. ANDRES: All the curves are the 20 same flood? 21 MR. MOIR: All have the same input 22 hydrograph. They are modified by the presence of 23 the reservoir, the flooded area. This is the 24 storm water pond issue. You put in a very spiky 25 curve in the upstream end of a pond, you get a 03535 1 flatter curve on the outside. What you get out 2 depends on the controls at the downstream end. 3 MR. ANDRES: Exactly, yes. But if for 4 example the elevation of the reservoir does not 5 change between the two cases, would you still 6 expect a change until the outflow hydrograph? 7 MR. MOIR: Sorry? 8 MR. ANDRES: If the reservoir 9 elevation does not change. As it does according 10 to the rule 1 operating criteria -- 11 MR. MOIR: We're way past rule 1 here. 12 MR. ANDRES: So we're out of the -- 13 MR. MOIR: We're past, we are into the 14 situation where we have extreme floods here. 15 MR. ANDRES: Well -- 16 MR. MOIR: This would get us into ice 17 clearing discharge, which is the other side of the 18 argument. And I actually did some calculations on 19 that too, but it may be better to deal in writing 20 on that one. 21 MR. ANDRES: Yes. I guess my comment 22 on this, Mr. Chairman, would be in terms of my 23 analysis, it showed definitively that once we're 24 into the rule 2 operating situation, the issues of 25 ice are virtually non-existent downstream because 03536 1 of the fact that the ice clearing discharge has 2 been exceeded, and so this may in fact be correct, 3 but it has really no bearing on terms of the ice 4 conditions downstream. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: So Mr. Andres, just to 6 pursue that a little bit more, in a rule 2 7 situation, you're saying that the ice will have 8 cleared? 9 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, yes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that because there's 11 just so much more water that it's blowing it out? 12 MR. ANDRES: That's right. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: In simple terms? 14 MR. ANDRES: Yes. Rule 2 comes into 15 play at very high floods, and it does not actually 16 start to be invoked until the flow is in excess of 17 4,500 cubic metres per second or thereabouts. And 18 after that point, the issue related to ice in the 19 vicinity of Selkirk is not an issue anymore. The 20 ice has been cleared out long before that occurs. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Moir, 22 do you have this type of graphing for a 1997 level 23 flood? 24 MR. MOIR: No. As I said, we did this 25 to clarify, to give -- this is a Friday afternoon 03537 1 exercise, to put numbers around the circumstance, 2 to help people visualize what we're talking about, 3 why the whole business of travel time and a few 4 hours difference is not relevant. It's the eight 5 days that's relevant. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 7 MR. MOIR: That's the single point 8 here. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. McNeil 10 or Mr. Carson? 11 MR. MCNEIL: Just a couple of 12 questions. You keep referring to the floodway 13 situation as storm water detention pond, which is 14 typical drainage management technique in 15 municipalities; is that correct? 16 MR. MOIR: I'm trying to provide it in 17 simple language to help the layperson. 18 MR. MCNEIL: Okay. Can you answer my 19 question? 20 MR. MOIR: Do I keep referring to it 21 as a storm water pond? 22 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. 23 MR. MOIR: Yes, I do. 24 MR. MCNEIL: And storm water retention 25 ponds are typically drainage management techniques 03538 1 for urban centres? 2 MR. MOIR: No, not necessarily at all. 3 I'm putting one in a rural area right now for a 4 very large basin. 5 MR. MCNEIL: Are they storm water 6 management techniques? 7 MR. MOIR: They are a storm water 8 management technique. 9 MR. MCNEIL: Based on the graph that 10 you've put up there -- forget about the X axis and 11 the Y axis and what those numbers mean, which of 12 the two curves would you pick for inflow and 13 outflow hydrographs? 14 MR. MOIR: Neither, these are all 15 outflow hydrographs. 16 MR. MCNEIL: I see. 17 MR. MOIR: The inflow hydrograph for 18 this very simple case are all identical. What I'm 19 showing is the impact of having the flooded area 20 upstream. Taking into account, this takes into 21 account the rules how the floodway is operating. 22 This is why you have the knees in the curve here. 23 We are trying to present something here, a very 24 simple concept to get people to think about what 25 they are saying in that MIKE 11 model, and look 03539 1 very carefully at it. Because this has a serious 2 effect. This eight days difference could 3 potentially have an enormous impact on that very 4 delicate part of the river downstream. That's the 5 simple, that's it. 6 MR. MCNEIL: Well, for the benefit of 7 the Commission and the public, maybe you should 8 turn to page 18 of your presentation, or the 9 previous, based on the handout, the previous 10 graph. 11 MR. MOIR: Which one are we talking 12 about? 13 MR. MCNEIL: Well, in the handout you 14 gave me it says page 18 of your presentation. 15 MR. MOIR: What's on that? 16 MR. MCNEIL: MIKE 11 hydrograph, 700 17 year flood. 18 MR. MOIR: Oh, that's from your 19 appendix A. 20 MR. MCNEIL: And what are you 21 demonstrating here by including this? 22 MR. MOIR: What I'm saying is that 23 your MIKE 11 model is showing the same effect. 24 The existing floodway here, you are moving the 25 peak earlier and higher. 03540 1 MR. MCNEIL: Okay. And what flow is 2 that? 3 MR. MOIR: That's 200,000, that was 4 your, I believe that was your one in 200 year 5 event. 6 MR. MCNEIL: But I heard Mr. Andres 7 indicate that ice jams don't exist beyond 8 90,000 cubic feet per second? 9 MR. MOIR: That was the second part of 10 what I was going to present here. I have of lot 11 of questions about that, whether the ice jams, 12 whether the ice cover would or would not be stable 13 in that part of the river under all circumstances. 14 I find it difficult to -- how do I put 15 this? In a project of this magnitude, with this 16 much at risk in terms of dollar and human safety, 17 to categorically state that there will be no ice 18 whatsoever under any circumstances in that lower 19 part of the river, given these kind of changes in 20 the hydrograph, I find it difficult to make. 21 The safe, prudent course would be to 22 design this floodway for assuming ice condition in 23 that part of the river. Because if you, I think 24 if you looked at, I go down to my last slide in 25 this presentation, second last slide in the 03541 1 presentation. I think if you go through this, 2 what I'm saying is that here is the data from the 3 1826 flood, right in here. And I would say that 4 there was an ice jam feed here, and from this 5 point back there was backwater. If you assume the 6 hydrograph with expanded floodway moving earlier, 7 acting against solid ice, there is a probability, 8 there is a possibility it will flood Winnipeg 9 through the back door, and that has to be 10 considered. I'm saying what is the prudent course 11 to do here. 12 There are many things that could be 13 done to stop that from happening, and I would 14 think that the Floodway Authority sort of adopt 15 the prudent course and design for a situation that 16 may happen. It's not a big deal. They simply 17 have to acknowledge the fact that this may be an 18 issue, and that prudent course for our human 19 safety issue, talking flooding people out here, 20 and these floods happen suddenly, the prudent 21 course is design a fail safe approach. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carson. 23 MR. MOIR: Mr. Chairman, I 24 recognize -- 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Just let them consult. 03542 1 MR. MOIR: I was going to -- 2 Mr. Chairman, I recognize that what I'm saying has 3 some technical issues and they may need time to 4 think about this. It may be better for, towards 5 working towards a solution on this, it might be 6 better if they had some time to think about it. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: We don't have a lot of 8 time, Mr. Moir, with all due respect. So, 9 Mr. Carson, do you have a question or two or 10 three? 11 MR. CARSON: Yes. I'd like to ask a 12 question on the first hydrographs that you put up, 13 and I don't know at what sheet it is but it's the 14 one with the hydrographs. I guess I'm still 15 trying to sort out in my mind exactly what this 16 means. And I guess the first question I would 17 have is that you have, apparently it's different 18 outflow hydrographs, depending on what the 19 configuration at the floodway is. So there's 20 quite different rising limbs of the hydrograph, 21 and I think Mr. Andres was going in the right 22 direction there. The point is that the floodway, 23 whether it's expanded or existing, does not start 24 to pass flow until at least 40,000 CFS. Yet on 25 your axis there, you show diversely different 03543 1 rising limbs of the hydrograph below 40,000 CFS. 2 Can you try to explain to me how that relates to 3 the reality of the floodway? 4 MR. MOIR: The point that I'm trying 5 to make is in this area here, not this area down 6 here. As I said, we did this on a Friday 7 afternoon, not over three or four years, we did 8 this on a Friday afternoon, trying to show what 9 the impact was. I was trying to say in my earlier 10 testimony that the effect of the expanded floodway 11 would be to remove the peak sooner and higher 12 against stronger ice. 13 The model -- I'm not saying this model 14 is perfect at all, I'm sure there are issues down 15 here, because we applied very simple situations 16 down there. 17 MR. CARSON: Well, I guess I would 18 submit that it's so simplified that it really is 19 not applicable to the situation. It's difficult 20 to argue with a concept that is so different than 21 reality that it's just not appropriate, and that's 22 my view. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jonasson, what is 24 it you wish to say at this time? 25 MR. JONASSON: What I am wanting to 03544 1 say is that we have experts here arguing over 2 models. Isn't it time that we took the time to do 3 the research and to answer the question, is 4 whatever CFS, ice clearing -- we have some data 5 where we can correlate ice jams with the floodway 6 and its flows and so on. But like everything else 7 north of the outflow, there is no data. We have 8 been asking forever to get that data. And I think 9 that what we need is, over the period of time it 10 will take to get the floodway expansion going and 11 under construction, that some good research is 12 done with respect to ice jamming and the problems 13 that people have downstream of the floodway. It 14 is a terrible situation. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jonasson, you sound 16 as if you're getting into your closing comments 17 which you're going to do this afternoon. It's 18 certainly open to you, and I expect you to make 19 those kinds of recommendations in your closing 20 comments. 21 Do you have any further questions of 22 Mr. Moir? 23 MR. CARSON: Not really a question, 24 just I'd like to clarify here that what Mr. Moir's 25 information is showing is a comparison between a 03545 1 model that was put together in a few hours on 2 Friday afternoon to a numerical model of the Red 3 Sea that cost several hundred thousands of dollars 4 to develop, used all the latest technology, and is 5 deemed to be the best that the state of the art 6 can provide. And it gives quite diverse results 7 from what Mr. Moir is reporting. And I just don't 8 see the point of comparing. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd make the same 10 comment to you that I just made to Mr. Jonasson, 11 that is certainly open to you or other Floodway 12 Authority officials to make that kind of statement 13 in your closing statements tomorrow morning. 14 MR. CARSON: Fair enough. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions 16 at this time? 17 MR. ANDRES: Could I have one last 18 question? 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I was going to 20 give you an opportunity to make any closing 21 comments. Commissioner Webster has a question of 22 Mr. Moir, I believe. 23 MR. ANDRES: Okay. 24 MR. WEBSTER: I have a couple of 25 questions. First of all for Mr. Moir; the major 03546 1 issue that you are presenting, or the major piece 2 of information you are giving us here I think 3 Mr. Moir is the time difference, on your simple 4 model graph, between the use of the existing 5 floodway and the use of the expanded floodway. 6 Correct? 7 MR. MOIR: Correct. 8 MR. WEBSTER: Have you run the same 9 simple model with 100 year, 120 year, 225 year 10 floods? 11 MR. MOIR: No, we ran it at 170 and 12 250, 170,000 CFS and 250,000 CFS. 13 MR. WEBSTER: Because the point I 14 guess that I want to follow up on then is that 15 given that the first part of the graph doesn't 16 follow reality in terms of the way the floodway is 17 operated -- 18 MR. MOIR: It's close. 19 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. The question is, 20 would the peak differences, the peak time 21 differences still be there if you put those 22 restrictions into the model? 23 MR. MOIR: Very little. There is an 24 eight day difference here. If this part was 25 changed, the difference might be a day, at most. 03547 1 MR. WEBSTER: So it can still be six 2 days. 3 MR. MOIR: That's an important 4 question because I'm not going to come to you here 5 and give you something that's misleading. This is 6 an issue that's important. I'm not going to say 7 it's eight days when it really could be three or 8 two or something. 9 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you. 10 Mr. Andres, I wanted to ask you this. The issue 11 then is the effect of a time difference, whether 12 or not it's an accurate reflection of reality, the 13 issue is a time difference. And we are talking 14 in, not quite conjecture here, but we're talking 15 conceptually as to what the effect would be. 16 Given time effect is the message that 17 Mr. Moir is trying to give us here, and assuming 18 that it changes the same, that the changes are of 19 a similar nature through other sized floods, I'm 20 building -- 21 MR. ANDRES: Conceptually, yes. 22 MR. WEBSTER: -- a conceptual story 23 here. Are you still confident in what you're 24 telling us about the effect of the flows that you 25 have looked at on the removal of ice downstream 03548 1 sufficient to prevent ice jamming? 2 MR. ANDRES: Yes, I am, sir. 3 MR. WEBSTER: And so in spite of the 4 fact there's a few days difference, your feeling 5 is that the ice would be affected the way you've 6 been describing in your presentation? 7 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, sir. The 8 time delay only occurs, if in fact there is a time 9 delay, and I guess the MIKE 11 simulations does 10 show a bit of increase in the peak, that is well 11 after most of the ice related issues would have 12 been resolved by the high flow downstream of the 13 floodway. 14 Just to make a comment if I might, as 15 part of answering your question about this 16 particular chart here, I think I finally figured 17 out what it says. And I'm not so sure that it's 18 actually correct in how it demonstrates what 19 Mr. Moir wants to demonstrate. What we have here 20 is we have a flood that's 250,000 CFS, and we have 21 a finite volume of water moving down the river. 22 And that volume of water has to be conserved. And 23 by looking at those various charts there, it 24 appears to me that some of those hydrographs 25 reflect a much larger flow than some of the other 03549 1 graphs do, so there doesn't seem to be a 2 conservation of flow here, I guess, over the 3 length of the flood. Perhaps Mr. Moir can comment 4 on that. But to me it sort of, I guess it 5 violates conservation of mass a little bit, if in 6 fact those four hydrographs are meant to 7 demonstrate how a particular natural inflow might 8 be changed because of floodway operation. 9 MR. WEBSTER: Just so I understand 10 what you're saying, are you saying the area under 11 the curve, the two curves should be the same? 12 MR. ANDRES: Should be the same. 13 MR. WEBSTER: The area under the blue 14 and the area under the purple curve should be the 15 same? 16 MR. ANDRES: Yes, that is correct. 17 MR. WEBSTER: They represent the same 18 amount of water? 19 MR. ANDRES: All, the curves should 20 have the same area under them. 21 MR. WEBSTER: Well, in fact the middle 22 two apparently relate to the 250 CFS flood. The 23 bottom one apparently relates to an 80,000 CFS 24 flood, and the top one apparently relates to a 25 400,000 CFS flood -- or unless it says floodway? 03550 1 You can see it as well as I can. 2 MR. ANDRES: Then I guess I still 3 don't understand the nature of the chart, I'm 4 sorry. 5 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 6 MR. MOIR: The model, the HMS model 7 gives you a check at the bottom line, conservation 8 of volume number. All the hydrology models do 9 that, it's a basic thing. You always check that 10 right at the bottom, how much water the model lost 11 or gained, and you want a fraction of a fraction 12 of a per cent. It's a basic check. 13 MR. WEBSTER: Well, I guess the flow 14 rates are in fact flow rates, and what we just 15 discussed was volume of water being the same under 16 each curve; is that correct? 17 MR. MOIR: That's correct. 18 MR. WEBSTER: So, in fact, this is a 19 very, very superficial look at something which may 20 indicate that there's a problem there. We're not 21 quite sure from what the discussion has been as to 22 whether in fact there is anything of significance 23 there. But the point that you're making, 24 Mr. Moir, is there's a difference in the arrival 25 of the peak of the flow, according to the way you 03551 1 have modelled this. And the point that Mr. Andres 2 is making is that in spite of that, he feels there 3 is enough water there to move out any ice that 4 could be causing a problem in the channel. 5 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Moir and 7 Mr. Jonasson. 8 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 10 MR. HANDLON: Just a point, Mr. Carson 11 may want to respond, and I think, and it's not in 12 the matter of argument because Mr. Carson wouldn't 13 be arguing at the conclusion, in any event. But 14 it's just the opportunity, had this evidence been 15 presented in a normal course, then he could have 16 spoken to it on Monday. So if he has anything to 17 add it to it, Mr. Andres had said, if he would be 18 given that opportunity, I'd appreciate that. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: He will be given that 20 opportunity. Does he have any more questions or 21 comments for Mr. Moir? 22 MR. HANDLON: No. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Moir, Mr. Jonasson 24 then thank you very much. Mr. Moir, thank you for 25 coming back to Winnipeg, and you have helped us a 03552 1 little bit in further understanding this issue. 2 Mr. Carson. 3 MR. CARSON: You know, frankly, I 4 don't know where to start. I feel that the simple 5 model that Mr. Moir showed is just absolutely not 6 applicable. He's comparing apples to oranges. 7 And the point that Mr. Andres made I think is the 8 correct view of reality. 9 The point is that in rule 1 operation, 10 which extends up to flows exceeding the 1997 flood 11 flow, at least for the expanded floodway, and 12 nearly that for the existing floodway, that is 13 more than twice the discharge that has ever been 14 known in the last 50 years for ice to remain on 15 the river. 16 So whether there is any small change 17 in the arrival of the peak of the flood of such 18 huge magnitude, and whether it affects ice is 19 totally irrelevant, in my view. 20 The point is that in rule 1 operation, 21 the water level is held as it would have been in 22 the state of nature. So there can be no change, 23 no difference in the state of nature in terms of 24 outflow downstream. I think Mr. Andres made the 25 point that there's a conservation of mass that has 03553 1 to be respected, and there just is no change in 2 outflow that would affect ice conditions 3 downstream. 4 I would welcome the opportunity to be 5 able to analyze the information that Mr. Moir has 6 provided, and perhaps see the model that he has 7 tried to simplify the situation with, and perhaps 8 give other comments. But, you know, I just don't 9 know where to start. It's just not reality. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Carson. 11 Mr. Andres, do you have any final 12 comments you wish to make in respect of your 13 presentation? 14 MR. ANDRES: Yes. The analysis that I 15 did to support the conclusions and recommendations 16 that I made essentially, in a shorthand way, 17 reviewed and checked the analysis that was 18 undertaken by the Floodway Authority in terms of 19 their technical support to the application for the 20 expansion of the floodway. In no way did it 21 suggest that those calculations weren't correct. 22 I think the assumptions that were made were 23 reasonable in that analysis. And when I did the 24 checks with my own assumptions, starting from 25 scratch, not using information that was provided 03554 1 by the Floodway Authority, I found that I could 2 reconcile my conclusions with theirs. 3 So in that sense, Mr. Chairman, I 4 think that the analysis is correct. And in fact, 5 I didn't have the ability to check the more 6 sophisticated MIKE 11 unsteady flow analysis, but 7 it also reconciled with my analysis in terms of 8 general changes to the system that we might 9 anticipate. 10 And then I have to just simply say 11 again that on the basis of my analysis there is no 12 indication to suggest that the floodway is going 13 to exacerbate ice conditions downstream of the 14 floodway. And in spite of the fact that there may 15 be some arguments about what is the most relevant 16 process, or how we may do certain calculations, I 17 think that the errors -- or not the errors, but 18 the difference of opinion that people may have in 19 terms of the critical components of the ice 20 break-up processes do not lead to the conclusion 21 that any changes in operations would occur to 22 flows that are relevant to ice jams and ice 23 jamming in the reach downstream. 24 Therefore, I again have to stand by my 25 conclusion that the floodway will be essentially 03555 1 innocuous in its implications on the flows and on 2 the ice jam levels and on the break-up processes 3 downstream of the floodway outlet. And that 4 basically concludes my comments on this issue. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 6 Mr. Andres. And I'd like to particularly thank 7 you for being able to, and being willing to take 8 on this little project on very short notice, and 9 help us in understanding this issue that's very 10 critical to a number of the people who live 11 downstream of the floodway outlet. 12 I'd just like to set the record 13 straight. In your opening comments you said you 14 made the report to the Manitoba Floodway 15 Authority, when in fact the report was, as 16 distributed here yesterday, was made to me as 17 chair of the Clean Environment Commission. 18 MR. ANDRES: I'm sorry, yes, that's 19 correct. I had sent it to you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 21 and thank you again for making your time available 22 in coming here to Winnipeg today. 23 MR. ANDRES: Thank you, sir. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe we should take a 25 five minute break while the -- or a ten minute 03556 1 break while the court reporters switch over, and 2 then we will hear from Mr. Carson following the 3 break. Come back about five to 11:00. 4 5 (Proceedings adjourned at 10:42 a.m. 6 and reconvened at 10:55 a.m.) 7 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Come back to 9 order, please. We now have Mr. Rick Carson, on 10 behalf of Floodway Authority that will be 11 responding to an undertaking made a couple of days 12 ago. Mr. Carson. 13 MR. CARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 The undertaking was essentially to make a sort of 15 the back of the envelope evaluation of what 16 improvements might be made to the expanded 17 floodway to try to reduce the extent of artificial 18 flooding that could occur under rule 4. And 19 before I get into some of these technical slides 20 that I have to speak to that issue, I wanted to 21 make it clear that from the engineering point of 22 view in the project definition and environmental 23 assessment, there were no efforts made towards 24 looking at improving the floodway for summer water 25 level control, because at that point in time that 03557 1 was off the table, it was not part of the project. 2 So what you are seeing is cobbling together 3 information that we had on this issue over the 4 years, and try and make some perspective on it. 5 Okay. So how I proceeded here to try 6 to demonstrate the issues that have come up, are I 7 looked at rule 4, and what it really means. And 8 essentially to distill it right down to the bare 9 bones, it means if the water level in the Red 10 River were to rise as high as elevation 14 feet 11 James, that's about I guess six or seven feet 12 above normal level, then the intent would be if 13 storms are imminent in the next week or ten days 14 or so, the floodway would be activated by raising 15 the gates at the inlet and the flow would be 16 diverted around Winnipeg so that the water level 17 in Winnipeg would be decreased by about five feet 18 or down to James nine feet. Now, what that means 19 in terms of river flow rates is that prior to the 20 operation, under this rule 4 initiative, the river 21 flow would be about 1,050 cubic metres per second 22 or roughly 30,000 CFS, that may vary plus or minus 23 a thousand, depending on the Assiniboine River 24 contribution and so on. I think that's a pretty 25 accurate characterization. 03558 1 Under those conditions prior to the 2 operation, the state of nature at the inlet would 3 be about elevation 227.8 metres, just from the 4 state of nature rating curve that's been developed 5 recently, and that's about elevation 747 feet. So 6 that's about two and a half feet below the lip 7 elevation at the entrance to the floodway. So I'm 8 just painting a picture here of these conditions, 9 and I am going to go into the hydraulics of how 10 this would change if the floodway were changed to 11 accommodate this rule 4. 12 Now in order to achieve that reduction 13 of water level at James Avenue down to nine feet, 14 you would have to divert approximately 500 cubic 15 metres per second or 18,000 CFS into the floodway. 16 And that's just a physical reality of hydraulics 17 of the situation. 18 Now I'm just going to park those facts 19 there for a second and look at what we hydraulic 20 engineers call rating curve at the floodway inlet. 21 So this relates on the vertical scale, the 22 elevation at the floodway inlet. So on the left 23 hand side the elevation is indicated in metres of 24 water level, and on the right hand side it is in 25 feet of water level. So this rating curve 03559 1 indicates for any given water level upstream how 2 much water could be pushed into the floodway or 3 diverted around Winnipeg. 4 Now, we have different colours showing 5 up here. The blue dashed line indicates the 6 rating curve of the existing floodway as it exists 7 right now as we speak. So what it would indicate 8 is that at elevation, let's say elevation 232, it 9 would be required at the inlet to push 750 cubic 10 metres per second into the floodway. So that's 11 the blue dash line. The other lines, there is a 12 dashed -- rather a red line that indicates a 13 similar characteristic for the expanded floodway. 14 So you can see it a very thin red line that 15 continues on up. And at the high levels you get a 16 substantial increase in discharge capacity, and 17 that's all what the floodway expansion is about. 18 The green dashed line, or the long 19 dash/short dash line there, indicates the expanded 20 floodway if the lip were to be removed. And I got 21 a bit of indication down here as to what the 22 extent of the lip is and how much it would take to 23 remove it. The lip elevation, as I said earlier, 24 is about elevation 750 feet or elevation 228.6 25 metres, so that is at this point on the curve, and 03560 1 if the lip is not removed, the water level has to 2 be at least that to put even one cubic foot per 3 second down the floodway. 4 Now, the lip height I guess, if you 5 want to think in those terms, is about roughly 2.1 6 metres or 7 feet high, and the base of the 7 existing channel or the expanded channel for that 8 matter, is about elevation 226.5, I believe it is, 9 or 743 feet. So, if that lip were to be totally 10 removed, the rating curve would be adjusted 11 downwards to this green line, and that would 12 indicate how much water could be pushed into the 13 floodway for any water levels. But you can see at 14 the lower range, if the lip does not exist, you 15 can indeed get more water into the floodway to the 16 tune of about, oh, 125 cubic metres per second if 17 the water level at the inlet were elevation 18 roughly 750 feet. 19 What this shows is that as the water 20 level rises above the lip elevation, it is 21 somewhat irrelevant as to whether the lip exists 22 or not. So at elevation, let's say 231 metres, I 23 don't know exactly what that is in feet, it is 24 probably about 757 or 758, there is almost 25 immeasurable difference in the amount of water 03561 1 that can be put through the floodway. 2 So, going back to the facts that I 3 presented a few minutes ago, where under the 4 classic rule 4 invoking, the amount of water that 5 would have to be pushed around Winnipeg to lower 6 the water level within the city to 9 James would 7 be about 500 cubic metres per second. So the 8 upstream water level, therefore, must be 9 approximately 230.8 metres, or 757.2 feet, and 10 plus or minus an inch or two, whether the lip 11 exists or not. It is almost irrelevant whether 12 the lip exists for that particular condition. 