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 we