13 Now I will move into an area where I'm 14 going to build a bit of a picture of what the 15 hydraulics, hydraulic conditions are for the 16 expanded floodway and then show how it might be 17 improved to reduce that water level that I just 18 showed you on the previous slide. So what I'm 19 showing here is a graphical depiction of water 20 surface profiles down the floodway. So we have 21 the floodway inlet over the left hand side of the 22 graph, we have the floodway outlet over on the 23 right hand side of the graph. This is a highly 24 distorted scale that ranges from elevation 220 say 25 down at the bottom here up to elevation 240. But, 03562 1 over a horizontal scale of 50,000 metres or 50 2 kilometres, so it is an extremely distorted scale. 3 The lower black line is the invert of the original 4 design of the floodway and it will be sort of the 5 intended design of the expanded floodway. So it 6 gives you the profile right through down to the 7 outlet structure. I show the lip elevation just 8 as a spike here, at this scale it appears as a 9 spike, in reality it is quite a broad weir. The 10 blue line above that is the shoulder of the top of 11 the low flow channel and the start of the main 12 channel that spreads out to a width of some 13 540 feet, or 180 metres if memories serves. And 14 then, of course, these lines above that indicate 15 the amount of water, or rather the water surface 16 profile for various flood magnitudes. So that 17 magic 540 cubic metres per second is the lower 18 line I'm showing in the thin red line, and that 19 would be the profile starting at that elevation, 20 230.8 metres at the inlet. Okay. 21 So I've run through this. Really just 22 to summarize, to pass that 500 cubic metres per 23 second the water level must be raised up to 24 approximately 755.9 feet with the lip and just 25 fractionally lower than that without the lip. I'm 03563 1 showing about a tenth of a foot. It is very 2 difficult to actually calculate much of a 3 difference at that magnitude. I guess the point 4 is that this is still, or this is about 2.6 metres 5 above the state of nature, whether the lip exists 6 or it doesn't exist, still the water level has to 7 be raised that amount to get that amount of water 8 into the floodway. So the question arises, how 9 could the floodway be improved over what we have 10 planned for the expansion now in order to reduce 11 that amount of artificial flooding, let's call it. 12 And another point is that even with 13 that artificial flooding it is still somewhat 14 academic, because it is still four feet below or 15 1.2 metres below the top of the bank. 16 Let's look at channel improvements 17 here and see what could be achieved by making some 18 changes in the floodway expansion concept. So the 19 first one would be to remove that inlet lip, even 20 though it really doesn't play much of a picture 21 there. Let's remove that. And let's deepen by 22 about a metre at the inlet, and flatten the 23 channel profile to as far as the TransCanada 24 highway, so that's about close to ten miles. 25 And what I'm going to do is show this 03564 1 graphically here. What I'm suggesting here, or at 2 least this option that we considered, to try to 3 put a perspective on this is we would lower the 4 channel such that at the inlet it would be 5 deepened by about one metre or three feet roughly, 6 and then it would be horizontal over to the 7 TransCanada highway. So we have a wedge of 8 excavation in there that's some 10 or 12 miles 9 long. And we leave the low flow channel as it is. 10 And really that's the case that I'm considering. 11 So the benefit of that when you go 12 through the analysis -- oh, I should go back here. 13 The benefit of that would be the reduction in the 14 water surface profile from the old profile that I 15 showed here as this light red line, down to the 16 lower red line. So it is about, a reduction at 17 the inlet of about .4 metres, or close to a foot 18 and a half, or say 15 inches or so. So that would 19 be really what is being achieved by that 20 particular modification. 21 So now I will look at what the costs 22 and benefits might be. So as I say, it was about 23 a reduction of .4 metres, still well above 2.2 24 metres above the state of nature, 6.9 feet. 25 Now the cost, because the inlet or the 03565 1 weir or the lip serves the purpose of keeping ice 2 out of the floodway, and it serves the purpose of 3 not having the floodway wetted every year 4 essentially, when the water level might be high 5 enough to cause water to flow into the floodway, 6 but still not be high enough to require the 7 invoking of rule 4. So we need a structure to 8 serve that purpose. And it is difficult to know 9 exactly, on sort of the short amount of time that 10 we had to consider it, but our feeling is we are 11 looking at a structure that's at least $3 million, 12 possibly as much as $5 million to construct that 13 over the full width of the inlet weir, or the old 14 inlet weir that would removed for this. It would 15 require about 1.2 million cubic metres of 16 excavation of clay down as far as the TransCanada 17 highway crossing. And that would be deemed as 18 deepening of the floodway. But it is in that 19 upper zone where it is all in clay, and we don't 20 think there would be major issues with 21 groundwater, but still that question hangs out 22 there. And the cost of that excavation would be 23 about $4 million. 24 Now, because we are making the channel 25 essentially deeper, now we would have to look at 03566 1 it in detail, but I believe if we were to do that, 2 that the Seine River syphon would have to have the 3 low conduit modified. And that comes at a price 4 tag of at least $2 million. 5 So the total of that, when you add in 6 engineering and contingency and so on, we are 7 looking at a cost that is well above $10 million, 8 probably 12 to $14 million for such a fairly 9 modest change to the floodway expansion concept. 10 And the benefit, again, is difficult 11 to quantify just in a short space of time, but we 12 looked at the report that we produced for the 13 province that assessed the benefits and costs of 14 summer water level control, and from that we are 15 able to say that the benefits are clearly, in 16 terms of reduction of compensation and buyouts of 17 property and so on, clearly well less than 18 $3 million. But we will be magnanimous here and 19 say that the benefit could be as much as 20 $3 million. So really for this modest change we 21 are talking about a cost of close to $14 million, 22 and a benefit of less than $3 million in reduced 23 impacts upstream. We are still well over the 24 state of nature by a fairly wide margin, it still 25 requires the use of the floodway gates, and it 03567 1 still has the fish and riverbank stability issues. 2 So our conclusion, based on this, is there is not 3 much merit in this sort of endeavor. 4 I admit there are other options that 5 could be considered that would have different 6 benefits, different costs, but I would be very 7 surprised if it could be shown that we could get 8 the benefits close to what the costs would be. 9 Now, there are a few slides that Water 10 Stewardship has prepared to show the -- or tried 11 to demonstrate the relatively minor effects of the 12 inlet weir or the lip, as it existed in the 2004 13 event. Would you like to see those? There are 14 about three or four slides that they put together. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Please. 16 MR. CARSON: I'm not terribly familiar 17 with these, but I guess the concept that is being 18 shown is that there is a bit of a cross-section 19 through the entrance to the floodway. So we have 20 got the Red River out here, shown sort of as a 21 rectangular, it is not rectangular, but for the 22 demonstration purposes I guess it is realistic. 23 We have got the inlet weir, at least a slice 24 through the inlet weir shown over here. And what 25 is demonstrated in this first slide is actually -- 03568 1 I guess it is 2001, sorry, it is not 2004 -- it 2 was April 7, 2001, and the water level at the 3 floodway inlet was just a foot above the crest 4 elevation, or the lip elevation, and there had 5 been just a trickle of water into the floodway, so 6 the downstream water level was only about 7 746.5 feet. And it doesn't say exactly how much 8 flow was going in there, but it would be a very 9 small amount of water passing over the lip for 10 that condition. 11 So for that condition, I think it 12 would be quite clear that if the lip were removed, 13 there could be a substantial amount more water 14 passed into the floodway. 15 But then as the stage rises, now we 16 are two feet, or almost three feet above the crest 17 elevation of the weir, now you see the downstream 18 water level rising dramatically. These are 19 actually measured water levels upstream of the 20 floodway inlet and at St. Mary's Road bridge. So 21 there is about a kilometre or so, or maybe a 22 little less than a kilometre difference between 23 the two. But you see as these slides progress 24 that that difference reduces significantly, 25 indicating that the weir is really playing very 03569 1 little effect in controlling the flow that goes 2 into the floodway. So as the water level rises, 3 so does that differential. At this point in time, 4 if the weir did not exist, the water level 5 upstream would be reduced very nominally. 6 And similarly the higher you go, the 7 less -- I guess that's it. So I guess that's the 8 point that has tried to be made by the Water 9 Stewardship slides. 10 Any questions on that? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Barrie? 12 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you, Mr. Carson. 13 I'm presuming that you are giving this as a 14 typical rule 4 type of operation? 15 MR. CARSON: Yes, I zoomed 16 specifically to the conditions that would cause 17 the invoking of rule 4. And there are, of course, 18 higher flood flows that could occur. But we 19 thought through that, and what it does, it more 20 amply demonstrates the fact that the costs greatly 21 exceed the benefits. 22 MR. WEBSTER: Let's just look at that 23 for a minute. Was that benefit an annual benefit 24 or an overall benefit? 25 MR. CARSON: No, that was the present 03570 1 value of future, 50 years of benefits. 2 MR. WEBSTER: I see. So it is 3 integrated over that period? 4 MR. CARSON: Right. So we are 5 comparing a capital cost in the 14 million versus 6 the present value of future benefits. 7 MR. WEBSTER: Let's look at that a 8 little bit. My understanding from what you have 9 said is that the river is still within its banks 10 under those circumstances? 11 MR. CARSON: That's right. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Does that mean there are 13 no residences within the danger zone if you 14 perform that particular exercise? 15 MR. CARSON: That's correct. The only 16 thing that is affected would be the market garden, 17 some market garden operations, and possibly some 18 dry crop farming operations. Although I 19 shouldn't -- that's a possibility, I'm not 20 convinced that it would be at those elevations. 21 MR. WEBSTER: And in cases where 22 people had landscaped down towards the river, that 23 would also be affected? 24 MR. CARSON: Yes, that's true. 25 MR. WEBSTER: But the residences 03571 1 themselves are well above that level? 2 MR. CARSON: I believe so, yes. 3 MR. WEBSTER: The interesting thing is 4 that at that level it is still within the channel 5 of the river. 6 MR. CARSON: Um-hum. 7 MR. WEBSTER: The picture there is 8 rather convenient in that everything is sort of 9 square, flat and parallel. The river bank doesn't 10 look quite like that. And so that, you know, it 11 is useful to understand that low-lying market 12 gardens and people's landscaped areas would be 13 inundated. 14 The possibility of putting some kind 15 of perforation through that lip, in the way of 16 gated culverts, for instance, presumably would 17 generate little benefit because of the fact that 18 what you need is flow that's sufficient to overtop 19 the lip; is that correct? 20 MR. CARSON: Well, if you replace the 21 lip with culverts, let's say, firstly, it would 22 take a large number of culverts to allow you to 23 pass as much as say 18,000 cubic feet per second. 24 But at that flow magnitude, the floodway channel 25 takes over the control of what the water levels 03572 1 are. So you are not achieving very much benefit, 2 at the magnitude of flow that really is a benefit 3 to reducing the flood potential in Winnipeg. 4 MR. WEBSTER: Let me go back to that 5 quantity again then. It was 500 cubic metres a 6 second or 18,000 cubic feet per second? 7 MR. CARSON: Right. 8 MR. WEBSTER: Can you compare the rule 9 4 operation of the floodway then again for us, 10 over the last few years, with the level that you 11 have given us here, the actual use level versus 12 the one that you have used here? 13 MR. CARSON: That's a very good point. 14 I think the flows in 2002 and 2004 were less than 15 this. And I understand that it was in the order 16 of 10 to 12,000 cubic feet per second, or whatever 17 that is in cubic metres per second, about 300, or 18 350 or so. But there is a factor here -- I'm 19 looking into the future when the floodway is 20 improved. And part of the improvement is to 21 eliminate the willows that have grown in the 22 bottom of the channel. And in 2002 and 2004, 23 those willows played a large roll in impeding the 24 discharge capacity of the channel. So for the 25 water levels that occurred in let's say 2004, 03573 1 which I believe was in the order of 756 and a half 2 feet, I heard Rick Bowering testify the other day. 3 In my calculations that would show a larger 4 discharge down the floodway than what actually 5 occurred in 2004, because of these willows. They 6 existed then and they won't in the future because 7 they are being cleared out. 8 MR. WEBSTER: Let's talk about the 9 floodway channel a little bit further then. This 10 analysis that you have done is on the basis of the 11 existing channel entrance, which is -- you are 12 planning on leaving it the way it is for the 13 future? 14 MR. CARSON: That's right. 15 MR. WEBSTER: Supposing that the 16 channel entrance was in fact broadened to allow 17 more water into the channel, and that the channel 18 itself was not left unmodified for that first 19 length where, in fact, in the current plan it is 20 left unmodified, would that make a difference? 21 MR. CARSON: No, it wouldn't. When 22 you are up in the range of elevation 756 or 757, I 23 think the hydraulics amply demonstrate that the 24 inlet lip is not an impeding factor. If you made 25 it 1,500 feet long or 2,000 feet long, it would 03574 1 make no difference. 2 MR. WEBSTER: I'm thinking the 3 restriction to flow in the channel is a function 4 of the channel width and the channel depth and so 5 forth. And the plan is not to modify that 6 channel, because in the use of the floodway for 7 larger flows, you are anticipating overland 8 flooding, which then you accommodate by putting 9 gaps in the -- I was going to use the word dyke, 10 it is not quite the right word -- on the south 11 side of the channel. 12 MR. CARSON: Yes. 13 MR. WEBSTER: Now, in terms of summer 14 operation, and in terms of situations in which 15 artificial flooding is likely to occur, I just 16 want to get it quite straight, that the increase 17 of the capacity of the floodway by modifying that 18 first section -- and clearly it doesn't have to 19 handle the whole flow of a 700 year flood, but if 20 the entrance is widened and the first section is 21 in fact modified, could it in fact in some ways 22 accommodate the water that has to go through there 23 without backing up the water so much? 24 MR. CARSON: I think I can probably 25 answer that question through this graph. As you 03575 1 can see, there is a slope of the water surface as 2 it goes down the floodway -- water runs downhill, 3 that's no surprise to anybody. What you can see 4 is that in order to make a change to the upstream 5 water levels, you have to go much further afield 6 than just even a half kilometre or a kilometre 7 downstream of the inlet. You have to go several 8 hundred or, in fact, I'm going to say maybe 10 9 kilometres, to get down into water levels that can 10 give you a significant improvement at the inlet. 11 And the improvements that you are talking about, 12 the intent would be to flatten the slope of the 13 water surface from the entrance to the downstream 14 end of the where the improvements are. So the 15 shorter are the improvements, the less the benefit 16 is. So when you speak of widening near the inlet, 17 there is really no room to maneuver here. There 18 is not much benefit to be had. 19 MR. WEBSTER: That's why I'm asking 20 the question, to see what the answer is there. 21 Because the sort of intuitive approach would say 22 that if you make that entrance a little bit 23 bigger, that the restriction to flow would be 24 reduced. But you are telling us it is not just 25 that part? 03576 1 MR. CARSON: No, I think the answer to 2 that is that the restriction is the channel itself 3 downstream. You have to do a substantial 4 modification of that channel to get the 5 improvement. 6 MR. WEBSTER: And that's channel 7 depth? 8 MR. CARSON: It could be width, but it 9 would be far more costly than the numbers I put up 10 for deepening. It would start to affect bridges, 11 the CPR Emerson crossing, and utilities, exactly. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Okay, thank you. 13 MR. MOTHERAL: My question would be on 14 the cost benefit. And as we can see, the 15 14 million or 12 or $14 million cost, and a net 16 benefit of possibly $3 million, as you say, 17 appears not to be attractive. 18 As we have heard in many presentations 19 this week, to put dollar values on, it is hard to 20 put dollar values on certain things. And the 21 concern that I have is the validity of the 22 quantitative analysis of this. You know, we have 23 heard of certain trees being lost because they are 24 artificially flooded. There could possibly be 25 health hazards. There is anguish and things like 03577 1 that. And maybe, including those costs would 2 maybe bring it up to where it is an attractive 3 thing to do. Do you have any comments on that? 4 MR. CARSON: Yes, certainly that issue 5 arises in any benefit cost comparison. If 6 intangibles are significant, then that could sway 7 the picture. But that's really not for me to 8 decide. I can't quantify what a tree's value is 9 and provide it in a benefit cost analysis. All I 10 can say is that, depending on a person's 11 perspective, those values could sway the argument. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carson, in appendix 13 E in your 2001, November 2001 report from KGS, you 14 presented I think five different options, and the 15 least expensive was called scheme E. It had a 16 cost of about $29 million. How does what you 17 presented today compare with scheme E? 18 MR. CARSON: Scheme E is a very 19 aggressive scheme, and it was, essentially it was 20 building on the floodway expansion as we had 21 designed it preliminarily back in those days. So 22 it involved deepening to the extent of, I guess 23 the deepest part was six feet from the existing 24 floodway that is. And so this was a build-on on 25 to that. And this was deepening even further to 03578 1 the extent of, I think it was nine feet further at 2 the inlet -- I better not quote that, it is at 3 least six to nine feet further than the amount 4 that was in the preliminary design of the floodway 5 at that time. And that would extend right on down 6 to the floodway outlet. 7 So the $28 million, we were able to 8 achieve that with the old channel, but for the new 9 design it would be substantially more than that. 10 Because we are only allowed to widen, and that 11 would be much more expensive for this desired 12 improvement at low water levels. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. While I 14 have Mr. Carson and Mr. McNeil in the chair, I'm 15 going to actually bootleg in a question that's 16 related to artificial flooding, I think, but not 17 to the summer flooding. And it arises out of Mr. 18 Starr's comments yesterday in his closing 19 statement on behalf of the Ritchot Concerned 20 Citizens. And he said, and it is the first time I 21 had heard him say this, so I wasn't able to ask 22 any questions of you previously. He says, in fact 23 the only change was that our level of flood 24 protection was reduced from one in 250 years to 25 one in 120 years as a result of widening rather 03579 1 than deepening? Was that correct? Was there ever 2 consideration that people living south of the 3 floodway inlet would get a one in 250 protection? 4 MR. CARSON: Yes, I remember that 5 number distinctly, because that was a number that 6 was proposed, or reported in our same study back 7 in 2001. And it was based on a preliminary design 8 of the floodway expansion that involved 9 retro-fitting of bridges and deepening of the 10 floodway to the extent of a maximum deepening of 11 six feet. 12 Now since then the design has evolved, 13 considered the age and condition of the bridges, 14 and the most rational approach has been to replace 15 the bridges because they were nearing their 16 lifespan anyways. So once you factor that in, it 17 became evident that widening was not really, does 18 not come at the premium that we thought it came at 19 back in 2001. So we have ended up with widening 20 as the option. 21 There were other factors that entered 22 into the picture. We showed that the east 23 embankment gaps are very effective, and that was 24 really not considered to the full extent back in 25 2001. And in fact we have added another gap to 03580 1 even further assist that. 2 The state of nature rating curve has 3 changed significantly since the 2001 date. And I 4 think there were a few other reasons for this 5 change, and I can't think of them just now, but 6 that has caused -- yeah, I guess the fact that 7 there is no channel deepening between the inlet 8 and -- well, anywhere essentially, has affected 9 that condition as well. So I recall there were 10 five reasons that sort of explained why that 11 reduction in protection from one in 250 to one in 12 120 has occurred. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: What would it take to 14 give them one in 250? 15 MR. CARSON: We evaluated that, and 16 with the current concept that we have with the 17 floodway, it was a cost of over $200 million. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: 200 million? 19 MR. CARSON: Yes. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: An additional 21 200 million? 22 MR. CARSON: That's right. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, the recent 24 decision not to deepen at all, did that reduce the 25 volume of the whole, the channel, the 50-mile 03581 1 length channel, 50 kilometre? 2 MR. CARSON: Very much so, yes. 3 Because the original concept back in 2001, when we 4 didn't have the benefit of all of the condition 5 surveys of the bridges, and we just didn't know 6 the extent that we could consider improvements to 7 the bridges, we had a concept where the bridges 8 would be retro-fitted, and they would be kept, 9 many of them at the same deck elevation or the 10 same height above the maximum water surface, and 11 they would be partially submerged. So that has an 12 impeding effect on the channel. So in order to 13 compensate that, we had to have a much larger 14 channel that would have more efficiency to be able 15 to pass the water. I recall that the volume back 16 then of the channel was in the order of 17 35 million cubic metres. Of course, we had much 18 less expensive bridge modifications so that there 19 was a bit of a saw-off in terms of change in 20 channel excavation and cost with an increase in 21 the cost of the bridges. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: So, this fairly recent 23 decision not to deepen at all was just based on 24 sort of further analysis that told you, you could 25 move enough water through with just a widening and 03582 1 no deepening at all? 2 MR. MORGAN: Can I clarify something 3 on this? 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 5 MR. MORGAN: The reason is when you 6 say recent -- 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it was Mr. McNeil 8 announced it, I think on day two. 9 MR. MORGAN: That should be clarified 10 because I think there is some misunderstanding 11 there. The deepening and the no deepening that 12 Mr. Carson has talked about was in the preliminary 13 design, which we assessed. The only difference 14 was they said there could be some selective 15 deepening, I think, in some areas in the low flow 16 channel near St. Mary's which had no -- they 17 weren't in sensitive areas or anything like that. 18 So that's a very minor thing. What Mr. McNeil 19 talked about had really nothing to do with change 20 in the channel capacity. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: You are right, that's 22 what I was talking about was sort of when you 23 removed the minor deepening. So that won't have a 24 huge effect on the volume of the water that moves 25 through the floodway? 03583 1 MR. MORGAN: No. 2 MR. CARSON: No. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's all of 4 the questions that I have. 5 MR. WEBSTER: Just one further 6 conceptual question, Mr. Carson, and that has to 7 do with the option of, in fact, deepening the 8 floodway to provide that upstream lowering of 9 water levels. You evaluated that at 200 million. I 10 think that's correct, is it not? And was that 11 simply the cost of excavating further material to 12 get down to that level? Because, I mean, 13 presumably widening or deepening involves moving 14 much the same amount of material. So why was the 15 extra cost there? 16 MR. CARSON: Well, essentially what it 17 is being asked to do in order to achieve that one 18 in 250 year capacity would be to pass more water, 19 substantially more water at a lower water level. 20 So you either have to gain that by widening or 21 deepening, or some combination thereof. So we ran 22 it through the optimization technique that we have 23 set up for the existing design, and it showed that 24 there would have to be -- in fact, I guess we 25 constrained it to widening, and you would have to 03584 1 widen and increase the excavation, and also there 2 were some effects on the bridges, there would have 3 to be longer bridges. And the summation amounted 4 to more than $200 million. 5 MR. WEBSTER: I understand, but do you 6 understand what I'm saying, that if in designing 7 the capacity of the floodway, you have to remove 8 material either to make it broader or to make it 9 deeper, and it should be the same amount of soil 10 that you are removing, more or less. I am 11 wondering if that concept is in fact correct? 12 MR. CARSON: Well, I guess what would 13 come along with this channel that would cost 14 $200 million more, would be not only the ability 15 to achieve a one in 250 year level of protection 16 at the state of nature, but you would also 17 increase the protection of the ultimate channel 18 that is built. In fact, what I'm saying is that 19 it would provide more protection than the one in 20 700 year event. Because what would drive the size 21 of the channel and the bridges and so on would be 22 this lower event. So the $200 million would buy 23 not only the improvement at state of nature, but 24 also an improved protection. So really it is a 25 different channel than what we are comparing to in 03585 1 the EIS. 2 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, I understand that, 3 except that in my simple minded approach to this, 4 to get the ditch to be the right size, so to 5 speak, to move a given volume of water, whether 6 the channel is widened or deepened, the expansion 7 involves the removal of much the same amount of 8 material. I know that's a gross simplification, 9 but does it not, in fact, require the removal of 10 much the same amount of material from the channel 11 to make it bigger? 12 MR. CARSON: Generally speaking, I 13 think it is more. Because you have to go deeper, 14 and/or wider, and it involves more excavation. I 15 must be missing -- 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I might be able 17 to help on this. I think what we are -- to 18 provide one in 250 to the people south of the 19 inlet would involve additional widening and/or 20 deepening to the floodway. So this is in addition 21 to what's already being done. And I think you 22 said, Mr. Carson, that in fact would raise the 23 overall protection to the city above one in 700, 24 but provide one in 250 to the south? 25 MR. CARSON: Yes, that would come 03586 1 along -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: So that's where the 3 additional cost would come, it is over and above 4 what we are talking about? 5 MR. CARSON: Yes. 6 MR. WEBSTER: I think that's where I'm 7 not quite clear, if you deepen the channel, why 8 would you need to widen it so much? The cost is 9 in moving the spoil from the channel. 10 MR. CARSON: Well, I think we're sort 11 of going around in circles here. The 200 million 12 was based on a scheme that would stick to widening 13 as the means of improving the discharge capacity. 14 So I'm not sure if I mislead you into thinking 15 that we were deepening, but that 200 million was 16 based on the same widening concept, and just how 17 much wider you have to make it to achieve the one 18 in 250 year value. And once you have got that, 19 then that comes along with the added benefit, I 20 guess, of providing protection greater than one in 21 700 year. 22 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, I understand what 23 you are saying there. I think what I am looking 24 at, I mean, earlier we were somewhat celebrating 25 the fact that you weren't going to deepen the 03587 1 channel because of the groundwater issues further 2 downstream. I mean, those are there no matter 3 what you decide to do. But if you were to make a 4 channel that would carry the same amount of 5 water -- you had in your original design concept 6 to make the channel bigger, you had to make it 7 either -- the cross-sectional area of the channel 8 then had to be enlarged, and you do that by either 9 making it broader, or making it deeper, or a 10 combination of the two, to give you the 11 conductivity, the flow characteristics that would 12 allow the water to be channeled effectively. And 13 so that's why I'm questioning whether in fact, I 14 wasn't thinking of making the channel bigger than 15 the current plan to accommodate that water, I'm 16 thinking of the concept of lowering the channel to 17 allow the water to enter in a situation that 18 provides less artificial flooding upstream. 19 MR. MORGAN: Dave Morgan. I want to 20 clarify. What Mr. Carson said earlier was that -- 21 you are saying can't you go back to the old design 22 and it would be the same cost as you had in 2001? 23 What he is clarifying is that since that time the 24 assessment of the bridges has come along and said, 25 you are going to have to replace these bridges 03588 1 anyhow. So the concept of 2000, with the 2 additional knowledge that we know about the 3 bridges, couldn't be priced at the same price 4 anyhow. So you would go deeper, you would still 5 have to replace bridges. And as we have learned 6 as we have gone through this hearing so much, you 7 would still have potential effects on groundwater 8 which could be significant. So you can't go back 9 to the old design at the same cost. Am I clear? 10 Mr. Carson can correct me if -- 11 MR. WEBSTER: So a large portion of 12 the cost of the construction is in fact the 13 replacing of bridges is the message that Dr. 14 Morgan is giving me, is that right? 15 MR. CARSON: That's true, yes. 16 MR. WEBSTER: And that's there 17 whatever happens. 18 MR. CARSON: Yes. 19 MR. WEBSTER: I am sorry, I prevented 20 you from answering the question that he was asking 21 you. Did you have something else you wanted to 22 add to that? 23 MR. CARSON: No, not much. I guess I 24 want to make it clear that the 200 million was 25 only for widening. I would be very surprised if 03589 1 we went only to deepening to provide that, that we 2 get much different. It might be a little bit 3 lower, but it is still a substantial amount of 4 money to achieve that. 5 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you very 6 much. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Wayne? 8 MR. MOTHERAL: The more I was 9 listening, the more confused I was getting too. 10 But I would -- a way to ask the question would be, 11 can you lower the first portion of the floodway, 12 only the first portion where it is not affecting, 13 shouldn't affect the groundwater because of the 14 clay base, and then go up and widen the rest of 15 it? Would that give better protection upstream? 16 MR. CARSON: Well, then you run into 17 these practical difficulties. You would be 18 creating essentially a pool of water upstream that 19 wouldn't drain. And so, I mean, certainly, I 20 mean, you can -- I wouldn't say that you can 21 achieve what we are talking about by doing that, 22 but it would go a long ways towards that, at 23 detriment of having a pool of water, you are 24 creating a lake there permanently. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think that 03590 1 concludes our questioning in that regard. So 2 thank you all very much. 3 Yes, Mr. McNeil? 4 MR. MCNEIL: Just because we have had 5 so much conversation about this, I want to get 6 this on the record, even though we all know it. 7 Anything related to summer operation is not part 8 of this project. I think it was demonstrated that 9 in the flood protection studies for Winnipeg 10 report, it was looked at for the concept of 11 floodway expansion, primarily for spring, what 12 else could you do for summer water level control? 13 But Government, after the conclusion of the 14 floodway protection studies for Winnipeg, and 15 after the operation in 2002, did in fact do a 16 study called Summer Water Level Control for 17 Winnipeg. That study is now posted on the website 18 of Manitoba Conservation. And right at the 19 beginning of that report it indicates that the 20 terms of reference were to proceed with the study 21 of summer water level control using the gates 22 only. In other words, it excluded consideration 23 of any other physical option related to floodway 24 expansion, or related to the existing floodway. 25 And so it was a direction that Government took at 03591 1 that time, after they operated in 2002, that in 2 consideration of summer water level control, they 3 would only do so with the operation of the 4 existing gates. And as you know, under this 5 project we are not changing those gates. 6 So I just wanted to get that on the 7 record that the Government did not contemplate at 8 the time, after operation in 2002, any physical 9 changes whatsoever to the existing or the expanded 10 floodway to enhance or reduce summer water levels. 11 Thank you. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think 13 that brings us to a close on this matter. 14 Just before we break for lunch, 15 immediately after lunch the first closing 16 statements we will have will be on behalf the 17 three municipalities; following that will be the 18 Coalition for Flood Protection North; and 19 following that we may have a closing statement by 20 Manitoba Wildlands. So let's break for lunch and 21 come back at 1:00 please? 22 MR. STEFANIUK: May I be allowed to 23 make a comment? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: It is completely out of 25 order. What is it in respect to, Mayor Stefaniuk? 03592 1 MR. STEFANIUK: The discussion that 2 we just had and how it pertains to what I was sort 3 of driving at. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have heard a 5 lot from you and many others in your part of the 6 world, from the RM of Ritchot in this respect. 7 MR. STEFANIUK: You have indeed, yes. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: And I think what we 9 were looking for today was just some clarification 10 for our benefit. So, I think, you know, we can be 11 at this forever if we allow endless comments back 12 and forth on it. 13 MR. STEFANIUK: I don't intend to 14 debate on it. I just want to give you some 15 clarification from our point of thinking. There 16 are about two minutes left. I will respect your 17 decision, I'm not trying to challenge that. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I will allow you two 19 minutes. It will probably be quicker than 20 debating with you. 21 MR. STEFANIUK: Thank you, Mr. 22 Chairman. 23 I liked what Mr. Carson is saying, 24 that to modify, they haven't gone far enough. 25 What we have always said is that if you took the 03593 1 channel, and maybe changed the alignment of it, 2 widened it to a magnitude, deepened it even more, 3 that you would have a situation where you could 4 sort of during a one in 700 year flood, or one in 5 120 year flood, lower the level of the water 6 completely in the river to below natural flood 7 levels. That would provide the flood levels that 8 we need, and I think it is doable. It also would 9 help in summer operations. And it would also have 10 the benefit too if you could lower the water, 11 lower the natural upstream, that you would have a 12 situation in Winnipeg where you wouldn't have 13 $140 million on augmenting flood protection with 14 the primary dykes. And I think that's an 15 important fact to bear in mind. And I thank you 16 very much. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 18 Thank you, Mr. Stefaniuk. 19 And I would note, Mayor Stefaniuk, if 20 it is any comfort at all, that two or three days 21 ago Mr. McNeil, in response to a question from me, 22 said that there is nothing in this project that 23 would exclude that from being done at a future 24 date. 25 MR. STEFANIUK: (inaudible) 03594 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I hope that's not 2 true. 3 (Proceedings recessed at 12:00 and 4 reconvened at 1:00 p.m.) 5 6 THE CHAIRMAN: If we can come to 7 order, please. First up this afternoon, we have a 8 closing statement on behalf of the three 9 municipalities. In what order? Are we going to 10 hear from the reeves first or you, Mr. Currie? 11 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, I believe 12 we are going to hear from the three reeves first 13 and then I'll hopefully do clean-up. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Hopefully? 15 MR. CURRIE: I will do clean-up. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: We hope so, too. Thank 17 you. 18 MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, Manitoba 20 Floodway Authority, participant groups, fellow 21 municipalities, ladies and gentlemen, I would like 22 to first thank the committee in allowing us to 23 submit our closing statements today. As I spoke 24 to you earlier, Mr. Chairman, it's a difficult 25 thing being a reeve or a councillor. It's 03595 1 considered a part-time job, but in the last while 2 it's certainly a full-time one. 3 It is difficult to sit here as the 4 Reeve of the RM of St. Clements and have to fight 5 for the health and well-being of our municipality 6 and doing so against the largest undertaking that 7 Southern Manitoba will most likely ever see. 8 However, we feel as the council of the RM, we have 9 no choice. The health and the well-being of our 10 residents must come first and foremost. 11 As I stated before, and some of the 12 things as I go through, it will be restated from 13 my past presentations, we have tried hard to work 14 out our concerns with upper level government, 15 provincial and federal. But yet, we are here with 16 little choice, spending our residential tax 17 dollars to fight for our concerns. These dollars 18 that we spend here today could have gladly been 19 used in future infrastructure needs of the 20 municipality. 21 As the RMs, we have brought many 22 concerns to the table; aquifer concerns, low level 23 crossing concerns, ice-induced flooding, erosion 24 and others. Have our concerns been validated? I 25 believe after Monday's new submission from the MFA 03596 1 and the questions that have come through the 2 committee that they are starting to be, especially 3 our concerns based on our aquifer. And I say this 4 based on all of the changes that were submitted to 5 you gentlemen. 6 With that, I have to reflect back and 7 ask why is it that we failed to do the same with 8 our political partners? I do not know the answer 9 to that question. So I will pose another 10 question. Are we, as governments, working here 11 for the well-being of our residents and our 12 environment or are we here working on someone's 13 legacy? Is Duff's Ditch heading for a new name? 14 We're not so sure it isn't and that deeply 15 troubles us. 16 All our concerns are real, and again, 17 I believe that is shown due to all the changes 18 that have come about since the beginning of these 19 hearings. With that said, it is good that our 20 $100,000 have brought much change to the 21 $10 million already spent by the Authority. So 22 much in fact that perhaps MFA will give 23 consideration for paying for all of that. Doug? 24 Now this prompts me to ask another 25 question. Is there anything else missed? The 03597 1 mandate did not look at the sewage from the 2 Winnipeg storm sewer outlet. That outlet still 3 openly weeps today and with it brings E. Coli 4 counts that are still very disturbing for us. And 5 as the attachment that Reeve Holland has given to 6 you, he'll be able to justify that and he'll speak 7 further on it. 8 Our frustration often makes us compare 9 what the floodway has to offer in return for what 10 we give up. The answer, as you may have heard 11 many times before, is very little. I think my 12 colleague Reeve Holland stated it very well. The 13 floodway does look as a scar upon our lands but I 14 will tell you I now view it as a rape upon our 15 lands. 16 You know that 90 per cent of the 17 floodway sits in the three RMs. And with that 18 said, if you consider 90 per cent represents 19 approximately 9,300 acres, the RM is giving up 20 approximately $125,000 a year based on 21 agricultural land taxes. Not to say that that 22 area would not be full of homes now because the 23 lands that the floodway is located on cut through 24 some of the heaviest populated areas in our 25 municipality. 03598 1 Taking that into account, it would 2 actually perhaps be a loss of five or six times 3 that. Think about taking that amount and giving 4 it consideration over the last 40 years since the 5 floodway was built. Wow, that is a lot of giving 6 right there on our part. 7 It is not over yet though, there is 8 still more. Mr. Webster talked yesterday about 9 the garbage dump. Well, there's more than that. 10 It is the auto wreck yard, it's a drop-off area 11 for the stolen vehicles, it's a party place, a 12 poacher's paradise, a quad and snowmobile track. 13 There is more because it also cuts through our 14 municipalities, separating our neighbours too. 15 And with that, not allowing them full protective 16 services 100 per cent of the year. 17 I know we have brought these concerns 18 forward already. But the point stands, we give up 19 so much and, in fact, we get very little in 20 return. 21 During the last three weeks, you have 22 heard the concerns from residents upstream, 23 downstream and throughout the run of the floodway. 24 You have heard real stories about real people, the 25 losses, the stress and the anxiety in dealing with 03599 1 the floodway and what it brings with it. The 2 disabled young man from my municipality who helped 3 carry the piano and all his personal belongings up 4 the stairs to save them. The continuous loss to 5 families' homes, properties, businesses and 6 livelihoods. Families have been torn apart by 7 leaving strong men as failures because they could 8 not protect their homes. This added pressure, 9 stress and anxiety has left many children with 10 divorced parents. We view this as very 11 concerning. This is not acceptable. We are not 12 third world here, we are Canadians and we are 13 supposed to treat our own with respect. 14 This followed is human health related, 15 not just personal property related, and how can 16 you place a value on that? It's not even 17 considered as effects by the MFA. 18 These hearings are setting the stage 19 for licensing of the (inaudible) floodway. It is 20 not a licence for half the floodway or part of the 21 floodway. But if licenced, it will represent the 22 entirety of the floodway system. This licensing 23 will cover the past, the present and the future 24 but yet the Manitoba Floodway Authority still only 25 wants to look at things in the future aspects of 03600 1 building and operation, not the past. 2 In our eyes, the licence will take 3 away public input. Whether or not we get a water 4 study or liaison group or whatever is offered up, 5 they are only good as the power given to them. 6 Hence where is the public input? Where does it 7 stand? What stops the comment not in our mandate 8 or not in our baseline from coming back? 9 Your recommendations, gentlemen, must 10 give power to whoever or whatever you recommend. 11 And please remember, the RMs want to be part of it 12 every step of the way. We want our voices to be 13 heard and we would like them accounted for all the 14 way through this process. 15 Here is another question. Who will 16 police us when it's being built? Who ensures us 17 in what is being submitted today will get done in 18 the future? We have recommendations. The 19 presentation to follow from our legal counsel will 20 further represent our closing remarks in the 21 recommendation to the committee. I will quickly 22 speak on a few items and possible ideas. 23 Our aquifer concerns still stand and 24 we are afraid that no matter what measures are 25 taken, there are no guarantees that we will not 03601 1 see contamination. To us, any chance is too much 2 of a chance. To go on, it seems that our water 3 losses will continue and that the MFA will still 4 be the largest user of fresh water in our area. 5 It was stated Monday that even special 6 grouting will not totally seal the aquifer and 7 that the water loss tests are not even finished 8 yet. We're not even able to gauge on the amount 9 we have lost or losing to date. Perhaps a 10 solution is to mitigate the water loss by putting 11 in a series of wells on the east side. In turn, 12 you can have enough clean, safe drinking water to 13 supply a large area. Then pipe that area into a 14 system that blankets the area of where the 15 contamination is at its highest risk. This is 16 just a suggestion, just an idea. This could be 17 far cheaper and safer than what is presented and 18 at least it will be a 100 per cent guarantee. 19 That is what we are seeking here regarding our 20 water concerns, a 100 per cent guarantee. 21 Reflect back to the concerns regarding 22 the Lockport area when I presented in the past, 23 all those businesses, all those condominiums, all 24 those people. If our aquifer gets contaminated, 25 who will be liable? Who pays? Will the 03602 1 provincial and federal government pay? Will the 2 municipality have to pay? Who deals with the 3 stress, the anxiety of all of this? Who will be 4 accountable and do we go to find them? We cannot 5 believe that anyone would allow themselves to be 6 held even partially responsible through decisions 7 that they are making consciously or unconsciously. 8 The Dunning Road Crossing. We believe 9 you know what this crossing represents to our 10 community. And you also know what we lose when 11 this crossing is taken out of commission every 12 time the floodway is in use. 13 In reference to other parts of this 14 project like twinning of the bridge on a 15 single-lane highway or improving the drop 16 structures, or even more recently, possible 17 recreational usage on the floodway that is 18 addressed in a recent letter by Mr. Gilroy. We 19 feel these are all common-sense issues and should 20 be and must be addressed. We support them all. 21 But our concerns with our crossing seem to be 22 getting washed away with the floodway waters. To 23 consider any of the items over ours is not a fair 24 process. 25 The decisions made by the MFA are 03603 1 totally outside their mandate regarding these 2 issues so it must be that our concerns and wants 3 are given the same respect and consideration. 4 It's not about winning the lottery, it's not about 5 an ATM machine, it's about being fair in a 6 process. That crossing is needed and wanted as a 7 bridge. That's the bottom line. And it does not 8 hurt anyone if the committee recommends it. It 9 does not hurt anybody. 10 You know the reasons. The argument 11 was put forward and it represents the need for 12 thousands of our residents to be safe and to allow 13 them to have protective services and a 14 transportation link. We are growing and we need 15 to recognize that. 16 This crossing is not new. It has been 17 there for some time. Floodway, spring operations 18 take away our use of the floodway and summer 19 operations does the same. We are giving, giving 20 and giving and it's not too much to ask for 21 something back. It is not too much at all. 22 If you give consideration to 23 recreational or twinning of our bridge with a 24 single-lane highway, then how could you turn your 25 back on allowing us the ability to protect our 03604 1 residents? 2 I want to quickly speak today 3 regarding the ice jamming. It seemed to be a 4 major issue. And as I made my notes earlier and 5 the comments that came forward today, I would just 6 like to say I would like to simplify what was put 7 forward earlier. The end cause of ice jamming in 8 our eyes is flooding and does the floodway or the 9 usage of the floodway add to that? We believe it 10 does. But at the end of the day, no matter what 11 pressure the ice is cleared at, it creates 12 flooding. 13 Now recently, Minister Ashton along 14 with the Water Stewardship Board has started 15 working on a committee. I am part of that 16 committee, St. Andrew's, City of Selkirk and we 17 have recently invited the MFA to the table and I'm 18 very happy to say that Mr. McNeil sent two of his 19 colleagues to the meeting on Tuesday. 20 I believe that is the right way to 21 address this issue. There needs to be much done. 22 It needs to be studied more and I see many 23 inadequacies within the information that's there. 24 When you look at such a large problem, 25 the best way to champion is to work together. 03605 1 I also want to talk briefly regarding 2 the erosion situation and it falls under the same 3 categories. Our concerns are real. We cannot 4 stand up against the monies that were spent or the 5 computer analysis studies that have been done by 6 MFA, but I will say that because our concerns are 7 based on the past happenings with what we've seen 8 as far as bank erosion, we feel at least, the very 9 least, it can be studied and monitored. 10 There is so much through all of this 11 that we give, so much. And as we look at it and 12 as I made the comment before, it's almost 13 considered like I view it as a rape. And what I'm 14 saying, gentlemen, is like let's stop the rape and 15 at least make it consensual sex. And I say that 16 because it's based on, and I know the comment is 17 strong, but it's based on people working together 18 to solve problems. It should not be all give, it 19 has to be give and take. You have the power to do 20 that. Working on a give and take is the only way 21 to get this project done right. It cannot be 22 all-out sacrifice for the city. 23 You have the powers to recommend what 24 you feel is right. The words baseline, mandate, 25 you gentlemen should not worry about these words, 03606 1 you should make sure that this is done right with 2 no one getting sacrificed. That is what your 3 mandate should be. Getting it finally right for 4 everyone. It is within your grasp and I'm asking 5 you, please, do not let it go. Human health 6 issues are part of this and they cannot be turned 7 away based on the almighty dollar. I know you can 8 put those recommendations forward. You have been 9 asking all the right questions. We just need to 10 get it down on paper and make sure the 11 recommendations are done with the powers they need 12 to get the job done. 13 Please help stop the bowing the 14 floodway does to our communities and to our 15 neighbours. Protect our waters. Give us clean, 16 safe drinking water and allow us the ability to 17 protect our residents all year round. That is 18 little to ask for for all we give up, little. 19 Again, it's not a lottery. It's not an ATM 20 machine, it's just doing the right thing. Thank 21 you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Reeve 23 Strang. Deputy Reeve Gera? 24 MR. GERA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 25 gentlemen of the Committee, Manitoba Floodway 03607 1 Authority, ladies and gentlemen. In a transcript, 2 Mr. Webster stated on Monday, March 7th, we have 3 perhaps an opportunity here to correct some of the 4 issues that are concerned with the original 5 floodway. I think the word "perhaps" should be 6 removed. I think we have a positive way. It 7 should be more positive. We have the -- right 8 now, we have the ideas to correct the floodway. 9 As we get on, we start off with the 10 three municipalities got together on a regional 11 basis to bring these concerns to the Commission. 12 Together we have spent over $100,000 to make our 13 concerns known. Bringing in Wayne Clifton, Peter 14 Hayes and Gary Palmateer was a positive direction 15 on how to bring added information to approve the 16 floodway and to alleviate our concerns. It wasn't 17 meant to be negative to the Manitoba Floodway 18 Authority but we meant to open up discussion and 19 design issues. 20 Over the last few weeks, we heard a 21 lot of technical, political and citizens concerns 22 and issues. We all learned a great deal through 23 the course of these hearings. We hope to see some 24 major changes come forth. All through, the 25 Manitoba Floodway Authority has made some major 03608 1 changes already. 2 Because of these hearings, however, 3 our concerns still need to be answered. (A) We 4 have the cost of the water lines for our 5 municipality. We have the protection of our 6 aquifer. We have an outfall structure on the west 7 side on Hazelridge Road. Also, a solution to the 8 Dunning Road crossing. So I appealed to the 9 Commission to weigh all the evidence presented. 10 Until these very substantial issues are addressed, 11 this project should not be fast-tracked. I trust 12 in the integrity of the Commissioners in that they 13 will do the right thing for all the citizens of 14 the Red River basin. 15 I thank you. I also would like to 16 thank each of these two reeves that helped me out 17 because I came late into this presentation with 18 the hearings. I'd like to thank them for the 19 support to bring me up to speed and I also feel 20 honoured to represent the RM of East St. Paul. 21 Thank you again. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Deputy Reeve 23 Gera. Reeve Holland? 24 MR. HOLLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 I had distributed a kind of a two-part written 03609 1 presentation. I realized to my horror when I got 2 up here, my name isn't on it anywhere but I 3 definitely hold myself accountable for the 4 material contained in that presentation. 5 Mr. Chairman, members of the 6 Commission, we have had the shared experience of a 7 rather intensive consideration of the 8 environmental, economic and social impacts of the 9 Red River Floodway and the proposed expansion 10 thereof. 11 I believe all of the parties have an 12 underlying expectation of consistency. Residents 13 of the valley feel there should be a consistent 14 level of flood protection in and outside the City 15 of Winnipeg, failing which there should be full, 16 fair and effective compensation for those not 17 protected. 18 The MFA questions the level of 19 diligence supplied by the RMs to their own 20 projects compared to the level of diligence we are 21 seeking to apply to their project. Our residents 22 hold us accountable to apply the same level of 23 diligence to decisions concerning the siting of 24 livestock operations, rural residential 25 development and gravel pit management. 03610 1 The Commission questions whether we 2 have advanced our concerns consistently throughout 3 the process. 4 The RMs have an expectation that the 5 proponent will apply the principles of sustainable 6 development, the Water Rights Act, principles of 7 the proposed Water Protection Act, the Public 8 Health Act and Environment Act to name a few. We 9 expect the Government of Manitoba will apply these 10 acts consistently to their own project. 11 Unfortunately, we have come to expect 12 a rather significant level of inconsistency in the 13 capital region. Could this have something to do 14 with politicking and a stunted sense of altruism? 15 It is obvious that the impacts are 16 very different for different locations and 17 different portions of the valley population. I 18 mentioned that the RM of Springfield supported the 19 expanded floodway option in January 2002. Today, 20 I need to acknowledge that we did so with little 21 or no appreciation of the devastating impact on 22 people living upstream of the inlet and the 23 apparent disregard for people living north of the 24 outlet drop structure. 25 While today we have been lumped 03611 1 together with the so-called north communities, in 2 January 2002 and subsequently, we studiously 3 avoided aligning our interests with either the 4 south or north groups, recognizing that our 5 interests had little or nothing to do with river 6 flooding. 7 Springfield was not, is not and will 8 not be significantly subject to river flooding. 9 River water was not previously present in our 10 community, either to threaten our environment or 11 to offer a cheap way of dealing with untreated 12 sewage. 13 At the same time, if you asked do we 14 benefit from the floodway, we would readily 15 acknowledge that we benefit from flood protection 16 for the City of Winnipeg. And we have sustained a 17 considerable cost to support that protection to 18 date. We have mentioned the interruption of a 19 number of local traffic routes, including 20 Springfield Road and Centre Line Road, both 21 significant access routes to and from our 22 community, the obstruction of established drainage 23 routes, significant additional cost of providing 24 services across the floodway, a reduced tax base 25 and added responsibility for a large area absent 03612 1 any presence of land owner responsibility. 2 Including the floodway and other City 3 of Winnipeg or provincial projects for the benefit 4 of the City of Winnipeg, we have lost 17,500 5 acres. And in 2002, incurred an annual tax loss 6 of $1,052,745 which will double with the proposed 7 City of Winnipeg water treatment plant to be 8 constructed in our municipality this year. This 9 is a significant level of altruism for our small 10 community. 11 Our issues are relatively simple, can 12 be mitigated without prohibitive cost, and in the 13 case of groundwater, cannot legally or morally be 14 ignored. 15 Recognized experts have clearly 16 identified the underlying elements of a threat to 17 the safety of the underground aquifer and in turn 18 to the health and welfare of the people of my 19 community. It would not be altruism but 20 treasonous to weight the health and well-being of 21 the people in my community against the health and 22 welfare of the residents of Winnipeg, particularly 23 when reasonable measures can be undertaken to 24 extricate us from the horns of that dilemma. 25 I want to mention that the Public 03613 1 Involvement Program process was structured to 2 include private meetings with council and 3 subsequent public meetings during which it was 4 considered inappropriate for elected officials to 5 participate actively. In that process, concerns 6 raised by council and by residents were highly 7 coincident. 8 While it is unfortunate that 9 politicking has come to be used in a pejorative 10 sense, it is hard to accept that there is 11 something wrong in assessing public concerns and 12 then representing those concerns in the 13 appropriate forum at the time. Some electors 14 actually have the expectation of that sort of 15 representation. If delay results, then blame 16 should rest at the feet of those who chose to 17 ignore public concerns and not sufficiently or at 18 all investigate the basis for those concerns. 19 The public involvement process of 20 consultation, which was originally perceived as 21 genuine and in good faith, was subsequently proven 22 highly suspect. A number of questions simply went 23 unanswered. Issues were taken off the table but 24 have resurfaced leaving one to question whether 25 they were ever truly off the table. 03614 1 I want to refer to some minutes of a 2 meeting of September 13, 2004 in our community. 3 It indicates, 4 "The RMs of Springfield and Tache have 5 concerns about possible recreational 6 opportunities associated with the 7 proposed Floodway Expansion Project. 8 Specifically, the RMs are concerned 9 about the provision of services such 10 as fire and ambulance as a result of 11 recreational activities taking place 12 in the floodway." 13 After some further comment, it 14 concludes, 15 "MFEA at that time will consult with 16 RMs potentially affected from any 17 recreational opportunity before 18 determining what activities would be 19 permitted." 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Reeve Holland, could 21 you, just for the record, give the reference or 22 the page numbers at the bottom of the page. I 23 believe that comes out of volume 3 of the -- 24 MR. HOLLAND: I imagine it would be 25 contained in volume 3 and I didn't actually -- I 03615 1 kept this as record at the time and -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: That's sufficient. You 3 gave the dates. 4 MR. HOLLAND: It's a nine page 5 document in any event. Perhaps I can provide a 6 reference for it. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: That's sufficient. 8 MR. HOLLAND: So no such consultation 9 has taken place nor has it been proposed. Yet in 10 these hearings, it seems to be proposed as a 11 benefit of the project and money has either been 12 spent or set aside for recreational activities. 13 And I was not here yesterday to hear 14 the presentation of the Trails Association but I 15 think I need to comment on a couple of aspects of 16 that because I understood that their position was 17 that all of the municipalities along the course of 18 the floodway supported recreation, well clearly 19 that's not the case and that's been on the record 20 for quite some time. And we were promised that 21 that would be the subject of a separate 22 consultation process. 23 The other thing that was mentioned was 24 I think a desire, if not an expectation, that MFA 25 might spend up to $20 million on that recreation, 03616 1 3 per cent of the project cost. If I recall 2 correctly, I think they were talking about 3 protection for the people south of the inlet at a 4 cost of something like $29 million which was 5 considered outlandish. So I think some of us have 6 to get our priorities straight on this. 7 Surely, the Commission must ask itself 8 if the EIS is correct in its conclusion that there 9 would be no significant effect of deepening by .6 10 metres, why has the decision been made not to 11 deepen? At what cost and with what degree of 12 reliability? We are concerned with the apparent 13 alacrity of the MFA on the issue of deepening and 14 would insist that detailed conditions stipulating 15 no deepening be attached to an environmental 16 licence. In particular, the conditions should 17 reflect undertaking that no part of the channel 18 will be deepened beyond its current respective 19 level and the scope -- or the slope, rather, that 20 should read, of the current channel will be 21 maintained when it is widened. Further 22 requirements for restoration and erosion 23 protection of the low flow channel should be 24 mandated. 25 And I suppose inasmuch as this was 03617 1 prepared prior to today's presentation somewhat 2 prophetic because we are back to talking about 3 whether in fact the issue of deepening or the 4 decision not to deepen has really been 5 sufficiently considered. And is it practical, is 6 it consistent with the most efficient and 7 effective way of achieving the expansion? We just 8 want to know for certain. We don't want it left 9 to the discretion of the MFA as they begin to 10 build this project. 11 While it is certainly MFA's right to 12 argue the appropriate scope and baseline of the 13 project, it is highly questionable that they have 14 chosen to ignore significant health and social 15 issues. The end result is that if the Commission 16 chooses a different scope or baseline, there is 17 very little basis for attaching conditions to 18 approval as we do not even know the most basic 19 facts. 20 Even this flawed process deteriorated 21 rapidly when the EIS was issued. There was no 22 meaningful public consultation beyond that point. 23 There were a couple of preaching sessions, 24 generally dismissive attitude and questions that 25 went unanswered. One of those questions arose as 03618 1 a result of the supplementary volume 4. In 2 supplementary volume 4, we saw for the first time 3 that the cut-off wall at Spring Hill had gone 4 beyond a thought process to an assumption, if you 5 will. 6 In response to that, I wrote on 7 January 7, 2005. It is somewhat encouraging that 8 a clay plug is being proposed in the east bank of 9 the floodway rather than simply being a possible 10 consideration. However, no specifications 11 accompany the available EIS documents. The 12 location and extent are both uncertain and there's 13 no indication of what groundwater impact would 14 occur absent the clay plug. 15 Apparently, the design of the plug 16 would incorporate the existing clay plug extending 17 under Spring Hill ski slope. Knowledge of this 18 plug would appear to indicate some knowledge of 19 the original construction. But again, no drawings 20 or specifications are offered. No observations 21 are offered as to the effectiveness of the 22 existing plug, either to prevent groundwater 23 outflows or flood water intrusion. Will the 24 proposed clay plug be more effective, less 25 effective or designed only to provide no negative 03619 1 impact, and perhaps more importantly, no benefit 2 over the authority's self-imposed baseline of 3 post-existing floodway. 4 I think, Mr. Webster, on 5 February 16th, you were headed in somewhat the 6 same direction. 7 "MR. WEBSTER: Have you some further 8 diagrams of the construction that you 9 are planning to do that you can show 10 us? 11 MR. MORGAN: No. This is the detail 12 we have up there. No further 13 diagrams." 14 And there's some ensuing instruction. So those 15 are concerns that are still on the table today and 16 I think unanswered questions. 17 It was only with the greatest good 18 luck and the involvement of knowledgeable people 19 who cared about what they saw happening that more 20 complete evidence has been placed before the 21 Commission. When it became apparent to our 22 experts that the MFA fundamentally cared only 23 about their project and not for the concerns of 24 people outside Winnipeg, they had to considerably 25 increase their effort to a large extent without 03620 1 adequate compensation. We very much appreciate 2 that effort. And ironically, the MFA and the 3 Commission are the true beneficiaries to the 4 extent that human disaster and huge moral, legal 5 and financial responsibility resulting from a 6 flawed investigation will be avoided. 7 It is of interest that the City of 8 Winnipeg chose presenter status which in turn 9 resulted in very little opportunity to question. 10 And it should be noted that Mayor Katz signed a 11 letter requesting a delay in these proceedings to 12 allow the issue of $249 million required within 13 the city to afford the 1 in 700 year flood 14 protection and sewer upgrades to be addressed. 15 These sewer upgrades would significantly address 16 concerns of upstream residents, the Transcona drop 17 structure and the environment generally. It is 18 uncertain what consideration has been promised to 19 the city or how quickly programs will be 20 delivered. But all of us have a significant 21 interest in that issue. 22 Mr. MacBride presumably shares these 23 concerns and was present at the meeting during 24 which Mayor Katz agreed with our concerns to 25 address certain issues. 03621 1 We want to include in our record, and 2 this is the attachment that I have distributed 3 with my presentation, test results conducted by 4 the City of Winnipeg which include inter alia a 5 reading of 23,000 E. Coli on February 5, 2005 6 indicating an ongoing source of contamination 7 which has persisted for a long time given sediment 8 test results and continues to stubbornly resist 9 the city's best efforts to prevent sewer outflows. 10 Do not conclude from Mr. MacBride's comments that 11 this was an isolated event or that the problem is 12 not ongoing. Look at the evidence. The 13 recommended health risk assessment is a critical 14 necessity. 15 And I guess if you look back at the 16 transcript, and this goes back to March 1st 17 actually, page 95 of 119, Mr. Chairman, asks, 18 "Okay, thank you. Just on that 19 incident in the last fall in the 20 Transcona outfall, was that -- would 21 you consider that an unusual 22 occurrence whereby some sewage 23 overflowed into the floodway?" 24 I'm not sure what question Mr. MacBride thought he 25 was answering but it goes on for some time. And 03622 1 after another half a page, the Chairman comments, 2 "So the answer to my question whether 3 that was unusual is yes?" 4 That was on March 1st. And Mr. MacBride spoke of 5 a course of action occurring between December 14th 6 and December 18th and everything apparently got 7 cleared up. 8 Well, the sheet that I have provided 9 to you which, you know, as I say, as a result of 10 the city's own investigation, and I might just 11 note that 200 E. Coli is the acceptable level for 12 draining a municipal sewage lagoon into the 13 drainage infrastructure. On the 21st of December, 14 their reading for fecal coliform was 110,000, 15 1,500 on the 7th of January and 23,000 on the 7th 16 of February. So it doesn't look as if it's all 17 that unusual and it doesn't really look as if it 18 was all cleared up by December 18th. 19 I'm sort of trying to watch my time 20 and I fear I'm going to go over a bit. I just 21 want to digress a little bit and this issue 22 prompts me to do that because on Monday, I found 23 myself having a couple of very strange experiences 24 I guess. And Mr. Motheral, in the transcript, had 25 commented that he was confused and I think I was 03623 1 getting confused. Maybe the level of the 2 discussion had got to the point where it was 3 confusing to municipal politicians. But I don't 4 know if you've ever had that experience of being 5 in a movie theatre and you get to a particularly 6 poignant part of the movie and some poor person 7 somewhere laughs out loud and everybody sort of 8 feels sorry for that person I think. And I was 9 feeling like that on Monday because Dr. Morgan was 10 testifying, and we got into, you know, a 11 discussion about the sources of contamination out 12 there. And Dr. Webster made the comment, 13 "So the first definition is this is 14 not potable water." 15 I mean I just about broke out laughing. I looked 16 at the MFA and they were all very studiously 17 nodding. Well, there must be something here that 18 I'm not catching. I mean potable water. And I'm 19 referring to a paper prepared by, it's "Potable 20 Water, A Manitoba Perspective," Dr. Joel Kettner, 21 September 27, 2000. The entire paper is about 22 potable water. It's a bit of a political and a 23 legal concept perhaps more than a scientific 24 concept. But it's water that has to meet either 25 certain basic standards or guidelines depending on 03624 1 the state of legislation. 2 Potable water, the maximum acceptable 3 coliform count is zero. The maximum acceptable 4 concentration for fecal coliforms is zero. E. 5 Coli is a specific type of fecal coliform. The 6 maximum acceptable concentration of E. Coli in 7 drinking water is zero. 23,000 at the floodway 8 outlet on February 7th, missed it, you know, just 9 by that much. It didn't escape hawkeye Morgan. 10 We know the water in there is not potable water. 11 I don't think there is a surface body of water in 12 the province that would be potable water, 13 according to the standards that are applied. 14 The other confusion that arose, and I 15 realize I'm going to incur your impatience to some 16 extent, Mr. Chair, here but it's part of the 17 reason people don't like politicians. We get 18 elected for telling stories. Engineers and 19 administrators get fired for telling stories. But 20 again, I had one of those experiences, you know, 21 when you think, gee, I've been here before. And 22 you're trying to put your finger on it, you know, 23 when would I have run into this? And it was after 24 the discussion about baseline that took place just 25 after Mr. Motheral admitted his confusion. And, 03625 1 you know, as Yogi Berra said, I guess it was like 2 deja vu all over again. 3 And the odd part was I had this 4 picture in my mind of this '79 Chevy car that I 5 had. And I'll try to make this very quick. But 6 it was a good little car but it started to miss. 7 You know, it's probably a spark plug wire or 8 something. But I took it into the garage. No, 9 it's got burnt valves. Okay. What's it going to 10 cost to fix the valves? Well, it's 400 bucks to 11 fix the valves. Okay, go ahead and fix the 12 valves. Get the car back. A couple of days 13 later, the oil pressure light comes on. Checked 14 the dipstick, like there's no oil. You know, so I 15 added oil. Next day, checked the dipstick. It's 16 right down to add already. So a couple of days of 17 this, I went back to the mechanic and I said look, 18 I paid you 400 bucks to fix my engine, I can't 19 even afford to drive the car, it's going through 20 so much oil. Like you should give my 400 bucks 21 back. Well, what the mechanic said of course was, 22 well, hey, we worked on the valves. When we fixed 23 the valves, it increased the compression in the 24 engine. Now your rings are worn out. The oil is 25 going by the rings. And, you know, I got the 03626 1 distinct impression I wasn't going to get my 400 2 bucks back. 3 So then I started thinking about it 4 some more and I thought, you know, it probably 5 wasn't a really good investment to put 400 bucks 6 in putting brand new valves on top of a worn out 7 engine. And I thought, I don't think I'm going to 8 do that again. 9 So the other day when we were talking 10 about the cut-off wall and the baseline and all 11 this stuff, I mean I thought well, you know, it 12 sort of feels like somebody is asking me to do 13 another valve job on that '79 Chevy here. I mean 14 we're going to put the state-of-the-art cut-off 15 wall and we're going to connect it to this 40 year 16 old leaker behind Spring Hill and hope for the 17 best I guess. 18 But in any event, I apologize for that 19 digression. But I kind of put it in terms that I 20 could understand and kind of relieve my confusion 21 somewhat about what was going on. 22 Apart from groundwater issues, which 23 will be dealt with by our counsel, we direct your 24 attention to the following issues and proposals. 25 That recreational uses not be entertained without 03627 1 the promised consultation with the affected 2 municipalities and that agricultural use be 3 granted significant priority. In particular, one, 4 no recreation inconsistent with the municipality's 5 development will be allowed. Number 2, no 6 recreation be allowed without the rural 7 municipality's and current hay lessees' approval. 8 Even when approved, the following 9 requirements must be acknowledged on the licence. 10 No trails or activities conducted in view of 11 adjacent residences. All trails shall be 12 installed on the inside berm and tree planting in 13 connection with those trails. Number 2, that 14 responsible property management issues addressing 15 safety, security and environmental protection, 16 including emergency response, be implemented 17 immediately. Provided a number of particulars. I 18 just want to reference a response to one of the 19 information requests of the municipality. 20 RM 3, IR number 1, it says in the 21 second last paragraph on the first page, 22 "As reflected in the wording of the 23 current Water Resources Administration 24 Act, this means that all jurisdiction 25 over and control of the floodway is 03628 1 vested in the provincial government. 2 The abutting municipalities have been 3 relieved of any responsibility for 4 it." 5 So I certainly hope that that 6 responsibility has been moved somewhere because 7 there is certainly a need for that. 8 So I think I should conclude, 9 Mr. Chairman, I've gone on probably longer. You 10 can reference some of the other specific 11 recommendations there, construction phase 12 recommendations. 13 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, you have 14 a clear responsibility to address these concerns. 15 The imposition of thorough conditions and their 16 acceptance by the Government of Manitoba could 17 result in the project proceeding forward quickly. 18 Failure to properly address these concerns will 19 almost certainly result in the need to pursue 20 every available remedy including legal process and 21 will undoubtedly delay the project. 22 We await your decision and trust you 23 will have an enlightened sense of how best to 24 reconcile competing concerns and move the project 25 forward in a fair and equitable manner. Thank 03629 1 you. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Reeve 3 Holland. Mr. Currie? 4 MR. CURRIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 5 I'm standing, Mr. Chairman, because I have a bit 6 of a hard time seeing the screen from behind my 7 desk and that's the only reason for that. 8 In essence, Mr. Chairman, we are 9 proceeding here this afternoon, clean-up behind 10 the reeves. And this is a presentation 11 essentially laying out our legal concerns and 12 probably formalizing our recommendations. 13 We do have in front of you our basic 14 presentation and hopefully you can follow along as 15 we go. The presentation is the efforts of 16 everybody on the team so it's not just mine and I 17 can't take that kind of credit for it. There has 18 been a lot of work on it and so it's a team 19 effort. 20 We want to talk about on our table of 21 contents today the basic position of the 22 participant municipalities. The terms of 23 reference for the CEC, the CCEAs, the case law on 24 cumulative effects and some what we call Alberta 25 Environmental Act Appeal Board decisions. 03630 1 We want to talk about a peer review 2 committee, community liaison committee and 3 compensation board for the flood and floodway 4 effects. We want to talk about three stage 5 developments, groundwater contamination and 6 groundwater discharge and finally our 7 recommendations. 8 I think we want to make it clear, 9 Mr. Chairman, and the municipalities have 10 indicated to me they want it very clear, they are 11 very much in favour of the floodway expansion and 12 the resulting protection for the City of Winnipeg. 13 It is a common sense position. No one wants us to 14 be seen as anything but that. 15 However, what we're really talking 16 about is they want the EIS design and construction 17 of the floodway to be completed in a manner which 18 considers reasonable means and ways to provide the 19 lowest risk and the highest possible protection to 20 the aquifers. 21 On first blush, when you talk about 22 lowest possible risk and highest possible 23 protection, they seem to be the same thing but 24 they are really not and we're going to hopefully 25 engage you in that thought pattern and hopefully 03631 1 you'll see our point. 2 Again, Mr. Chairman, as I did with my 3 first argument with you, if you could, as we go 4 along, just nod that you understand. I understand 5 you're not agreeing with me, you just understand 6 and it will save me from repeating anything. I 7 appreciate that. 8 What we'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is 9 talk about in fact the risk protection reasonable 10 analysis. This is just a very simple graph and 11 it's really designed to talk about what we common 12 sense feel. Here we have a simple diagram on what 13 would be a common sense thing. The first thing is 14 that we see the Red line as what might the risk 15 be. And we are considering the risk. And, you 16 know, what we're driven to common sense is that of 17 course, the blue line is the level of protection 18 you should have. But sometimes, even though 19 common sense drives us there, we don't know what's 20 reasonable. This gap between what the risk is and 21 what reasonable is is really the critical part. 22 We need to know that because we're driven to the 23 feeling that you should have absolute protection. 24 In this case, basically, this is just 25 a simple graphic illustration of that risk 03632 1 protection and the common sense position that you 2 might take. Here is the problem that the 3 municipalities identify and the experts have 4 identified is that there are EIS weaknesses. And 5 the first weakness is the failure to properly 6 complete a baseline. We don't know where you are 7 going to start from. It's critical. There is 38 8 years of modeling of data available to the 9 proponents to get us some baseline figure, some 10 thinking to go. 11 There is a need to complete modeling 12 and a manner which takes into account the 13 intermixing of the surface water and groundwater. 14 And I don't want to go through all the evidence. 15 We've all heard it. We heard Clifton's evidence 16 where he states that he sees this model as 17 creating a plume that is much wider and broader 18 than the plume created by the MFA. And there is a 19 fundamental disagreement. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: For the record, 21 Mr. Currie, perhaps you should identify which 22 Mr. Clifton as we had two who made considerable 23 presentations before us. 24 MR. CURRIE: Sure. I'll refer to him 25 as Wayne Clifton from this point forward. A very 03633 1 good point, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it's Wayne 2 Clifton, the expert that I am referring to. 3 The other issue is that there has been 4 a failure to examine the floodway channel 5 sufficiently to establish a baseline information 6 on the springs including the number flow in their 7 geophysical strata. What do they look like? Can 8 you repair them? Is there any sense to repairing 9 them? Of course these are questions that we 10 raised in our original motion to say you need this 11 kind of information in order to go forward. 12 The next step we have is complete a 13 human health-based risk assessment, and we heard 14 Peter Hayes talk about that. We'll talk about it 15 a little more further on down the line but we're 16 just talking about the weaknesses in the EIS that 17 we see right now. We're saying there is a 18 weakness to develop a robust and sustainable 19 monitoring system for pre and post construction 20 analysis. 21 The problem that we see here is that 22 clearly, we have no where to start from. There is 23 no evidence of the beginning point. And we'll get 24 into the issue of why we find the baseline or the 25 starting point, if you will, as critical in a few 03634 1 moments. 2 We want to talk about baseline because 3 I think that there was some discussion about is 4 baseline defined. Well, it's simply not. I 5 couldn't find it in any of the statutes and I 6 couldn't find anything other than a common sense 7 definition out of the Merriam Webster on-line 8 dictionary. 9 "A set of critical observations or 10 data used for comparison or a 11 control." 12 I think that's about as common sense 13 and as clear as we can say. That's what you're 14 dealing with on a baseline. We don't need to get 15 complex about what that means. Where are we 16 starting from? That's what it's asking us to do. 17 Clifton states in his report that 18 doing a baseline is fundamental to the analysis 19 and is generally accepted practice. He goes on to 20 state in his evidence that, 21 "All monitoring needs to be reviewed 22 and monitoring should be in place, the 23 baseline completed, well before the 24 first shovel goes into the ground." 25 And I gave you the reference, 03635 1 Mr. Chairman, as to that precise quote. He was 2 not challenged on that comment. 3 On the rest of the baseline, we see 4 that Clifton goes on to say, 5 "So my question, my advice to my 6 clients was if you cannot -- if there 7 is not an adequate baseline to which 8 you can track the impacts of 9 construction, how can you make an 10 assessment as to what the impacts 11 are?" 12 If you don't know where you're 13 starting from, how do you know you made a change? 14 That's what Clifton is saying. Very common sense. 15 This is not high profile complicated engineering, 16 this is just common sense coming out. 17 "If you don't have the baseline, the 18 post construction follow-up is not 19 very meaningful." 20 And Clifton is saying this. We see Hayes 21 repeating it again. He's saying, 22 "The other item is, based on our 23 determination, there was insufficient 24 baseline water quality monitoring and 25 microbial parameters is presented in 03636 1 the EIS or other background studies 2 that we've reviewed." 3 Hayes is recognizing the same problem. We don't 4 have a baseline. We have to know where we start. 5 Clifton, Wayne Clifton, he states, 6 "So in summary, the existing project 7 remains non-compliant, certainly, at 8 least from a policy perspective. 9 Groundwater wastage continues unabated 10 within the existing channel, the 11 aquifer remains unprotected, health 12 risk assessment and potential risks to 13 the residents and to the 14 municipalities are not considered, 15 time effects looking forward into the 16 future were not considered. All of 17 those issues within the documents are 18 deferred to detailed design, and 19 that's highly irregular where there is 20 an issue that affects public welfare. 21 Public welfare issues -- one of the 22 purposes of environmental hearings are 23 so that public welfare issues may 24 obtain a full airing, and the public 25 can make a decision as to whether or 03637 1 not these issues are treated to their 2 satisfaction." 3 And I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to stop here. 4 This is a public hearing. This is intended for 5 the public. It's not just intended for experts, 6 it's not just intended for the municipalities. 7 This is actually intended for public to come here, 8 understand the EIS, not be referred to appendix, 9 appendix that have little blue arrows in them 10 where even our experts are having a hard time to 11 identify things. This EIS has to be cleaned up 12 from that perspective. It has to be a public 13 document that even Orvel can understand. Because 14 if you get that low, then everybody will 15 understand it. But right now, it's just not 16 there. 17 So when we get to here, we have to 18 remember it's a public document, it's for public 19 review and it's to be understood generally by the 20 public. And that's what Clifton is telling us. 21 And the reason that he says that is one of the 22 purposes is that it allows the public to make a 23 full airing and make sure that they had been 24 treated fairly with the information, and that's 25 the whole point. Give us the information, treat 03638 1 us fairly, let us know what we have to deal with. 2 I'd like to just go on. Clifton goes 3 on to state, 4 "They are deferred to the detailed 5 design stage. And that's not in 6 keeping, as I note, it is not in 7 keeping with generally accepted 8 practice for environmental impact 9 assessment. It is not in keeping with 10 general accepted practice for 11 environmental impact assessment. 12 Issues that are of strong public 13 concern are usually addressed in 14 detail in the impact assessment 15 documents." 16 And we're going to submit that that's a 17 fundamental flaw here, aside from the fact that, 18 you know, we see the information missing. What 19 information is there is complicated, very 20 difficult to access, very hard to understand. 21 Once it's presented of course, most reasonable 22 people can get it but you need to be able to 23 access it. 24 The problem that we have of course is 25 that this risk protection reasonable analysis now 03639 1 becomes unknown. Let's take our risk at the 2 bottom here. It may be very low, it may be very 3 high, it may be very low, it may be very high. 4 Don't risk assessment being done? Where do we put 5 reasonableness now? Look at the wavy path we 6 have, we just don't know. We may end up 7 reasonable way below the risk. We may end up with 8 reasonable way above the risk. We just don't 9 know. It's a very simple concept but a very 10 critical concept as to getting a correct baseline. 11 And with that, Mr. Chairman, have I 12 made sense, not that you agree with me, but have I 13 made sense? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 15 MR. CURRIE: We have to add to that a 16 final concept. When you are talking about risk 17 and there is an impact on human health, and Hayes 18 hits it on the head, he says expense is part of 19 the equation when you are talking about human 20 health -- sorry, yes, 21 "Expense is part of the equation but 22 when you are talking about human 23 health, again this isn't a property 24 protection cost benefit analysis, this 25 is human health. These are the 03640 1 concerns. The dollar cost to do it 2 doesn't enter into the same magnitude 3 as it would for property protection 4 program. You need to do this 5 health-based risk assessment. And 6 it's something that there is 7 procedures and protocols out there. 8 There is the GUDI analysis. There is 9 the MPA assessment. It is relatively 10 inexpensive to do it and you will be 11 able to determine with certainty if 12 you need to go to the expense and 13 effort to upgrade the floodway to 14 preclude this groundwater/surface 15 water interaction." 16 What we're submitting, Mr. Chairman, 17 is that risk becomes significantly higher when you 18 are dealing with human health issues. And that's 19 what we're submitting we're dealing with today. 20 I'd like to run through the terms of 21 reference, Mr. Chairman, not for your benefit 22 because I'm sure the Commission and the Chairman 23 are very well aware of it, but this is a public 24 hearing, and part of being part of the public 25 hearing is to understand your mandate, to 03641 1 understand exactly why we are here and what you 2 are reviewing. I put headings on them, but 3 basically, I've pulled the terms of reference and 4 I've simply put them into four categories. 5 Environmental effects, that you are to review the 6 potential environmental, social and cultural 7 effects of the project effects, if you will. You 8 are to consider measures proposed to mitigate any 9 adverse environmental, social, economic and 10 cultural effects. You are to consider future 11 monitoring and research that may be recommended in 12 relation to the project. And finally you are to 13 consider the Sustainability Act. 14 Again, Mr. Chairman, I do that for no 15 other purpose than to finally just give, for the 16 benefit of the public, what your mandate really 17 is. 18 I want to briefly go back, and this 19 one is out of order obviously, but essentially 20 what we're going to say about the results of the 21 weakness of the EIS is that the proponent 22 concludes that there is no significant impact to 23 be made by the floodway expansion. They have done 24 no baseline. They've done no risk assessment, but 25 they've come to that conclusion. 03642 1 Well, now that leaves the 2 municipalities determining that the risk 3 protection reasonable analysis is impossible at 4 this point. You can't come to a conclusion. And 5 that will lead us to further recommendations down 6 the road. 7 I very quickly want to deal with some 8 very simple legal issues. I'm not going to deal 9 with cumulative effects in too much detail in this 10 presentation, Mr. Chairman. I have provided you 11 with my legal opinion on cumulative effects, it's 12 in the blue binder. I am going to probably avoid 13 that so that I can cut my presentation down, but I 14 do want to cover off a few, what I consider basic 15 points. 16 This one will not appear in your 17 presentation. It was put in, and I apologize, it 18 was put in later on and after I had already 19 completed my first part. 20 But essentially this is the Manitoba 21 Environment Act, and it's the definition of 22 "alter." It means to change a development or 23 proposal. And that's what we are seeing here is 24 an alteration. We have got an existing floodway 25 and this is going to be an alteration to it. And 03643 1 we see that as significant because when you get on 2 to class 3 developments, there is a review process 3 and it says, no person shall construct, and there 4 comes the word, "alter," operate or set into 5 operation any class 3 development unless you've 6 got a licence to do so, in effect. 7 Now, you have existing developments 8 coming in under 12.2. Now, nothing really turns 9 on this, but I did want to point out that clearly 10 our Environmental Act in Manitoba has considered 11 alterations of existing projects, and that you 12 have to consider licensing those alterations, and 13 that's clearly what we're here to do today. 14 Now the bigger question is, how do we 15 deal with the existing project, that is the 16 existing floodway and the alterations, if you 17 will. What is that going to do for us? 18 Well, we're not saying that you have 19 to license the existing project. It may be as a 20 result of what you do here today that that's 21 exactly what does occur in the final analysis. 22 But we are going to say, in very clear terms, you 23 have to consider the effects of the original 24 project. I don't think that can be avoided. 25 That's fundamental. 03644 1 We know that Hayes tells us the 2 widening of the floodway will increase the area 3 for infiltration along the side walls, which is a 4 significant and immeasurable incremental effect. 5 So we know that widening will have an effect. 6 Now we go to cumulative impacts or 7 effects. And this is very, we're not going to 8 deal with a whole lot of case law or anything 9 else. I want to look straight at the law, just 10 right at the section itself. It says, 11 "Factors to be considered. Every 12 screening comprehensive study of a 13 project, every mediation or assessment 14 shall include, 15 (a) the environmental effects of the 16 project, including the environmental 17 effects of malfunctions or accidents 18 that may occur in connection with the 19 project." 20 And I've highlighted this, this does not appear in 21 the statute and I've indicated so. 22 "Any cumulative environmental effects 23 that are likely to result from the 24 project in combination with other 25 projects or activities that have 03645 1 been..." 2 Have been is so clear. That's existing. I don't 3 know how we can redefine that. 4 "...that have been or will be carried 5 out." 6 Cumulative effects look at projects that exist. 7 And this is just a completion of that particular 8 section. Nothing really turns on it. I just 9 didn't want to send in part of a section and not 10 really consider the whole section in case you 11 wanted to read it yourself. 12 Here is the issue that I think is 13 critical, is that the determining factors, the 14 scope of the factors to be taken into 15 consideration pursuant to paragraph 1(a), which is 16 16.1(a), this is 16.3 (b), (c), (d), and 2(b), 17 (c), (d), by the responsible authority. Now, we 18 have to keep in mind that this is federal 19 legislation. And what they are referring to as 20 responsible authority is, of course, the 21 responsible authority for the jurisdiction within 22 which the EIS or the cumulative effects are 23 appearing. So this may be DFO, it may be 24 Infrastructure, it may be Environment, it just 25 depends on that. But it's telling us how you 03646 1 apply the cumulative effects. 2 So basically I point that out because 3 we find case law which really supports us in the 4 end as to our conclusion. And I needed to show 5 you that previous slide so that you understood the 6 absence of this particular case. 7 This is a case out of our Federal 8 Court, and it's in relation to the application of 9 section 16 of CEAA. And this is their comments. 10 "...by necessary implication, a 11 decision as to cumulative 12 environmental effects that are to be 13 considered requires a determination of 14 which other projects or activities are 15 to be taken into account. It is 16 therefore within the discretion of the 17 responsible authority to decide which 18 other projects or activities to 19 include and which to exclude for the 20 purposes of a cumulative environmental 21 effects assessment under paragraph 22 1(a)." 23 So he's saying it's somewhat up to the responsible 24 authority to make that decision. And that's why I 25 wanted to show you earlier in the section that 03647 1 applied there. However, this is what the court 2 goes on to say. 3 "The Federal Court in Friends 4 indicates that the responsible 5 authority in identifying the projects 6 or activities is not limited to 7 considering environmental effects 8 solely within the scope of the 9 project. The court found, under 10 16(1)(a), the responsible authority is 11 not limited to considering 12 environmental effects solely within 13 the scope of the project as defined in 14 subsection 15(1). Nor is it 15 restricted to considering only 16 environmental effects emanating from 17 sources within Federal jurisdiction." 18 Again, keeping in mind that this was a Federal 19 case, they are saying you can walk into Provincial 20 jurisdiction and consider the effects of those. 21 So you just don't ignore it because it doesn't 22 fall within your jurisdiction. Here is the 23 critical part I really wanted to get at, and I 24 felt obliged to give you the whole quote. 25 "Indeed, the nature of a cumulative 03648 1 effects assessment under 16(1)(a) 2 would appear to expressly broaden the 3 consideration beyond project as 4 scoped. It is implicit in a 5 cumulative effects assessment that 6 both the project as scoped and sources 7 outside that scope are to be 8 considered." 9 And of course the source that we're talking about 10 is the existing floodway. 11 What we find Friends to also say is 12 that even if a project creates no adverse effects, 13 it can exacerbate adverse effects of other 14 projects and result in significant cumulative 15 effects. The Court stated, 16 "I'm not sure it is possible to rule 17 out that a Federal project, while 18 creating no adverse effects itself, 19 could exacerbate adverse effects of 20 other projects. In any event, a 21 finding of insignificant effects..." 22 And remember that's the conclusion that we have 23 with this EIS, is that there was insignificant 24 effects, 25 "...as was made here still implies 03649 1 some effects from the bridge projects 2 themselves. It is not illogical to 3 think that the accumulation of a 4 series of insignificant effects might 5 at some point result in significant 6 effects. I do not say that is the 7 case here. I only observe that a 8 finding of insignificant effects of 9 the scoped projects is sufficient to 10 open the possibility of cumulative 11 significant environmental effects when 12 other projects are taken into account. 13 For this reason, I do not think the 14 insignificant effects finding 15 precludes the application of the 16 cumulative effects portion of 17 paragraph 16(1)(a) or 16(3) In this 18 case." 19 And what the courts are telling us is even if you 20 come to the conclusion of insignificant effects, 21 you may well have a cumulative effects application 22 and you've got to do your baseline. We have to 23 understand where we are at. We can't even do this 24 analysis without it. 25 I have brought up, Mr. Chairman, a 03650 1 number of decisions from the Alberta Environment 2 Appeal Board decisions. They are not of course 3 binding on you or in any way anything more than 4 hopefully to intrigue you and to make you think 5 about the issues in what other what I might call 6 sister panels may have considered. They are in 7 effect your sister panel out of Alberta in a 8 different way. 9 Alberta has a different function. You 10 make your application to the director. If the 11 director approves your application and someone 12 appeals against you, you end up at the Alberta 13 Environmental Appeal Board's decision. 14 Now, I have consciously not included 15 Ontario decisions and I'll tell you why, because 16 post, pre-Walkerton, Ontario had a whole different 17 Environmental Act application. It was kind of 18 odd, it was actually very difficult to deal with. 19 Post Walkerton I can basically tell you that the 20 decisions are very tight. Of course, we 21 understand why, because there is just this 22 sensitivity. So I have purposely not included the 23 Ontario or Saskatchewan decisions. And B.C., I 24 have not included either, and again because B.C. 25 has a long running history and their legislation 03651 1 is slightly different. 2 My learned friend may well disagree 3 with me, but all I can say is I certainly practice 4 in those areas and I certainly do know that 5 legislation, at least I am reasonably comfortable 6 with it. 7 I would like to continue on though and 8 say this is why I brought these ones in is because 9 they do have some, I guess consideration or 10 something you can consider. Here we have an 11 application for an approval of a dump, and they 12 are talking about that this was a single cell 13 dump. And where this appeal board comes down is 14 really found -- again I gave you the whole quote 15 as opposed to just parts of it but I really only 16 want the bottom. 17 "The Commission seemed to consider 18 modeling the whole landfill, not just 19 one cell addressed cumulative impacts. 20 Cumulative effects in the EIA..." 21 Which is Environmental Impact Assessment, EIS, 22 same thing in effect. 23 "...focus on impacts on several 24 different activities occurring in the 25 same location. Assessing cumulative 03652 1 effects gives a more complete 2 understanding of a project development 3 in the context of what already exists 4 in the area; it takes the big picture 5 into account." 6 You've got to know what you've got. Take the big 7 picture. Existing, you are altering. Take the 8 whole thing into account. Take the whole big 9 picture into account. And there is a reason for 10 that. 11 And this was -- if you remember in my 12 argument originally regarding the delay, I had 13 said to you one plus one may not add up to two in 14 these circumstances. And this is where they go 15 to. They say, 16 "For example, odour might not be a big 17 problem from a sewage lagoon or even a 18 landfill, but if you have a sewage 19 lagoon, a landfill and other odour 20 emanating situations, the cumulative 21 odour from all those sources also 22 might be unacceptable." 23 No one presented any evidence that this was taken 24 into consideration. And that's what we're saying 25 here is that there's no evidence. The baseline 03653 1 hasn't been done. We don't know. 2 This is another Alberta decision, re 3 Walker. I won't go through it in too much detail. 4 One of the issues of concern was whether 5 compliance with the environmental licence 6 regulations could be enforced on a licence issued 7 before the relevant Environmental Act came into 8 force, when the act did not provide for 9 retroactive application. 10 What we had in that set of facts, 11 Mr. Chairman was a facility, a crushing plant that 12 existed pre-Act. And it had been licenced 13 pre-Act, but not to the regulations that would be 14 post-Act. 15 We have in fact the identical 16 situation here today. We have an existing 17 facility that was created before the Environmental 18 Act and now we have the Act come into play. And 19 how do we deal with that interplay, if you will? 20 And this is how they dealt with it, if it's of any 21 value. 22 "In this appeal, the director argued 23 that any post-Act amendment to a 24 pre-Act licence should not be 25 considered by the board at all. In 03654 1 short, the director feels the pre-Act 2 licence is irrelevant to post-Act 3 appeals, although the post-Act 4 approval amended the pre-Act licence." 5 Exactly what we have here. You're going to give a 6 post-Act approval, and you're going to in effect 7 license this non-licenced or the whole facility 8 and we're going to see what the board said. The 9 board disagreed with the director. He said, 10 ignore the pre, just ignore it because it was 11 pre-Act, just ignore it. 12 "The board is of the opinion that 13 pre-Act licence amended by post-Act 14 approvals may be relevant to issues 15 raised in post-Act approvals. It may 16 be relevant in law, but it can most 17 certainly be relevant in fact." 18 So they distinguish between the legal and the 19 factual concerns. 20 "Where ongoing facilities seek 21 additions or changes to operations and 22 do so through amendments to old 23 licences, the test is not to rule out 24 the environmental effects of all 25 pre-Act facilities as a matter of 03655 1 law." 2 You just don't rule out all of those effects 3 "...simply because there is a pre-Act 4 facility involved." 5 You've got to still consider it. You have got to 6 put your baseline down. You've got to know what 7 does that pre-Act facility really do. 8 "This is potentially unfair because 9 there may be a link between the 10 existing facility and the new facility 11 sought by the amendment. In other 12 words the existing facility may indeed 13 have environmental effects that are 14 tied synergistically or 15 antagonistically to the new facility." 16 You can't separate them is what they've just 17 indicated. You have to look backwards. You have 18 to know where you're starting from, you have to 19 consider all that evidence, and then you have to 20 consider, how does it impact on the expansion? 21 They go on to say, 22 "Where transitional matters arise 23 between old and new facilities, the 24 resolution may come by way of a 25 factual determination of how the 03656 1 existing plant's activities are 2 directly linked to the new approval 3 from an environmental effects 4 perspective. If, for example, the 5 appellants raise a prima facie case 6 that pre-existing emissions from 7 ongoing activities compound the 8 emissions given by a new approval, the 9 board would hear all of the evidence 10 because it is relevant to the 11 environmental acceptability of the new 12 approval." 13 And we're going to ask the board to really 14 consider that here, that you have to consider what 15 effects that old one has on the new alteration, if 16 you will. 17 I just want to sum up on cumulative 18 effects. I don't want to spend too much time on 19 it. This is what we have submitted and this is 20 simply me, Mr. Chairman, and board members, this 21 is my conclusion on cumulative effects. 22 "A finding of insignificant effects of 23 the scoped project is sufficient to 24 open the possibility of cumulative 25 significant environmental effects when 03657 1 other projects are taken into 2 account." 3 I'm going to submit that we don't have any future 4 project considerations here. We do know that we 5 have some evidence, and that is the Wardrop 6 report, and I wanted the Wardrop report to be 7 truly interpreted correctly, because I had almost 8 heard an incorrect interpretation of it. 9 Wardrop is not saying in the year 2030 10 there will be no water left in the aquifer. What 11 Wardrop is really saying, in my opinion, is that 12 by 2030, the available sources of people who can 13 tap into that water will be finished. In other 14 words, there will be enough development done, 15 enough creation, the water will still exist but 16 it's going to top out. 17 What that also tells us, though, is 18 that that's a serious future consideration. And 19 if you look at 16(1) it said, look at the past, 20 look at the future. It may, in our submission, in 21 our expert's opinion, it may in fact change the 22 hydraulic head at that point. If you are drawing 23 down to the total capacity of the aquifer, what 24 does that do to the head? We just don't know and 25 I think that we need to know that, that's an 03658 1 additional factor. 2 In any event, I'll go on, 3 Mr. Chairman, to consider the other factors, 4 cumulative effect principles. 5 "Where ongoing facilities seek 6 addition or changes to operations and 7 do so through the amendments to old 8 licence, the test is not to rule out 9 the environmental effects of all 10 pre-Act facilities, as a matter of 11 law, simply because there is a pre-Act 12 facility involved." 13 You've got to consider the pre-Act facility. 14 I have put more detail in my legal 15 submission about what Shoemaker has to say about 16 cumulative effects. I think he's very clear, he 17 says, 18 "Most researchers recognize that site 19 specific linear cause and effect 20 analysis is not sufficient for 21 cumulative environmental effects." 22 I had to put that in more for, just to make my 23 point again that this is not a one plus one 24 analysis. It is much more than that. 25 Finally, 03659 1 "A decision as to the cumulative 2 environmental effects that are to be 3 considered requires a determination of 4 which other projects or activities are 5 to be taken into account." 6 And we're going to say this should take into 7 account the old floodway as we knew it. 8 "The nature of cumulative effects 9 assessment under 16(1)(a) would appear 10 to expressly broaden the 11 considerations beyond the project as 12 scoped." 13 So look beyond the alteration. 14 "It is implicit in a cumulative 15 effects assessment that both the 16 project as scoped and the sources 17 outside that scope are to be 18 considered. 19 Cumulative effects in EIA focus on 20 impacts from several different 21 activities occurring in the same 22 location. Assessing cumulative 23 effects gives a more complete 24 understanding of a project development 25 in the context of what already exists. 03660 1 Take the big picture into account. 2 The cumulative effects evaluation for 3 this project must include the impact 4 from the original project in addition 5 to the expansion. 6 Therefore groundwater impacts caused 7 by the original project or the 8 expansion must be eligible for 9 mitigation in the long-term, not just 10 the incremental impacts from the 11 expansion." 12 That is what we are finally going to 13 submit. That's our submission. 14 We're going to then move right into 15 our recommendations, Mr. Chairman, we have roughly 16 20 recommendations. 17 The first recommendation that we're 18 going to make is that there be an independent peer 19 review committee. And this is critical because 20 the municipalities, rightly or wrongly, have 21 viewed the MFA as essentially locked themselves 22 into a concept we refer to as project purchase. 23 They are so into protecting their project that 24 they don't feel, or at least the participants do 25 not feel they are being heard. That is the public 03661 1 feels they are not being heard. And we are 2 certainly hearing that from the municipalities. 3 That once people start down a path, and I've 4 talked about this before, it's very hard for them 5 to back up and realize, or even accept that maybe 6 they just didn't get it right. And that's a tough 7 position, very, very tough position. 8 What the municipalities are saying at 9 least is that this independent peer review 10 committee will assist with that problem, that it 11 will give them the confidence that when they bring 12 in experts, or when they have something reviewed, 13 that in fact they will be listened to. And it 14 strikes, in my submission, Mr. Chairman, it 15 strikes a nice balance. You can't have the 16 municipalities in charge where they make the final 17 decision because, of course, the opposite could 18 happen where you have a project held at ransom. 19 We submit that you can't leave the MFA 20 in charge because an issue such as deepening was 21 not conceded until February 11th, although it was 22 mentioned that it was a concern. And until the 23 start of the hearings, that issue was clearly on 24 the table. 25 As a matter of fact, we heard 03662 1 Mr. Gilroy, who hadn't quite caught up with the 2 news, telling us there was going to be continued 3 deepening. 4 So we have this critical balance, if 5 you will, and what I submit is that the balance is 6 going to be found with a peer review committee. 7 Who better to send these things to than your own 8 peers? They are the check and balance. If your 9 peers are telling you that you should change your 10 design, I'm going to submit that that's going, if 11 the MFA follows that trail, if that's the trail 12 they choose to do, notwithstanding their peers, I 13 think that that leaves them open for a huge amount 14 of criticism, a huge amount of criticism. 15 On the other hand, it doesn't allow 16 the participants the crowbar, if you will, to hold 17 them at ransom for this issue. It strikes a very 18 nice balance. 19 The question is, how do you structure 20 this peer review committee? And we're here to 21 stimulate and sort of intrigue you, not to give 22 you the final analysis. You may well have better 23 ideas than we do on this process, but certainly 24 it's intended to intrigue you. 25 We say that Manitoba Conservation 03663 1 should establish an independent review committee 2 as a third party responsible for quality assurance 3 and quality control on the implementation of a 4 final environment protection plan. And we'll talk 5 about a variety of things. And clearly the 6 health-based risk assessment, all of these things, 7 are all concerns for the municipality. You'll see 8 located in the bottom left-hand corner where I am 9 saying to you, this is your jurisdiction under 10 your mandate, if you will. I've just noted that 11 just to say, well, this is where this can appear. 12 The PRC must be given the task of reviewing a 13 human health-based risk assessment and 14 environmental construction and operations issues 15 that will arise. The PRC should be a 16 non-governmental, independent, external panel of 17 experts with representatives from both the 18 proponent and the participant municipalities. The 19 PRC will report their findings to the community 20 liaison committee. 21 Now, I know that. I had understood 22 that the MFA had considered a community liaison 23 committee and that, of course, is our second 24 recommendation is community liaison committee. 25 And that this committee of course is just an 03664 1 information receiving committee for the community. 2 And it gives them an opportunity to truly 3 understand what's going on with the floodway. 4 When we start talking about issues of 5 playing with people's groundwater, the heightened 6 sense of concern just rises naturally. We don't 7 need to hype it up, we don't need to do anything 8 with that. And in some cases people just start to 9 panic on their own. It's just a real concern. My 10 life is changing, I've got to find a new well, how 11 are my sources of water coming? You need to have 12 that community liaison committee. What becomes 13 important though is it can't just be a committee 14 just in words, it has to have structure and 15 components to it to have meaningful input. So if 16 we just simply say establish a committee and meet 17 every once in a while, and here is what's going 18 on, that's not enough. We need to have a 19 committee that receives and reviews the 20 information, and gathers, and makes its 21 recommendation to the PRC. 22 Now, the reason I say that is because 23 they are going to have their recommendations, and 24 the community liaison committee is going to want 25 to have input and at least feel like they've had 03665 1 input. And they do it to the peer review 2 committee, who then will receive the information 3 in a neutral manner and in a way that is hopefully 4 respectful. And even though they disagree with 5 people, it will still be heard. 6 Let volunteers be recruited and paid a 7 per diem to assist with the committee in its 8 objectives. A lot of these people are very well 9 rounded and knowledgeable people, and they are 10 helpful, and we need to believe to be able to say 11 that you're not doing this at a complete loss. 12 I'm not saying you pay them to be on the 13 committee, but certainly we have to compensate 14 them. Many professionals would be on that 15 committee if they could, I'm sure, and if they 16 were at least paid a per diem to assist with the 17 objectives. 18 The community liaison committee have 19 the authority to request technical support from 20 either the MFA or Manitoba Water Stewardship. 21 Look, if I don't understand a report, tell me, 22 give me the expertise to help me through the 23 report, and at least let me know what's going on. 24 Does that make sense, Mr. Chair? 25 THE CHAIRMAN: It does. Mr. Currie, 03666 1 I'd just like to point out, you have about 17 2 minutes left, you have 18 recommendations. You 3 took about five minutes each on the first two 4 recommendations, so you might want to -- 5 MR. CURRIE: Speed it up. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: -- speed it up a touch 7 if you want to get through all of the 8 recommendations. 9 MR. CURRIE: Okay. Recommendation 10 number 3, the proponent do a human health based 11 risk assessment baseline. We know that there is a 12 surface water, or surface and groundwater quality 13 monitoring of microbiological parameters to 14 document the existing environment, and we need a 15 microscopic particulate analysis. Clearly there 16 is your jurisdiction. 17 We say that the proponent must 18 complete a human health based risk assessment 19 including developing a baseline monitoring 20 program. These are the four things or three 21 things that you might consider; source 22 characterization, contaminants of concern, 23 inorganic contaminants, pesticides, herbicides, 24 inventory of land use and possible contaminants. 25 We need to see that happen. 03667 1 Recommendation number 7. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: You jumped 5 and 6. 3 MR. CURRIE: Oh, they weren't that 4 important then, Mr. Chairman. 5 This is just a continuation, human 6 health based risk assessment continued. A 7 vulnerability assessment and ranking. If you 8 recall Gary, he was saying this is a fate and 9 transport analysis for each microbiological 10 contaminant. We talked about that, and what 11 became very interesting is that Gary Palmateer's 12 evidence that we need to know what we're dealing 13 with. 14 The human health based risk assessment 15 be conducted over three scenarios, the non-flood 16 operation, the flood operation and the summer 17 operation. That was Hayes' recommendation. 18 He also recommended that there be a 19 groundwater under the direct influence of surface 20 water study done, a GUDI. In effect, that's 21 somewhat similar to the original stuff, but he 22 goes on and he made that recommendation, and I 23 think we're really in support of it. 24 And there is a well head protection 25 zone necessary, and I think that we've covered 03668 1 that off in the evidence of Hayes. 2 And then recommendation number 7, 3 hydrogeological evaluation. This is Wayne 4 Clifton's comments. He says the proponent be 5 required to complete a comprehensive 6 characterization and hydrogeological evaluation of 7 each spring or blowout in the channel and submit 8 the results. We're saying to the PRC, the peer 9 review committee, we want to know what the results 10 say. 11 Modeling. The proponent be required 12 to complete a detailed predictive model to 13 evaluate the surface water to groundwater 14 interaction at each location and submit the 15 results to the PRC. 16 Again, we have some comments on 17 modeling, Mr. Chairman, and I want to go through 18 them briefly. But modeling is only one tool, 19 Mr. Clifton said that, Wayne Clifton stated that. 20 It's only one tool in the whole basket, if you 21 will. You've got to know what's exactly there, 22 and then you use your model to hopefully predict 23 what will come from it. So that's our position on 24 it. Even though modeling is necessary, it's only 25 part of it. 03669 1 There's a base flow monitoring 2 required. How much water is going down that 3 channel? 4 Groundwater loss, the proponent 5 addressed the issue of groundwater loss from the 6 aquifer and provide mitigation measures to utilize 7 the water and submit their analysis to the PRC. 8 Again, we need the peer review committee to 9 decide. That comes under sustainability, surely 10 if not environment, but I just wanted to point 11 that out. 12 Water monitoring, these are things you 13 would have seen in the reports so far. The 14 proponent provide to the PRC a proactive water 15 quality and monitoring and mitigation program 16 prior to any construction dewatering. The 17 proponent provide a reactive procedure and 18 protocol to deal with adverse water quality and 19 quantities. And the proponent continue the 20 reactive procedure and protocol to deal with 21 adverse water quality and quantity effects during 22 the operations phase. 23 And again, these are the two areas 24 that we are submitting are covered in your 25 process. 03670 1 This leads us to what I consider the 2 most fundamental of the recommendations and the 3 key to the whole set of recommendations that might 4 be done. And this is a three stage construction 5 of the floodway and that three construction 6 licences be considered. 7 We can't see it very well here, but I 8 can't adjust it necessarily, but we will see stage 9 1 as the stage from the inlet structure to roughly 10 Trans Canada Highway. Don't hold me to any 11 parameters on this map. The Red stage, or stage 2 12 is roughly Trans Canada Highway to Spring Hill, 13 and then of course stage 3 is roughly beyond that 14 to the outlet structure. 15 Stage 1, the inlet structure to Trans 16 Canada Highway, what we're submitting is there's 17 no identified constraints right now, so let the 18 construction begin. The clay underlay is thick 19 and protective and appears to be doing okay. The 20 only concern is that Hayes says there's some 21 reactivity going on in the area. We don't know 22 what it is, and you may want to find that out 23 before you actually construct. But he's saying 24 from an intellectual point of view at least, 25 everything seems to be looking normal. 03671 1 Construction, including bridges can 2 start upon completion of the human health based 3 risk assessment for that segment if it's 4 proceeding this summer. 5 Stages 2 and 3 licence requirements, 6 and we put them together, 2 and 3, but before you 7 start construction in stage 2, establish a 8 baseline with monitoring in stage 2, install, 9 maintain and operate a comprehensive groundwater 10 monitoring program, including wells along both 11 sides of the right-of-way for the entire length of 12 the channel north of the Trans Canada Highway. 13 And you will recall that that's 14 Hayes's suggestion, well monitoring on a grid 15 basis as suggested by Hayes on two kilometre 16 centres, six kilometres out. 17 Stage 2 and 3 licence continued, 18 before you issue these two construction licences, 19 ensure there's a human health based risk 20 assessment. Do your microbiological analysis, 21 baseline data on the springs including number, 22 flow and geophysical strata. 38 years of modeling 23 can be taken into account. And the intermixing of 24 the surface and groundwater, the modeling issues 25 can be cleaned up. And the environmental 03672 1 protection plan can be completed for meaningful 2 public input. 3 Stage 2, stage 3, we've talked about 4 them, Trans Canada Highway to Spring Hill and 5 beyond Spring Hill, and we're just saying it 6 provides sufficient time to implement a 7 comprehensive monitoring program and to conduct 8 further information. 9 We want this recommendation in because 10 again, we are looking at the critical issues 11 regarding public transparency and public 12 involvement. 13 14 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION) 15 16 MR. CURRIE: That they seek ways to 17 increase the public transparency of the scientific 18 data and the scientific rationales upon which 19 their decisions are based. 20 We need public input. We need to have 21 the MFA and Water Stewardship tell us what they 22 will do for us on a public basis. 23 Communicate the results to the 24 community liaison committee and the data and 25 rationales upon which the risk assessment and the 03673 1 decisions are based should be available to public 2 review generally. 3 Those are general recommendations to 4 support a public involvement, and it's a true 5 public involvement. 6 The MFA officials exercise great care 7 to maintain an objective and neutral stance with 8 respect to the public debate about risks and 9 benefits of the human health based risk assessment 10 and interpretations of the process. 11 We just need to have people who will 12 listen. You may not have to agree with us, but at 13 least let the public be heard. 14 That ALARA be a guiding principle. 15 ALARA is as low as reasonably achievable. That 16 the principle should guide the independent review 17 committee and be applied to reduction of risk of 18 long-term aquifer contamination and to reduction 19 of groundwater flow into the channel. That the 20 ALARA principle should apply to conservation and 21 protection of groundwater, and that the MFA 22 evaluate alternatives that would achieve these 23 objectives. We want there to be a principle to be 24 attached to this. 25 Recommendation number 14, that they 03674 1 comply with all legislation and regulations 2 governing groundwater management in Manitoba. 3 Bill 22 guidelines and requirements be met -- 4 Exhibit 75, you have it -- the Manitoba 5 Sustainability Act, policies and guidelines will 6 be met if you force this recommendation. 7 The proponent be subject to all 8 regulations that govern all other water uses, 9 including obtaining necessary permits and 10 preparing a groundwater management plan. That the 11 proponents be subject to public review during 12 water rights applications, again for meaningful 13 public involvement. 14 This is one that becomes critical for 15 the public that are left in the end. This is 16 something that has to be dealt with fairly 17 quickly. It's our submission that they establish 18 a compensation dispute resolution mechanism. The 19 last thing you want to do is have some family of 20 four who has a problem, and they can't prove that 21 there was any clear connection between the 22 floodway, other than the temporal connection of 23 there was a flood event and my well is now 24 problematic. 25 And we don't want to extend this into 03675 1 the courts. It's too costly. We know the cost of 2 litigation. We want a system that is clear, got 3 appeal to it, and can really be effective for 4 public input, and public use, not input but use. 5 We would recommend full effects 6 accounting, that all costs of mitigating, 7 construction and operating impacts of the project 8 on groundwater accrue to the MFA in perpetuity and 9 not fall to the municipalities and their 10 residents. 11 In this case, it may well, as I've 12 been told, the MFA is going to exist, it does 13 exist, it's going to continue to exist past this 14 project and they are the people that are 15 responsible. 16 We would submit that all 17 recommendations should be binding on the operator 18 as well as the proponent. There's no point in 19 giving the recommendations only on the proponent, 20 who will then shift and say, oh, my goodness, 21 that's an operating concern and therefore we 22 don't, we're not bound by it. It just is common 23 sense if you will. 24 The Kildare outfall to floodway be 25 mitigated immediately. I think that it's just 03676 1 impossible to continue with that kind of process 2 with raw sewage being dumped in there. It just 3 can't go on. The reeves have talked about it -- 4 and let me just see if this works now, I think 5 there's a problem. We say that the operations 6 licence should be reviewed in five years to 7 determine if any adverse environmental effects. 8 So that we have a review, that there is something 9 to come back to and look at. That the public 10 review be invited at that point, to consider their 11 issues and that this purpose is to allow an 12 analysis of the success of the mitigation 13 strategies and do a state of the environment 14 consideration. 15 I want to talk about some final 16 conclusions. Risk, risk of groundwater/surface 17 water interaction is real and therefore risk of 18 aquifer contamination is real. We heard Pete 19 Hayes say that, this is a real concern, it's not 20 pie in the sky. Those were his exact words, this 21 is not pie in the sky stuff. 22 Microbiological pathogens are emerging 23 and their persistence and viability is longer now 24 than historically. We know we've got emerging 25 pathogens. 03677 1 Gary Palmateer, speaking about the new 2 bacteria, what I really found interesting was, 3 "The low nutrient environment and 4 groundwater is certainly not where E. 5 coli normally reside. As a result, 6 they are not going to survive that 7 long. However, there are few bacteria 8 that haven't read that book." 9 And I laughed when he said it, because it is 10 really telling us that we do have bacteria out 11 there, and he identifies the two that could get in 12 there and have some sustainability in an aquifer. 13 When human health is at stake and, 14 therefore, when erring on the side of 15 probabilities, that those probabilities that 16 favour protection should be encouraged and 17 followed. 18 And that's basically the submission, 19 Mr. Chairman, of the RM. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 21 Mr. Currie, that was exactly one hour to the 22 minute. 23 Could I just ask briefly, Mr. Currie, 24 what this booklet of cumulative effects case law, 25 what do you wish us to take from this? 03678 1 MR. CURRIE: Everything 2 Mr. Chairman -- no. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: As a relatively recent 4 student of law, do you expect us to read the whole 5 thing or just the headnotes, or have you 6 highlighted the parts that we should? 7 MR. CURRIE: I believe there is one 8 copy with highlighted in it. I couldn't get 9 through to highlight the other copies. I think 10 what I really put that forward to is because I 11 think you're going to have to have either Mr. Abra 12 or one of your other consultants review it and 13 tell you whether I've read the cases correctly or 14 not. And I meant to get Mr. Abra a copy, but I 15 can tell him it was absconded and taken from me by 16 my clients, and I apologize. But I really -- the 17 point being, Mr. Chairman, is that everything I 18 talked about in my presentation is in fact backed 19 up in that submission. That is, that you have to 20 take into account the pre-existing floodway in 21 effect. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Who 23 has the highlighted copy? That would be helpful 24 if we were to have the highlighted, or one of us 25 were to have the highlighted. 03679 1 MR. CURRIE: I'm sure you do actually. 2 Somebody must. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll try and 4 sort that out. 5 MR. CURRIE: Okay, great. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: There were two or three 7 pages in your overhead presentation that were 8 missing. I mean, you read them into the record, 9 but still would it be possible to get copies of 10 those sent to my office? 11 MR. CURRIE: Of course, Mr. Chairman. 12 My apologies, it was just last minute. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine. Thank you 14 very much, Mr. Currie. Thank you very much, 15 reeves, deputy reeve. That concludes your 16 presentation, or your final arguments. Thank you. 17 We'll take a break, we'll come back at five after. 18 19 (Proceedings recessed at 2:50 p.m. and 20 reconvened at 3:00 p.m.) 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: We have two more 23 closing comments or closing statements today. 24 First up is the Coalition for Flood Protection 25 North of the Floodway, which will be, the 03680 1 presentation will be made by Mr. Jonasson and 2 Mr. Chorney. Mr. Chorney hasn't been sworn in. 3 Please state your name for the record? 4 MR. CHORNEY: Doug Chorney. 5 (DOUG CHORNEY: SWORN) 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jonasson. 7 MR. JONASSON: Thank you, we have some 8 members of our coalition here, but many of them 9 are working so they are not here. First I would 10 like to start by introducing who we do have here. 11 Sheila Jonasson, she is here to kick me in the 12 ribs if I don't have a disciplined kind of 13 approach. Doug Chorney, who has just introduced 14 himself. We have Archie Trapp, former Reeve, 15 former MLA, very interested in this process. And 16 we have -- we call him AKA but his name really is 17 Norm Smith. Thank you. 18 First I would like to address the 19 panel and let you know that we recognize that you 20 have a very, very difficult task. You have to 21 serve your political masters, but your job is to 22 protect the environment and make sure that 23 whatever is done, everyone affected by this 24 process is safe. 25 My closing remarks will be more 03681 1 extensive and detailed than I ever imagined at the 2 start of this process. It was impossible to 3 anticipate the level of arrogance, contempt, and 4 disdain demonstrated by the MFA through its 5 principal spokesperson and a paid consultant 6 toward individuals and groups presenting what they 7 believed were issues of genuine concern. 8 We don't all hold engineering degrees, 9 although some of our members do, but unlike the 10 engineers with the MFA, we know that we possess 11 knowledge that is relevant to the issues at hand 12 as that presented here by the MFA engineers and 13 their consultants. Being told that our agendas 14 were based on politicking and that our assertions 15 with respect to expanded floodway were basically 16 lies, this has left with us a feeling that the 17 purpose of these hearings, at least on the part of 18 the MFA, was to trivialize our concerns and 19 discredit the expert witnesses. 20 I might add at this point that our 21 expert witnesses were chosen simply because they 22 are considered amongst the foremost experts in the 23 nation in the areas chosen for their testimony. 24 We were further astounded or upset to 25 find, on returning to the hearings last week, that 03682 1 one of our expert witnesses would not be asked to 2 return because, in effect, he disagreed with the 3 assertions of the proponent. 4 I want to thank the chair for his 5 sense of fairness demonstrated by his agreement to 6 bring back our witness. This demonstrated to me 7 and to fellow members of our coalition that there 8 was a genuine attempt by the Commission to get at 9 the truth. 10 Some history: Our group was formed 11 because of the longstanding record of poor 12 treatment by the government and its agencies of 13 flood victims living north of the floodway outlet. 14 And I'm going to stop here now and direct your 15 attention to what is up on the board. 16 In the displays the Floodway Authority 17 presents, and they presented it in the last hotel 18 and out at Oakbank, they never once in their 19 display showed the flood area north of the 20 floodway. It doesn't appear in any of their 21 documents that I can find. This comes out of a 22 document that was done by KGS. And what it shows, 23 if I can stand up for just a minute? It is called 24 the historic overflow path. In 1950, you remember 25 Scotia Street and all of the problems that they 03683 1 had, and every time there is a flood, Scotia 2 Street has a problem. There is an area of the 3 bank of the river from almost the Redwood Bridge 4 well into West St. Paul that is very low. It is 5 the beginning of what one would call a swale. 6 It is known as a swale and it is big, 7 really, really big. This area here, I don't know, 8 it is somewhere in the neighborhood of four miles. 9 This part of the swale is now known as the bog, or 10 was known as the bog. It is now Oak Hammock 11 Marsh. It has been drained and is being used for 12 agriculture now. But prior to the flood proofing 13 primary dykes, this was a natural overflow. In 14 1826, the water did not all go past Selkirk, it 15 went around Selkirk. This was Selkirk's original 16 floodway. It has been taken away. 17 We've had difficulty getting this 18 issue before the Water Branch and before anyone 19 until now, and I want to thank you for this 20 opportunity to be able to do that. 21 We don't know how much relief that 22 gave to the Red River, and to Winnipeg, or into 23 Selkirk, because we've had meetings with the Water 24 Resources Branch, they told us they did not have 25 enough data, there wasn't enough data to show them 03684 1 the elevations of this, and therefore, they 2 couldn't apply MIKE 11 or other such models to it. 3 This is key to our assertion that in fact the 4 floodway and flood protection measures that were 5 put in place since the '60s do have an effect 6 downstream of the floodway. 7 Since 1999 we have met with decision 8 makers, that is the politicians and the 9 bureaucrats who are there to do the bidding, their 10 bidding, in an effort to have them address our 11 concerns. Having participated in a round of 12 public meetings in January, I believe it was 2002, 13 and seeing our concerns completely ignored by the 14 Premier, who incidentally has refused to meet with 15 our group -- and I have transparency as a question 16 mark there -- we then met with the Federal 17 Manitoba caucuses, and individual Federal 18 Ministers including Minister Duhamel, Minister 19 Pagtakhan, Minister Thiebault and finally Minister 20 Alcock. None of the political decision makers can 21 claim that we haven't made our concerns known. 22 Having exhausted all legitimate 23 avenues to have our concerns met, we decided to 24 concentrate our efforts on putting together a 25 well-documented presentation that involved notable 03685 1 experts to plead our case before the CEC. 2 We had pinned our hopes on this 3 process, a process we believe was designed to seek 4 out the truth. We were soon disavowed of this 5 belief at our first meeting with the chair of the 6 CEC. We were told that the scope of the upcoming 7 hearings would be so narrow as to exclude 8 virtually all of our concerns. 9 On seeing the content of the 10 proponent's EIS, this narrow scope was indeed 11 confirmed. The proponent had decided that the 12 scope of the EIS would be confined to the 13 environmental impact of the difference between the 14 existing floodway and the new expanded floodway. 15 At this point we concluded that the process now 16 for us would simply be gathering evidence for 17 upcoming court action. 18 The conclusion of the proponent's EIS, 19 that the expanded floodway, its construction and 20 its operation would have no significant 21 environmental impact, was so absurd as to be 22 incomprehensible to anyone who had any knowledge 23 of the proposed floodway expansion. 24 Following is a description of the some 25 of the astonishing developments during the 03686 1 progress of these hearings. In our wildest dreams 2 we never imagined that this would turn into a 3 one-sided battle being fought through the media, 4 to which it seems the MFA had unbridled access. 5 There have been a number of articles by the CEO of 6 the MFA indicating that the floodway expansion 7 would have little or no environmental negatives on 8 anyone, and would be a marvelous flood protection 9 measure for everyone in the valley. Brochures 10 printed prior to the hearings stated, among other 11 things, that the floodway would never, never be 12 operated in the summer. This is a pamphlet, and I 13 will give you a copy of it, put out by the 14 Department of Conservation. It is a brochure. 15 Another story in the Free Press 16 indicated that the expanded floodway would have a 17 negative impact on areas north of its outlet. 18 Never once did the Department of Conservation, 19 Water Stewardship, the Department of Health, or 20 the MFA let the general public, and specifically 21 those living in close proximity to the floodway, 22 that their way of life and perhaps their very life 23 was being threatened by the existing floodway. 24 It was only through the work of our 25 expert witness that we discovered that the City of 03687 1 Winnipeg was dumping raw sewage into the floodway. 2 This site is so contaminated that in other 3 provinces it would have been immediately posted 4 and determined to be a hazardous site, and an 5 order would be given to clean it up. To the best 6 of our knowledge, not only has it not been cleaned 7 up, tests performed by our expert witnesses, and 8 now being performed by the City of Winnipeg, 9 indicate sewage still flows into the floodway. 10 While some of us knew that the 11 floodway was draining pristine water from the two 12 principal aquifers located in the municipalities 13 through which it runs, no one realized the extent 14 of the draw-down, enough water we are told to 15 supply a city of approximately 30,000 people. The 16 draw-down could be represented by a lake in places 17 14 kilometres wide, in excess of 50 kilometres 18 long, and 30 feet deep at its deepest point. 19 This, while the municipality of East St. Paul is 20 suffering from a water shortage. To add insult to 21 injury, the municipality is being asked to pay for 22 half the cost of moving their water line across 23 the new expanded floodway. 24 My wife Sheila and I and our daughter 25 Julia live at the end of Hay Road near Lockport. 03688 1 I learned through the work of our expert witness 2 that the water in a monitoring well halfway down 3 Hay Road, between us and the floodway, showed a 4 dramatic increase in conductivity during and 5 following operations of the floodway, indicating I 6 believe the intrusion of surface water into the 7 aquifer. 8 I asked the question, whose 9 responsibility was it to inform my neighbors and I 10 that this was happening, and why was it never 11 done? In our area, it is no longer a question of 12 is there a possibility, or is it probable that 13 polluted surface water can enter the aquifer? The 14 answer is, it does. 15 There is no longer doubt in our minds 16 that the existing floodway will be expanded, as 17 will be expanded, creates devastating effects in 18 the form of exacerbation of ice jamming and the 19 consequent flooding, an increase in flood levels 20 without ice jamming. It will increase the rate of 21 erosion as the river is being forced to convey 22 more water than historically it ever carried in 23 the reach north of the City of Winnipeg. That's 24 why the map. We have to find out how much water 25 traditionally ran around Selkirk. Because say it 03689 1 is 50,000 CSF, when we build this new floodway and 2 we push all of that water down, the river will be 3 asked to carry 50,000 CFS more than it was ever 4 asked to carry. The results of that obviously are 5 going to be a river, a small river trying to 6 expand, and having to expand to carry that volume. 7 So there is going to be tremendous increase in 8 erosion. 9 The assertion that the floodway has 10 absolutely no impact downstream of its outlet has 11 for 38 years prevented the City of Selkirk and its 12 residents, and the residents of East Selkirk, 13 Breezy Point, St. Peters and Petersfield from 14 accessing highly deserved and legally required 15 flood compensation and funds that would be 16 available for flood compensation. The Floodway 17 Authority asserts that even though approximately 18 half of the Cooks Creek drainage area has been 19 diverted into the floodway -- and I just want to 20 tell you that the Cooks Creek natural drainage 21 outlet is north of Selkirk. We are now putting 22 that water into the floodway, and it now comes out 23 at Lockport, south of the city. 24 The floodway has, we are told, 25 following the 1997 flood been made 3 per cent more 03690 1 efficient by notching the east berm. If it is 3 2 per cent efficient, more efficient taking water 3 in, it is going to be 3 per cent more efficient in 4 pouring that water into the river south of 5 Selkirk. 6 There was a discussion today about 7 compression of water, and I think it was agreed 8 that you can't do that. There obviously is an 9 impact. 10 And then finally we have, what we have 11 on the board here, post 1960's construction of 12 flood protection measures cut off Selkirk's 13 natural floodway. That these measures have no 14 effect downstream of the outlet is -- I think it 15 is a fragmented sentence -- but you can't assert, 16 I believe, that there is no impact downstream. 17 This assertion has been repeated so often, so many 18 times by engineers at the Water Resources Branch 19 that now I think they believe it is true. 20 Assertions by our members that this 21 is, or there is an increase in the frequency and 22 the ferociousness of ice jams was met with, those 23 people don't know anything about the river and 24 about ice jams. That is really a difficult 25 statement for us to accept, because we see it. I 03691 1 don't how many of the engineers that were involved 2 in these reports have watched it. The engineers 3 chose to rely on models which create a virtual 4 reality, over the observed reality as recorded in 5 the eyes of our members and in their cameras. We 6 don't live in a virtual world. The height of the 7 water backed up by ice jamming set an all time 8 record in 1996, which was broken again in the 9 spring of 2004, during the operation of the 10 floodway following a year of drought in 2003. We 11 think, we believe that observed reality trumps 12 virtual reality. This is not a computer game. 13 A new law has been passed by our 14 legislature. This new law, the Floodway Act, 15 provides for full compensation if one is flooded 16 artificially because of the operation of the 17 future expanded floodway. It further states that 18 the process to handle this compensation is to be 19 administered by an essentially volunteer 20 organization called "Emergency Measures 21 Organization" or EMO. Appeals in this process 22 will be handled by a committee also under the 23 jurisdiction of the EMO. That seems to be a bit 24 of a conflict. 25 In answer to a question how this law 03692 1 would function, particularly for the people 2 downstream of the floodway, the MFA stated 3 categorically, there would be no compensation, as 4 flooding downstream would not be artificial, it 5 would be deemed to be natural. How is it possible 6 that the MFA could make this determination? 7 First, I don't think it is their mandate to do so. 8 Second, it demonstrates a clear bias against 9 downstream residents. 10 Given past behaviour of the Water 11 Resources Branch, the EMO, and various departments 12 of government that were responsible for providing 13 compensation to those artificially flooded in 14 1997 -- and this is the shocking thing -- a number 15 of whom have not received settlement to this very 16 day, it is apparent that this Act will do nothing 17 to prevent the ongoing traumatization of flood 18 victims. This Act also shelters those in charge 19 of operating the floodway from being sued, even if 20 they operate it in an incompetent or negligent 21 manner. It does little to inspire confidence in 22 potential future flood victims. It allows access 23 to the court only if the flood victim can prove 24 that the government and its agencies or its 25 employees acted with malice or forethought. 03693 1 Clearly, this legislation, presented 2 as compensation for flood victims, is presented as 3 compensation for flood victims, but in reality it 4 is potential for the government, its agencies, and 5 its employees. The residents downstream of the 6 floodway have lost all trust in government. 7 It seems fundamentally unfair that the 8 residents of the City of Winnipeg, protected for 9 possibly 700 years, while those living upstream, 10 downstream and in the municipalities through which 11 it flows are not even being compensated for the 12 hardship the floodway causes. On the whole, they 13 receive no benefit, but their groundwater is 14 diminished and possibly polluted, transportation 15 is severely impacted, overland flooding and 16 flooding due to ice jams is exacerbated. The only 17 form of mitigation that's being offered is 18 additional sand bags for the City of Selkirk. And 19 I ask the question, since when is sand bagging 20 mitigation? I don't think so. Only in Manitoba. 21 Give you another example, in the 22 United States no one was left unprotected when it 23 was decided to flood proof, that the mighty 24 Mississippi was to be flood proofed, no city, 25 village, town, farm, resident, was left 03694 1 unprotected. And I understand the protection 2 starts at one in 750 years in the upper regions of 3 the Mississippi, and increases as the river moves 4 south to a level of one in 1,200 years. We know 5 there that are other viable flood protection 6 measures that could have been chosen which would 7 have protected far greater numbers of residents 8 than simply the floodway expansion. 9 This solution leaves a vast area of 10 southern Manitoba subject to flooding and, 11 therefore, an economic wasteland. There is little 12 possibility of growth and development in that area 13 if it is known to experience extreme flooding. 14 Perhaps it will become known as Doer's dead zone. 15 Studies of the conditions with respect 16 to groundwater during the drought of the 1930s, 17 and prediction of drought as a result of climate 18 change, indicate that in the future the problem of 19 too little water will be greater than the current 20 problem of too much water. 21 Everyone in this room should know that 22 in 1934 the reach of the Red River that runs 23 through Fargo to Grand Forks had no water in it 24 for a period of 150 days. The Red River is the 25 source of these cities drinking water. 03695 1 In 2003 a number of wells in East St. 2 Paul ceased to produce. This in the single year 3 of drought, the drought of 2003. We must find a 4 way to capture the pristine water that is being 5 lost through the floodway. Fundamentally, it 6 makes good sense to devote more resources to 7 protect our pristine groundwater than it does to 8 protect property that can be rehabilitated. Our 9 children and our children's children should never 10 have to speak the phrase, why didn't they do it 11 right in the first place? 12 Now, before we go into the 13 recommendations, Doug Chorney has a number things 14 to say. 15 MR. CHORNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 16 At the pre-hearing meeting on January 31, you gave 17 the participants assurance that in the event of 18 compelling evidence being presented to the 19 Commission, that in fact it may not be recommended 20 that a licence for this project would be put 21 forward by the Commission. 22 I think that what we have seen over 23 the course of these hearings is compelling 24 evidence to suggest that there is a direct 25 connection between the expanded floodway project 03696 1 and environmental impacts, both north and south of 2 the city. 3 I also think that the City of Winnipeg 4 is going to require a great deal of infrastructure 5 improvements to truly benefit from this project 6 which has been addressed. And in fact, there are 7 800 homes, I believe that was in the transcript, 8 not protected in the 700 year flood event. 9 So I think in fact here we are at the 10 end of the hearings, this evidence has been put 11 before the Commission and I beg you to consider 12 it. 13 Mr. Gilroy, on February 15, made 14 remarks to the Commission and he called the 15 floodway project an engineering marvel. And I, on 16 the other hand, would consider it more of an 17 accounting marvel. And I believe the numbers 18 being used to describe the capital cost of the 19 project were $665 million. Since this project, 20 and that's been the number roughly that we have 21 heard for quite some time. 22 Through the past year I know that we 23 have seen escalating energy costs, specifically 24 diesel fuel. Steel costs have escalated, we have 25 many requirements for steel and bridge 03697 1 construction. Yet there has been no change in the 2 capital cost of the project. 3 In the article by Andrew Buck in the 4 Selkirk Journal on March 4, Minister Ashton 5 explains that $100 million has been spent to 6 tailor the floodway expansion for reducing the 7 potential for adverse effects on groundwater. 8 Never heard a thing about that in the total 9 project cost. I think, you know what they say, 10 $100 million here, $100 million there, pretty soon 11 you are talking real money. 12 When we are talking, and Dr. Webster 13 alluded to this, this morning, about the cost to 14 benefit ratio and what the costs were of maybe 15 improving flood protection south of the city, 16 maybe we need to look at the total capital costs 17 of this project. And I ask that the funding 18 partners in this project read here in the 19 transcripts that they should ask the same 20 questions, because I think the Floodway Authority 21 is moving forward without addressing the changes 22 in capital costs of the project properly. Thank 23 you. 24 MR. JONASSON: Thanks, Doug. We will 25 now go through our recommendations, or we would 03698 1 like to see them as conditions under which a 2 licence may be granted. 3 First, the area north of the outlet of 4 Lake Winnipeg on both sides of the river be 5 carefully studied through gathering accurate data 6 so that accurate flood predictions and flood 7 protection can be made available to those living 8 in that area. I understand from Doug McNeil that 9 in fact a Lidar survey has been completed, so at 10 least that's a start. 11 That a study be done to determine the 12 capacity of the historical overland flow from 13 North Winnipeg and West of Selkirk to the lake. 14 And that's the one that I referred to up there. 15 The residents of the City of Selkirk 16 and all others downstream of the floodway outlet 17 must receive equal flood protection as that given 18 to the residents of the City of Winnipeg. If this 19 cannot be done, mitigation measures must be 20 mandated and/or properties that cannot be 21 protected should be purchased. I'm going to just 22 mention here that two of our members, since we 23 have started this process, have declared 24 bankruptcy because they couldn't pay off the loans 25 that they took out to cover the protection that 03699 1 they put around their houses, because essentially 2 they were flooded because the levels north of the 3 floodway are different than the levels south of 4 the floodway. But I will get into that in a 5 minute. 6 Proactive measures must be put in 7 place to safeguard and preserve groundwater along 8 the entire reach of the expanded floodway. We 9 didn't go into this in any detail because it has 10 already been covered by the municipalities. 11 But we also believe that there must be 12 a commitment given to provide clean safe drinking 13 water to any resident or community whose water 14 becomes tainted or drawn down as a result of the 15 floodway construction and/or its operation. We 16 believe that a dollar amount like $11 million may 17 not be enough to supply a community with a 18 replacement water supply. And I would refer you 19 particularly to the area that's west of the 20 floodway in St. Clements, where I live, where the 21 water, floodway water or surface water has been 22 detected. And because the flow of the groundwater 23 is apparently east to west, this is probably in my 24 mind the most vulnerable area. 25 An immediate study of the phenomena of 03700 1 ice jamming must be initiated and measures taken 2 to mitigate against this escalating problem. We 3 are not lying when we say this is an escalating 4 problem. It is. The frequency and the ferocity 5 is very, very clear. And it is an issue that just 6 has to be addressed, whether or not it is 7 compounded by the operation of the floodway. We 8 believe it is, but we have two experts, one saying 9 no and the other one saying yes. 10 New regulations must be developed for 11 the area downstream of the floodway so that the 12 owners of all residences, and city and municipal 13 authorities can access funds for flood protection 14 and compensation. Now I say new regulations, 15 because there is a flood protection program, I 16 believe it is over now, that was put in place 17 after 1997. And it said you will get some funding 18 from the province if you protect to the 1997 19 level. So people north of the floodway did that, 20 except that the 1997 level had already been 21 exceeded in 1996 north of the floodway, and now we 22 have the extra height achieved in 2004. It is 23 just incomprehensible that those kind of measures 24 were used. Two of our members did it, and got 25 flooded in 2001. 03701 1 Measures must be taken to prevent, 2 mitigate against, and/or protect residences, 3 municipal and city infrastructures, historic 4 sites, churches and graveyard. Downstream of the 5 floodway outlet, Lower Fort Garry, the Church at 6 St. Peters, the graveyard at St. Peters, there are 7 a number of -- the church just south of Lower Fort 8 Garry, it lost a great deal of its property in 9 1997 as a result of erosion. I don't think this 10 whole issue of erosion has been looked at. My 11 characterization of a river that may have been 12 called upon to have 100,000 CFS historically being 13 asked now to carry whatever it is going to be 14 carrying. 15 The resumption of dredging of the 16 river bottom and its outlet to Lake Winnipeg must 17 be resumed post haste. The general consensus is 18 that silt build-up on the bottom of the river has 19 contributed to the ice jamming phenomena. It may 20 not be just the operation of the floodway, but the 21 river is much, much shallower in many places than 22 it ever was. The river was dredged from 1884 to 23 1996. Actually dredging was slowed down in about 24 1992 and completely abolished in 1996. 25 Measures must be taken to protect the 03702 1 lift bridge at Selkirk from damage from ice. I 2 want to explain, this bridge experienced ice 3 hitting its lower horizontal beams for the first 4 time ever in the ice jam that occurred spring of 5 2004, following again a summer of drought in 2003. 6 A legislated committee, by that I mean 7 a committee that's not just promised, it is there 8 by law, be given the responsibility and the 9 funding necessary to monitor and care for the 10 health of the environment affected by the Red 11 River north of the floodway and in the communities 12 it runs through. 13 And to get at the problems of people 14 being traumatized by flooding and then further 15 traumatized by the process of seeking 16 compensation, we suggest that a flood agreement 17 must be developed in order for persons affected by 18 flooding upstream and downstream of the floodway, 19 where they are automatically compensated without 20 having to go through the rigorous process 21 involving the courts. This process is often as 22 traumatic as the flooding itself, and as is the 23 case now, unable to provide reasonable remedy. 24 Imagine being artificially flooded and losing 25 everything, and then having to go to court to be 03703 1 compensated, only to have government lawyers stall 2 the process for more years than are allowed under 3 the statute of limitations. That's happening 4 right now. Ask the more than dozen people who 5 have not been compensated for the flood of 1997. 6 This flood agreement should be crafted by the 7 government with representative residents and 8 officials from cities, towns, and municipalities 9 affected, and should be administered by a 10 department other than the department that is 11 responsible for floodway operations. 12 A new rule for floodway operation 13 should prohibit its use for anything other than 14 potential catastrophic spring flooding. It should 15 specifically exclude floodway operations to 16 compensate for the deficiencies in then City of 17 Winnipeg sewer system and the protection of the 18 walkways at The Forks. 19 The possibility of domestic sewage 20 entering the floodway through this storm outlet at 21 Transcona must be reduced to zero. The claim by 22 the city that the problem has been fixed may be 23 valid at this moment, but it can and will happen 24 again. We are told that there is in excess of 20 25 cross connections between the storm and domestic 03704 1 sewers in Transcona. And that an engineering 2 solution that eliminates all connections between 3 domestic sewage and surface storm water drains 4 must be put in place. 5 On behalf of the members of our 6 coalition, the Coalition for Flood Protection 7 North of the Floodway, the municipal councils of 8 St. Clements, St. Andrews, East St. Paul, West St. 9 Paul, Springfield, and our supporters in the City 10 of Selkirk, I respectfully submit our summary of 11 this process and this series of recommendations. 12 I would also like to point out that the coalition 13 whole-heartedly supports the staged 14 construction -- it should be licencing -- as 15 presented by the three municipalities that will 16 allow for the necessary data gathering in support 17 of mitigation measures to protect the groundwater 18 and address all other issues arising at these 19 hearings. 20 We wish to thank the Commissioners and 21 the Chair for their allowing a free exchange of 22 ideas and deeply held opinions. Hopefully this 23 process will optimize the positive effects of this 24 process and eliminate or mitigate the negatives. 25 Thank you again. 03705 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 2 Mr. Jonasson. We have valued your intercessions 3 over the last number of weeks. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Whelan Enns. 5 6 (GAILE WHELAN ENNS: SWORN) 7 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I would note again, Ms. 9 Whelan Enns, as I said off the record, that you 10 will have no more than one hour. 11 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Certainly. The 12 document that the Commissioners have and that the 13 staff of the CEC have is longer than what I'm 14 going to use your time for in terms of 15 presentation time today. And the approximate 16 structure, if you will, is that the first half of 17 what I have to say relates to our work at Manitoba 18 Wildlands in terms of lands and water policy and 19 protection in Manitoba, and then the second or 20 latter half has to do with living at river lot 21 480. 22 So that means that you have a document 23 that -- I have the highlighted version in front of 24 me. You have considerably more text before you. 25 And I sat where I'm sitting in case I'm going too 03706 1 quickly so that the court reporter or the 2 secretary can let me know that's happening. 3 Thank you again for the opportunity to 4 speak today. I wish to begin by quoting the words 5 of Mr. Terry Sergeant, Chairman of the Clean 6 Environment Commission, from the transcript for 7 February 15, 2005, beginning page 194, line 7. 8 "We also recognize that participants 9 do not have the same access to expert 10 advice and resources available to the 11 proponent. And we further recognize 12 the participants critically 13 questioning the merits and aspects of 14 the projects proposed are doing so for 15 the public good." 16 Mr. Sergeant is correct. Public participants in 17 these hearings, as in others, are participating 18 not because they are against a project or dislike 19 the proponent, for instance, but for the public 20 good. Often that takes the form of being for or 21 in favour of certain actions, changes or 22 improvements to a proposal. 23 An understanding of why we have public 24 reviews and hearings has not been consistently 25 apparent in our media, including in comments from 03707 1 the MFA. So we commend Mr. Sergeant for making 2 his opening statement. 3 This is where we also wish to start 4 our comments and recommendations to the CEC as it 5 begins the daunting process of compiling its 6 report on the public hearings for the proposed 7 Floodway Expansion Project. 8 I want to just identify Manitoba 9 Wildlands participation in the floodway expansion 10 review to date. Manitoba Wildlands provided 11 comments on the draft EIS guidelines. We made an 12 application to the participant assistance program. 13 We provided comments on the proponent's EIS. 14 Manitoba Wildlands then provided comments on the 15 proponent's EIS supplemental filing. And we have 16 provided coverage of the EIS review and hearings 17 for the floodway expansion on our website. 18 Environmental review content in each 19 of our work products just noted as consistent with 20 the identification of primary contents for the EIS 21 guidelines, that is we have stayed with what we 22 recommended when the guidelines were being 23 established and determined. It is our assumption 24 that the CEC will hold the Manitoba Floodway 25 Authority firmly to fulfillment of the EIS 03708 1 guidelines in its recommendations. 2 Manitoba Wildlands work products 3 regarding the floodway expansion EIS review and 4 today's closing statements are available, or will 5 be, on the Manitoba Conservation public registry 6 and at our website, 7 http://manitobawildlands.org/develop.htm#license, 8 or you can go to the economic development part of 9 the website on the environmental licensing page 10 and scroll down to the floodway. 11 Why public participation and why 12 public hearings? And that's sort of a question as 13 these ones wind down. I would like to take the 14 opportunity to just step back and reflect as to 15 why we are here in the public hearing and why we 16 have a public review process. How our society 17 approaches these decisions about activities that 18 will have environmental effects, impacts and 19 implications that go far beyond their physical 20 footprint. Why don't we simply let these 21 decisions be made without public input? After 22 all, there are rules and regulations that must be 23 followed. And as Premier Doer says, "we know the 24 science already." The answer, as we all know, is 25 that as citizens we don't want minimum compliance 03709 1 to environmental standards, and we don't want a 2 one dimensional assessment of projects that may 3 profoundly affect our children's future. As 4 citizens, we are the ones who can make a 5 difference. Our governments and corporations, the 6 proponents, must listen to citizens because the 7 public is the reason for the existence of 8 governments and proponents. It could be said that 9 the public is the reason that we have a floodway, 10 and a proposal to expand the floodway. 11 We have taken the opportunity to list 12 elements that are essential to a balanced and fair 13 environmental assessment and hearing process. We 14 need public or citizen wisdom. Citizen wisdom is 15 where the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 16 and the Manitoba Environment Act came from. And 17 there are not that many, but there are people in 18 the room, who know that I had a staff role 19 regarding the citizen policy work that brought us 20 to Manitoba's current Environment Act. 21 We need to ensure also that the 22 proponent's assumptions, studies and analysis are 23 not the only basis for the decisions, but 24 independent and outside information questions the 25 analysis of all aspects of a project are also 03710 1 needed. We need transparent access to 2 understandable project information. We need to 3 discover what has been missed, what may be 4 corrected to avoid risk. We need the 5 participation of individuals and groups from a 6 broad societal cross-section. Citizen reviewers, 7 independent experts and scientists work together 8 to understand and comment then on the proponent's 9 project. We need to hear from citizens and 10 communities who are already affected or who may be 11 affected by the project. We need all of these 12 elements in order to lend credibility and maintain 13 balance and establish accountability. We need 14 these elements in order to achieve both an 15 environmental and a social licence. And it will 16 be citizens, of course, who know first and are 17 affected first if a project fails and effect is 18 greater than estimated in an EIS or an error 19 occurs that was not anticipated. 20 For these CEC proceedings we are in 21 luck. The caliber and knowledge of the public 22 participants is, shall we say, very high and very 23 concrete, like the floodgates. 24 In meetings with the regulators over 25 the last nine months it has been evident to me 03711 1 that the community participants for the floodway 2 expansion are knowledgeable, independent and 3 caring. It is unfortunate that Manitoba Wildlands 4 has not been able to work with and assist public 5 participants. 6 However, as an aside, if you will, 7 some of the elements needed for credibility 8 regarding environmental assessment have been 9 lacking in process for the proposed floodway 10 expansion. I'm not going to go through everything 11 that's in front of me at the moment. We are very 12 concerned, though, that the reference to you, as 13 in the reference or terms for the hearings, did 14 not acknowledge the existing project, or focus on 15 what is needed in terms of information, questions 16 and analysis in relation to the intent to expand 17 an existing project. 18 Clarity has also been lacking in terms 19 of proponent responses to public comments and 20 requests for information during the Environment 21 Act Review, and this in turn can affect the 22 content of these hearings. We have some 23 recommendations in this area. Again, for the 24 purposes of the use of time now, we will mention a 25 couple of those. 03712 1 We recommend that the CEC petition 2 Manitoba Conservation to adopt a policy of 3 providing assistance to any new proponent that 4 will ensure that previous standards for responding 5 to comments and information requests are adhered 6 to. 7 We recommend that the CEC include in 8 its deliberations and the contents of the Manitoba 9 Conservation public registry file -- let me try 10 again. We recommend that the CEC include in its 11 deliberations the contents of the Manitoba 12 Conservation public registry file for the Floodway 13 Expansion Project, in particular, contributions 14 from non-funded public participants and comments 15 that were not addressed by the proponent in 16 writing prior to or through the hearing process. 17 We further recommend that the CEC 18 include in its report the areas of comment and 19 information requests that the MFA did not fulfill. 20 We recommend that the CEC take action 21 to make all information concerning a project 22 proposal subject to a CEC proceeding, available in 23 both paper and electronic format on a timely 24 basis. 25 International agreements will being 03713 1 changed from commitments to agreements in the 2 text. A great deal of research, analysis and 3 subsequently recommendations from the 4 International Joint Commission are on record as a 5 result of the flood of 1997. We recommend that 6 the CEC review all IJC recommendations pertinent 7 to its mandate for these hearings and articulate 8 which IJC recommendations are being fulfilled by 9 the MFA and need to be fulfilled, and reflect 10 these findings then in their report. 11 Environmental effects issues: We also 12 wish to highlight selected environmental issues 13 that have been inadequately addressed in the EIS 14 which were not addressed in the supplemental 15 filing or which remained outstanding. Each of 16 these is specific to the EIS guidelines which, of 17 course, must be fulfilled by the proponent. 18 Scope/definition of baseline/ 19 cumulative effects: I would like to start by 20 revisiting the issue of the mistaken scope of the 21 hearings. And I'm aware that extensive discussion 22 on this issue has taken place, including some more 23 today. It is the position of Manitoba Wildlands 24 that the project scope needs to and should have 25 included the current as well as the expanded 03714 1 project. And then there are some, if you will, 2 several follow-up bullets in the document. 3 It is important to point out that 4 issues of scope have been particularly contentious 5 because previous Manitoba projects, where the so 6 called disrupted environment became defined as the 7 baseline, have not been subject to an 8 environmental assessment or licence including, of 9 course, the current floodway. This is a problem 10 in and of itself. But it is also a problem, 11 because as a result, there are contentious and 12 unresolved, outstanding environmental effects 13 issues that should and need to be addressed prior 14 to this project going forward. 15 Turning the page to protected areas 16 and public policy. Essentially the point that 17 Manitoba Wildlands wishes to make with respect to 18 the consideration of protected areas and public 19 policy in the floodway expansion EIS is that these 20 issues were treated in, at best, a cursory 21 fashion. The analysis is inadequate. The EIS 22 guidelines have not been fulfilled, and as a 23 result it is impossible to determine the impacts 24 of the project on the existing protected areas and 25 on the ability to establish protected areas in the 03715 1 future. It is also important to make any 2 conclusions as to whether the project is in 3 keeping with other Manitoba public policies. 4 So what we have done here in our 5 document to illustrate the point is noted the 6 deficiencies in the EIS and the supplemental 7 filing with respect to protected areas. This is 8 essentially a repetition of our previous technical 9 content, and we suggest that there are, in fact, 10 other areas in public policy that have been 11 missed. This is primary and central to our work. 12 And we would have gladly assisted at the beginning 13 of the work on the EIS so that the protected areas 14 content was accurate. If, for instance, Manitoba 15 Conservation wasn't inclined to help. 16 One simple example, the bottom of this 17 section of the document, there is no area of 18 special designation definition or category in 19 Manitoba public policy or the regulatory regime 20 regarding Crown land. Now, this is what is used 21 in the EIS. It doesn't exist. Manitoba does have 22 several hundred Crown land designations or 23 designated sites in several types under several 24 acts. The EIS guidelines are clear, and this area 25 is deficient. Perhaps the problem is not knowing 03716 1 what a protected area is. Our recommendation in 2 this area is a little lengthy, but we will try 3 this. 4 The reference to the CEC then makes 5 clear direction regarding fulfillment of the lands 6 and water strategy for Manitoba, that includes 7 protected area policies and action plans. It also 8 includes then Government commitments and programs 9 to fulfill the land and water strategies regarding 10 protected areas. It is essential that the CEC 11 report direct the MFA to deal with the 12 deficiencies and inaccuracies in their EIS 13 regarding protected areas. Manitoba Wildland work 14 product details the deficiencies. And previous 15 environmental proposals and their EIS guidelines 16 have also referenced the Manitoba Sustainable 17 Development Principles and Guidelines and the 18 subsequent policies. We assume the same standard 19 for this reference, for this project will be 20 reflected in the CEC report. 21 Public policy and floodway expansion. 22 In terms of public policy, the proponents have not 23 addressed inadequacies in terms of the bare 24 minimum requirements to address the public policy 25 and regulatory framework as outlined in the EIS 03717 1 guidelines. This is actually fairly simple, and 2 it is all on the Government of Manitoba websites. 3 You look for the land and water strategy, you look 4 for the policies that are connected to it, you 5 find the protected areas, for instance, content or 6 the water strategy content. What we have in the 7 EIS is -- I don't know, maybe an attempt to want 8 to deny the connections and the very clear policy 9 tract. 10 Turning the page, to the bottom of 11 that section then, the executive summary indicates 12 that the proposed project is consistent with 13 Manitoba's water policies and also the natural 14 lands and special places policies. This is an 15 impossible statement, considering that the most 16 recent policy document regarding Manitoba's water 17 is the 2003 Manitoba Water Strategy, which is not 18 even merited inclusion in the reference section of 19 the EIS and is not referenced in the EIS itself. 20 The same then is true for the natural 21 lands and special places policy, that's in quotes. 22 The most recent action plan for network of 23 protected areas is neither discussed in the EIS, 24 nor included in the references, nor are any of the 25 numerous Manitoba Public policy publications or 03718 1 references over the last five years that are 2 regarding protected areas. 3 A recommendation then on the public 4 policy framework: Manitoba Wildlands recommends 5 that the CEC have independent reviewers identify 6 all errors of fact and claims regarding the public 7 policy framework which the floodway expansion 8 project would need to fulfill and be in compliance 9 with. These would be referenced in the CEC 10 report, with recommendations to the MFA to 11 undertake public correction and posting. 12 Next is a recommendation regarding 13 archaeology. We recommend that the CEC clearly 14 direct the MFA as to their responsibilities under 15 Manitoba's Heritage Act, while making 16 recommendations to ensure that the MFA fulfills 17 the Heritage Act during planning, site 18 preparation, all construction and operation phases 19 of the project. 20 Climate change: In our comments 21 regarding the EIS and our comments on the 22 supplemental filing, we did criticize the 23 proponent's treatment of the issue of climate 24 change. We still believe that this issue is not 25 receiving the attention and analysis demanded in 03719 1 response to the EIS guidelines, and it is 2 important as an issue to Manitoba. I'm going to 3 mention some examples of areas in which the EIS 4 needs improvement, and again this will be the 5 shortened version where I have highlighted. 6 It is still our opinion that the 7 climate change literature regarding modeling and 8 scenarios contains other studies and information 9 relevant to the Manitoba situation that has not 10 been referenced and, therefore, we must assume not 11 examined by the proponent in putting together the 12 EIS. In the supplemental filing, the MFA chose to 13 dismiss Manitoba Wildlands recommendations related 14 to designing the project with the objective of 15 making the project carbon neutral, and failed to 16 explain whether and how the project is in 17 compliance with Government of Manitoba policy on 18 climate change. The proponent skirted the issue 19 by stating that they felt that the project will 20 not compromise Manitoba's commitment to deal with 21 climate change and Kyoto. And that's a different 22 issue. The expectation is in relation to the EIS 23 guidelines and then what we were trying to support 24 and recommend. 25 The proponent has not provided an 03720 1 analysis of the total impact of all phases of the 2 project in terms of climate change, quantification 3 of GHG emissions, carbon losses or gains for all 4 phases in comparison with totals for Manitoba and 5 some sort of justification from literature in 6 terms of the significance. It has just not been 7 done. The proponents have also not addressed 8 questions regarding loss of trees. Vegetation is 9 different in the way the EIS is written. Personal 10 communications and observations indicate that some 11 areas adjacent to the existing floodway are 12 forested, and loss of forest is significant in 13 emissions and loss of carbon. 14 As far as we know, the MFA does not 15 have, or at the very least has not stated its 16 position on climate change. In the age of Kyoto 17 this is unacceptable for any major developer, let 18 alone a public sector developer. 19 Recommendations - climate change: We 20 recommend that the CEC -- and you will see that 21 you are hitting some edits where I'm trying to use 22 the word recommend rather than direct -- that the 23 CEC recommend that the proponent conduct a more 24 thorough search of the climate change literature, 25 address deficiencies previously noted in our sets 03721 1 of comments, assess its climate change assumptions 2 and make public updated information. 3 We recommend that the CEC direct the 4 proponent to develop a plan that will be publicly 5 reviewed through an accessible, transparent 6 process to arrive at a strategy, including methods 7 and mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and 8 public reporting that will result in the expansion 9 of the floodway being a carbon neutral project, 10 and this should be undertaken jointly with the 11 appropriate Manitoba government departments. In 12 particular full emissions data for the project 13 activity should be public and transparent combined 14 with no net gain emission targets. 15 We recommend that the CEC direct the 16 proponent to develop through a process that 17 includes public review, a comprehensive policy on 18 climate change. 19 Joint Cooperative EA and EIS 20 guidelines: It is clear from these closing 21 statements that we are concerned about fulfillment 22 of the EIS guidelines, as developed by the project 23 administration team for the Floodway Expansion 24 Project, under the cooperative environmental 25 assessment agreement between Canada and Manitoba. 03722 1 Failure to respect and address the contents of the 2 EIS guidelines could be taken as a breach of that 3 cooperative EA agreement. The EIS guideline 4 elements, which Manitoba Wildlands successfully 5 commented on, saw added to the guidelines and 6 continues to identify, must be fulfilled. 7 Living on the flood plain, some myths 8 and some realities. Mr. Gilroy made some odd 9 comments in his opening statement to these 10 hearings on February 15. They can be found 11 beginning on page 219 at line 25 of the hearing 12 transcript. And I will just read the first 13 portion of this excerpt. 14 "Over the course of the next three 15 weeks, the Commission will hear a 16 number of issues that will be raised 17 by special interest groups and some 18 municipalities. Most of these issues, 19 however, although clearly of 20 importance to these groups, are not 21 directly linked to the floodway 22 expansion and should not be mistaken 23 as relating to our project." 24 His reference to special interest groups are 25 unfortunate. And the notion that the MFA does not 03723 1 have responsibilities related to grievances, 2 whether historic or pertaining to the operation of 3 the future floodway gates, may show confusion as 4 to his responsibilities. Political parties and 5 governments often use the term "special interest 6 group" when they do not wish to listen to public 7 interest groups. Essentially, this is a 8 derogatory term and has no place in these 9 hearings. Perhaps Mr. Gilroy does not realize 10 that many of the things that he takes for granted 11 in his personal and occupational life are the 12 result of public interest groups' work on behalf 13 of citizens. 14 Most Manitobans live in the flood 15 plain. The entire Manitoba economy can be 16 affected by a single flood, and the Red River 17 Valley -- and this should say, south of 18 Winnipeg -- is one of the highest revenue, lowest 19 program investment regions for government in our 20 country. And that's not about compensation 21 monies. 22 So we are all in this together. And 23 Mr. Gilroy needs to understand that he and his 24 staff and consultants work for all of us. There 25 simply is no us and them dynamics here, unless the 03724 1 proponent sees advantages to trying to create such 2 a dynamic. To my knowledge, and I attended 3 several floodway public participant meetings in 4 the spring and summer of 2004, none of the public 5 participants are against the expansion of the 6 floodway. 7 Recommendation: Living on the flood 8 plain together. The CEC in its report state 9 clearly that we are all in the flood plain 10 together, that all Manitobans experience both 11 risks and benefits from the floodway projects. 12 Perhaps it would be prudent for the CEC to 13 acknowledge the advice of the Honourable Steve 14 Ashton -- the advice the Honourable Steve Ashton 15 provides to Manitobans with respect to decision 16 making regarding our rivers, lakes and water use. 17 He points out that Manitobans can't play the blame 18 game while we are making decisions. Certainly it 19 is important for the MFA to understand this 20 advice. 21 The other worrisome content in 22 Mr. Gilroy's remarks rests in his comments where 23 he is attempting to say the urban environment is 24 more valuable and more important than the natural 25 environment in the context of these proceedings 03725 1 and assessment of the floodway expansion. These 2 are on page, probably 212 beginning line 7, rather 3 than the number that's on the document. Going to 4 the second and third part of the quote, 5 "The fact is, floodway expansion 6 protects the public from this looming 7 environmental disaster. In this 8 context, Commissioners, the hearing is 9 not typical of most environmental 10 hearings that pit economic development 11 against protection. 12 Floodway expansion by its merits is 13 itself an environmental protection 14 project. In fact, floodway expansion 15 is one of the largest environmental 16 protection investments in Canada." 17 He sort of seems to have it backwards. The source 18 of the economy for Manitoba and Winnipeg is 19 outside of Winnipeg. Our natural world is the 20 basis for our economy, and we would recommend some 21 reading of Canada's own Jane Jacobs. 22 It has been my experience over the 23 last 12 years that Manitobans know their natural 24 environment well and hold it close to both their 25 hearts and minds. This means that Manitobans, for 03726 1 instance, have consistently for 15 years lead 2 other jurisdictions across Canada in their polling 3 responses in support of conservation and 4 protection of our environment. Manitobans have an 5 unique ability to see both the value or public 6 interest reasons and the pragmatic reasons why we 7 need to protect our environment. 8 In short, Manitobans are fairly smart 9 about our natural world and understand what may 10 already be impacted, what risks are being taken, 11 and whether the information about risks or impacts 12 is adequate. They also have vision and patience 13 as evidenced by the building of the original 14 floodway. 15 As a transplanted Manitoban who comes 16 from the flat society to the west, I can say that 17 it is this Manitoba trait of understanding and 18 respect for our natural world that motivates me in 19 my environmental public interest work. Most of 20 the people in the room know also that I live 21 exactly halfway, by water elevation, between 22 Morris and Ste. Agathe in the Red River Valley. 23 Living in the valley, one river lot: 24 Specific to the fact that I have lived on the same 25 river lot on the Red River for 30 years, an 03727 1 inclination exists to identify some of the urban 2 myths and weak foundation to the floodway 3 expansion discussion. 4 Recommendation: Each identified 5 weakness or myth below needs to be addressed by 6 the CEC in its research and recommendations. This 7 list is not comprehensive but rather a set of 8 examples. 9 Myth number one: The current Winnipeg 10 floodway has only benefits, the expanded Winnipeg 11 floodway will have only benefits. Engineering 12 studies and analysis are theoretical, as is much 13 of the content of the EIS. Only public cumulative 14 effects assessment after a project has been in 15 operation and an analysis after a disaster can 16 tell us what is real. The existing Winnipeg 17 floodway does not have an environmental licence 18 and has never been assessed for its environmental 19 effects with respect to environmental licencing 20 standards, both Provincial and Federal. It is 21 simply high risk behaviour to only talk about the 22 benefits of a project without a clear 23 identification of the loss or risks. Any human 24 activity that affects the environment has losses 25 or impacts. 03728 1 Myth two: The current environment, 2 that is of the existing floodway, is the natural 3 environmental baseline for the expansion project. 4 And we have certainly heard about this today. 5 This is an area, had we been funded to do research 6 and participate in the hearing, where we would 7 have in fact focused on these areas. And I'm glad 8 to see that public participants have been working 9 on this. 10 We recommend that the CEC set exactly 11 how the baseline data will be collected 12 immediately after completion of the expansion of 13 the floodway, and how public information as to 14 monitoring impacts and biophysical conditions will 15 be undertaken throughout the life of the expanded 16 floodway. 17 Myth number three: Well, we all agree 18 that the 100 year rate of return flood is an 19 adequate and valid basis for flood proofing, 20 environmental assessment, floodway expansion 21 planning, and projection of flood levels. 22 Actually, we don't all agree on this. Now, that 23 we are in the 21st century, it is time to project 24 and assess risks based on models that do not 25 simply rely on past events. Trends are as, or 03729 1 much more important, especially regarding projects 2 or phenomena which may have climate change 3 causative elements. Put in simple terms, the 10 4 year flood level or rate of return is established 5 by adding two feet to the crest level of flood 6 waters at any given location in the valley from 7 the most recent highest flood event. This is the 8 standard used for flood proofing activity then. 9 I'm not at all speaking about north of Winnipeg 10 because I simply do not know and have not 11 experienced flooding north of Winnipeg. 12 The description above is consistent 13 with my numerous conversations with highway 14 engineers, hydro engineers, floodproofing 15 contractors, municipal officials, MEMO staff, 16 floodproofing inspectors, and I left out the PFRA 17 experts from 1997. 18 I live in a house midway along the Red 19 River between Morris and Ste. Agathe on a Metis 20 Red River lot. The ground floor kitchen and 21 livingroom floor boards has been at the 100 year 22 flood level since reconstruction in 1974 and, 23 therefore, of course, before the 1979 flood. 24 Before that the house was substantially lower. 25 The house ground level was at the 1950 flood 03730 1 level. The house had no damage in 1950 or 1979. 2 Construction and floodproofing earth 3 works were undertaken in the 1980s based on the 4 100 year flood level, keeping the same ground 5 floor level. After all of that, we were at and 6 above the 100 year level. In 1993, our grid road 7 was finally raised to the 100 year flood level, 8 based on recommendations for lack of exit routes 9 in the 1979 flood. We were now in great shape. 10 We were floodproofed to the 100 year 11 level, and then we had 40 feet of water. This is 12 measured from the level of river ice in 1997. 13 Manitoba authorities have never agreed as to what 14 amount of water above the 100 year level covered 15 PTH 246, our grid road, in 1997 at our location, 16 river lot 480. This became very evident when we 17 were negotiating floodproofing levels, and there 18 was about a three foot argument, despite a lot of 19 nails in a lot of trees and telephone poles put in 20 people in boats at crest level. 21 It becomes obvious that the 100 year 22 rate of return is simply the number arrived at 23 after each flood of the century. The new number 24 is the crest or peak level plus freeboard. Our 25 home was floodproofed three times in 25 years for 03731 1 the 100 year level or rate of return. What I have 2 just described is what residents of the valley 3 know and understand. And Winnipeggers who know 4 the valley and grew up on the river also know 5 these things to be true. 6 When I was a member of the 7 International Flood Mitigation Initiative for 8 Manitoba after the 1997 flood, my American 9 colleagues always kept asking, yes, but what is 10 the basis for the 100 year rate of return other 11 than the level of the most recent flood disaster? 12 Good question. 13 Much of what I have detailed above was 14 also confirmed by presenters to the IFME meetings, 15 and I would be inclined to recommend or suggest 16 that the CEC technical advisors might want to take 17 a look at some of those presentations. Some of 18 the engineers who came into the IFME meetings were 19 eye opening for all of us, including myself. I 20 have not included the other activity after the 21 1997 flood, but I was a member of the steering 22 committee for the Ritchot Municipality Community 23 Conversations Project that was part of planning 24 post flood in terms of the community itself. 25 So we seem to be getting ready to 03732 1 expand the Winnipeg floodway due to the 1997 flood 2 of the century. There is a singular lack of 3 acknowledgment of how many 100 year rate of return 4 floods or close calls we have had in the last 55 5 years. We are also not admitting how many 100 6 year levels of floodproofing have been applied to 7 decisions in the valley in the 50 years between 8 the 1950 flood and post 1997 floodproofing 9 actions. We recommend that the CEC give the MFA 10 an undertaking to provide, based on the patterns 11 of floods since 1950, detailed information 12 regarding scenarios that are floods of increased 13 magnitude every 15 years between 1997 and 2050, 14 and then every 20 years between 1997 and 2077. 15 These scenarios will need to be designed both with 16 the floodway expansion and without, looking at the 17 full geographic scope of the floodway regions. 18 They should each be able to be described or 19 charted on one piece of paper plus maps. 20 Myth number four, everyone in the Red 21 River Valley south of Winnipeg is floodproofed now 22 for at least the 100 year flood return event. I'm 23 going to move to the recommendation. We recommend 24 that the CEC clarify for the Government of 25 Manitoba the number of sites in the valley and 03733 1 north of Winnipeg that will require material, sand 2 bagging, et cetera, should a flood similar to 1997 3 occur with the expanded floodway in place. 4 We recommend that the CEC address the 5 effects of the expansion of the floodway in 6 relationship to the floodproofing undertaken after 7 the 1997 flood and make recommendations. 8 Myth number five: The floodway is a 9 ditch, and making a ditch a bigger ditch does not 10 change much. This is an example of determinism 11 and avoidance of ecological thinking where 12 everything is connected and patterns are 13 paramount. Matters of scale, speed of water flow, 14 increase of feet per second, impact on banks and 15 all infrastructure currently in place in the 16 valley are simply not being fully dealt with by 17 the MFA. All systems, including a floodway, have 18 thresholds beyond which effects to the whole 19 system or operation sets in rapidly. Everything 20 that we build, everything that we know to build, 21 is based on parallels in the natural world. 22 Failure of the MFA to take questions 23 on this matter seriously means the CEC will have 24 to determine where those thresholds are, and 25 whether for instance we are going to have a 03734 1 significant river bank and floodway bank erosion 2 due to the expanded floodway. That's also a 3 recommendation. 4 Myth number six: Expanding the 5 floodway has nothing much to do with climate 6 change. Well, they are sure going to laugh at us 7 in 25 years if this is the wisdom and attitude for 8 decisions regarding the expansion of the floodway. 9 We recommend, given the failure of the 10 MFA to take the EIS guidelines seriously, that the 11 CEC seek input from an ecological economist and a 12 climate change expert regarding large 13 infrastructure and earth moving projects and how 14 to mitigate climate change effects. 15 The opportunity and time is right now 16 for Manitoba, Winnipeg and Canada, to step forward 17 together and make this huge infrastructure project 18 the first carbon neutral project of its kind in 19 Canada. We recommend that the CEC make as a 20 condition of any potential licence for the 21 expansion of the floodway, that the MFA file a 22 public climate change mitigation and adaptation 23 strategy, with the goal of making the floodway 24 expansion a carbon neutral project, that the 25 strategy be public and transparent at every stage 03735 1 of its implementation, and that the MFA work with 2 Energy Science Technology Manitoba and Manitoba 3 Water Stewardship -- I might want to add 4 stakeholders in there -- and the contracted 5 industry sectors involved in expanding the 6 floodway to arrive at such a strategy, including 7 training, awareness, and public education aspects. 8 Myth number seven: The water in the 9 expanded floodway will be in motion at all times, 10 therefore, public participants' concerns about 11 stagnant water are irrelevant. We are struck by 12 the comments in the media, and this is -- maybe 13 they were wrong in the media -- and during the 14 hearings from MFA staff. The floodway doesn't 15 stop being a floodway between floods or after a 16 big rain or after the flood gates return to rest. 17 After 30 years, all I can say, to my knowledge 18 there is often water in the floodway that is 19 stagnant. If this is going to reverse with the 20 expansion of the floodway, clear information to 21 that effect must be filed by the MFA. More likely 22 a wider channel will mean more stagnant water. 23 Otherwise, the MFA must address concerns about 24 stagnant water, especially in mosquito season in 25 the months after flood season. 03736 1 Myth number eight: If government is 2 building it everything will be fine, after all, 3 this is a public sector project that is in the 4 public's interest. This kind of thinking takes us 5 back to my opening comments. We have public 6 reviews and public hearings so that public 7 knowledge, independent analysis, and information 8 which might be ignored or missed otherwise is part 9 of an assessment. It is particularly important 10 when government is designing, building, self 11 assessing, holding its own hearings, and licencing 12 itself, that the public interest and concerns be 13 fully voiced and accepted as valid. No other 14 developer gets to licence themselves. It is 15 precisely these projects everyone assumes will be 16 built which must have the most scrupulous 17 environmental review. 18 Myth number nine: Everything needed 19 for compensation for next time is in place. 20 Anyone who thinks this should pause and consider 21 having water on the upper levels of the new MTS 22 Centre on Portage Avenue. This is a reflection of 23 the 1997 flood water levels without the floodway 24 or if the floodgates had not held. Or maybe 25 thinking about aquifer damage and ruptures where 03737 1 intensive livestock operations are suddenly 2 without water, safe water. 3 As I am sure the panel has heard 4 during the hearings, the small recommended fund 5 for compensation is a joke and an insult to anyone 6 who knows about the Red River and its way. We 7 recommend that the CEC place an undertaking for 8 the MFA to provide a full set of figures as to the 9 cost of the next flood of 1997 levels in Manitoba. 10 There are many kinds of mitigation and 11 compensation costs that will continue, including 12 the cost of closing the fourth side of many dykes. 13 We further recommend that the CEC 14 investigate the status of negotiations between 15 Canada and Manitoba regarding disaster assistance, 16 especially for the next "flood of the century" and 17 make this information a part of their report. 18 Myth number 10, besides it is Winnipeg 19 we need to protect, that is where the economy is. 20 About 20 years ago I coined the term perimeter 21 syndrome. Most Manitobans know what that means -- 22 funny, people in Thompson know what it means -- 23 whether they live and work inside or outside of 24 the perimeter highway that surrounds Winnipeg. 25 Perhaps now we need a new term, floodway syndrome. 03738 1 We are truly all in this together, ecologically 2 and economically. Any misguided assumptions that 3 you should protect one part of the environment or 4 economy versus the other carries risks of short 5 sighted thinking and planning and potential risks 6 when expanding our floodway. 7 An eleventh myth occurred to me 8 yesterday afternoon when I was here, because I was 9 very struck by the discussion and analysis 10 regarding Highway 59. To the best of my 11 knowledge, I agreed with what I was hearing. But 12 we were talking about 200 and 700 year rate of 13 return floods without any reference to weather. 14 So the simple and obvious statement is that if we 15 were having a 200 year or 700 year rate of return 16 flood, we would also have extraordinary and 17 adverse weather far beyond what preceded the 1997 18 flood and, therefore, we would have a considerable 19 amount of overland water on the east side of 59. 20 This phenomena was a very significant ingredient, 21 as in the southeast corner of the province and 22 weather and overland water was a significant 23 ingredient in '97. 24 Hearing procedures and lessons 25 learned, this is all quite straightforward stuff 03739 1 from the CEC report, so I will jump to the 2 recommendation. That all parties to these 3 hearings would consider which of the contents in 4 the report the Clean Environment Commission 5 commissioned about its hearings, which have been 6 acted on and which are outstanding or important. 7 And I have highlighted a couple of things in the 8 latter part of this list. There is a reference 9 here to the public registry being available at the 10 hearings and housed in a separate room from the 11 hearings, with staff available to assist users. 12 During a recent set of CEC hearings, 13 the environmental community took that on and made 14 sure that we were able to, among ourselves, among 15 the public participants, actually have the 16 registry on site. All exhibits submitted during 17 the hearing should be included in the public 18 registry. 19 And then down near the end, there is a 20 need in some instances for objective, balanced, 21 peer reviewed study of issues raised at CEC 22 hearings. 23 This particular report was a lot of 24 work. The PhD candidate who completed the work at 25 the U of M was here for most of the day yesterday, 03740 1 and I was glad to see him in the room. There are 2 a lot of Manitobans that participated in the work 3 to arrive at this report. I was glad to see it 4 posted again on the CEC website after a bit of 5 time of it being at rest. 6 There are, of course, a significant 7 set of recommendations in the COSDI report from 8 1999, and this is the Committee on Sustainable 9 Development Implementation in Manitoba, that 10 pertained to hearings and pertained to public 11 access to everything to do with an environmental 12 proposal. 13 Some quick concluding remarks. The 14 Manitoba Floodway Authority may end up with a 15 recommendation for an environmental licence from 16 the CEC and considerable loss in terms of its 17 social licence to operate. That outcome can still 18 be avoided. We will see what the MFA has to say 19 in its closing statements. 20 When a project has the significant and 21 variety of Federal responsibilities that this 22 project does, then public participants are 23 justified in expecting that those Federal 24 responsibilities will be fulfilled and acted on. 25 Again, we will see what the Federal responsible 03741 1 agencies determine regarding the deficiencies in 2 answering their information requests and 3 fulfilling the EIS guidelines and the Canadian 4 Environmental Assessment Act. 5 Lack of support for conservation and 6 environmental organizations to participate in 7 these hearings is a sign that the CEC may be 8 mistaking its role. This is actually not a 9 comment from me. I have been hearing this and I 10 have been a little bit startled myself. While the 11 participant assistance program under the 12 Environment Act is only recently being used, I 13 have had otherwise knowledgeable Manitobans inform 14 me that the CEC is supposed to decide who gets to 15 participate in a hearing. And this is simply 16 wrong. We recommend and we ask the CEC that you 17 clarify your open hearings policy in your report. 18 Those Manitobans and Winnipeggers who 19 have stopped me in the street, in elevators, or 20 meetings about other subjects, to ask why our 21 office was not working through the Floodway 22 Expansion Hearing process, their comments were 23 appreciated, and confirmed my faith in Manitoba's 24 inherent ecological understanding and expectation 25 of a standard of fairness. 03742 1 Public policy fulfillment must be a 2 given in this kind of proceeding. Any commission 3 or regulator's body that let's the proponent off 4 the hook regarding accuracy and responsibility on 5 something as basic and simple as protected areas 6 policy is simply not doing a credible job. 7 It is also important to remember that 8 all of our decisions regarding water management, 9 water conservation and water projects need to be 10 discussed together in a holistic fashion. An 11 ongoing sequences of one-of decisions will not 12 strengthen our civil or natural ecosystems 13 operation. 14 I have writing here in front of me 15 that is not on the page in document. It is just a 16 quick reminder that there are three parts of the 17 environmental review for the floodway expansion 18 project; the review under the Manitoba Environment 19 Act, which starts with arriving at the EIS 20 guidelines, these Clean Environment Commission 21 hearings and their report, and the Federal 22 assessment under the Canadian Environmental 23 Assessment Act. 24 Public participants are often 25 extremely frustrated by any perception of stop and 03743 1 start or separation, particularly when there is a 2 fair bit of Federal responsibility. 3 And finally, the opportunity still 4 exists to make the Manitoba Floodway Expansion 5 Project a carbon neutral undertaking, 6 demonstrating to the rest of Canada that Manitoba 7 truly is Kyoto friendly, carbon savvy, and 8 emissions wise. 9 I appreciate the opportunity to make a 10 statement today, and I wanted to also, if I could, 11 just thank the municipalities for their work, for 12 their analysis. I was glad to be in the room to 13 hear the presentation this afternoon, and quite 14 impressed with the recommendation for a peer 15 review committee. I wanted to say that I think it 16 belongs in Water Stewardship, not in Manitoba 17 Conservation. That all materials being public can 18 make a dramatic improvement in good will in social 19 licence and quality of decision making for 20 something like that. 21 I also wanted to say I have been 22 surprised, and I haven't been in the room 23 consistently enough to know the ups and downs of 24 this discussion about compensation, but as 25 somebody who has lived on the river for as long as 03744 1 I have, and grown to love and respect the river, 2 it is startling to me for there to be any 3 conversation about the Floodway Authority dealing 4 with compensation. It doesn't process at all. 5 The Floodway Authority has a very clear job to do. 6 Compensation can be where it has been, which is 7 Water Resources, now in Water Stewardship 8 department and with MEMO. So this is my second 9 thank you. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 11 Ms. Whelan Enns. Before you leave the table, page 12 16 in our copies didn't print. Could you make 13 that page available to us, please? It is a blank 14 page. 15 MS. WHELAN ENNS: I had a student 16 doing the photocopying, so I will fix that. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Photocopiers have their 18 own personalities. 19 MS. WHELAN ENNS: When you tell them 20 to go two-sided, they sometimes skip a page just 21 for fun. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess some of us do 23 have page 16, so we can get copies at the office. 24 Ignore that comment. 25 I would also like to ask you, not at 03745 1 this time because it is clearly outside of our 2 purview, but I would like you, off the record, to 3 sometime send me some email comments about the 4 paragraph on the top of page 21, when you talk 5 about the CEC deciding who gets to participate in 6 hearings. I don't want to get into that 7 discussion now, but please provide me with 8 comments by email. 9 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Sure, absolutely. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for 11 your presentation today. 12 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: That brings today's 14 proceedings to a close. We will meet tomorrow 15 morning here at 9:00 o'clock, for what will 16 hopefully likely be the last piece of business of 17 these hearings, and that is the closing statements 18 of the Floodway Authority. Before we conclude, we 19 have the usual daily administrivia of recording 20 exhibits. 21 MS. JOHNSON: Exhibit 124 will be the 22 presentation from Mr. David Andres on the 23 evaluation of the effects of the expansion of the 24 Winnipeg Floodway on ice levels water levels 25 downstream of the floodway outlet; 125 is the 03746 1 submission of the same name; 126 is a presentation 2 on the improvements to minimize artificial 3 flooding; exhibit 127 will be the closing 4 statement from the RM of Springfield presented by 5 Reeve Holland; 128 is the closing statement for 6 the Rural Municipality by East St. Paul, Rural 7 Municipality of St. Clements and Springfield 8 presented by Mr. Currie; 129 is the cumulative 9 effects document; 130 is the closing statement for 10 the Coalition for Flood Protection North of the 11 Floodway; and 131 is Manitoba Wildlands closing 12 statement. 13 14 (EXHIBIT 124: Presentation: 15 Evaluation of the Effects of the 16 Expansion of the Winnipeg Floodway on 17 Ice Levels Water Levels Downstream of 18 the Floodway Outlet, presented by 19 David Andres, Northwest Hydraulic 20 Consultants) 21 22 (EXHIBIT 125: Submission: Evaluation 23 of the Effects of the Expansion of the 24 Winnipeg Floodway on Ice Levels Water 25 Levels Downstream of the Floodway 03747 1 Outlet) 2 3 (EXHIBIT 126: Presentation: 4 Improvements to Minimize Artificial 5 Flooding) 6 7 (EXHIBIT 127: Closing statement: RM 8 of Springfield - John Holland) 9 10 (EXHIBIT 128: Closing statement: 11 Rural Municipality of East St. Paul, 12 St. Clements and Springfield by Orvel 13 Currie) 14 15 (EXHIBIT 129: Cumulative 16 Environmental Effects) 17 18 (EXHIBIT 130: Closing Statement: 19 Coalition for Flood Protection North 20 of the Floodway presented by Jack 21 Jonasson) 22 23 (EXHIBIT 131: Closing Statement: 24 Manitoba Wildlands) 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, we stand 03748 1 adjourned. 2 (Adjourned at 4:45 p.m.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 03749 1 OFFICIAL EXAMINER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 5 I, CECELIA REID, a duly appointed Official 6 Examiner in the Province of Manitoba, do hereby 7 certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct 8 transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken by me at 9 the time and place hereinbefore stated. 10 11 12 13 ---------------------------- 14 Cecelia Reid 15 Official Examiner, Q.B. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25