The following letter was sent to the government regarding the Rules of Operation of the Floodway review.

The Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway has long maintained that the floodway operation affects downstream water events.  These claims have consistently been discounted by officials within the Water Stewardship Branch and the Manitoba Floodway Authority.

The accompanying report was prepared by the Coalition utilizing publically available data.  It is based upon actual events and it shows a connection between the operation of the floodway and downstream water levels during the spring flood event of 2009.  It also places in doubt testimony provided during the Clean Environment Hearings upon which the current floodway licensing was based.  As such it is very relevant to the floodway licensing review currently being undertaken.

The Coalition has consistently maintained that the floodway impacts need to be first studied and understood, and then operational procedures established to minimize impacts.  In order to accomplish this, better monitoring than exists today must first be established.

Unfortunately it is the same government officials who consistently refuse to acknowledge that any floodway impacts exist, who would need to first champion the establishment of better monitoring, and then conduct the necessary reviews and studies to develop better operational procedures.  Left to itself this is not likely to happen.

The Coalition believes that a review process to support and verify prior claims made should be a requirement of the licensing process and requests that consideration be given to this during the current licensing review process.

In addition to the report, a commentary on the review process itself, and suggestions for change, is provided for the consideration of the license review panel.

Respectfully submitted

Bruce Allen, Secretary

Coalition for Flood Protection

North of the Floodway

******************SEE THE REPORT HERE (PDF LINK)************************

These recommendations have been made to the Floodway Authority regarding their “Rules of Operation”

Public Review of Floodway Rules of Operation

Comments on Floodway Operations and Related Rules

Preface

This document has been compiled by the Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway members, families and friends.

The Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway (“Coalition”) has been an active non-profit, voluntary, Red River Floodway centric organization since the flood of 1996 dealing with flood related issues impacting property and homes. The Coalition members reside in the City of Selkirk, the RM of St Andrews and St Clements, and over the years the common bond between all of these people and the floods have been and continue to be floods caused by ICE JAMS.

Although there is a vast difference of opinion on the major role of Mother Nature (thick Ice, too much snow or moisture, lack of coordination of hot and cold weather south and north of the border) versus all of the post-event logistics employed to rationalize the importance and correctness of the floodway operating rules; new and more devastating events are developing almost monthly.

We respectfully submit while some of these concerns were raised and somewhat discussed during the CEC hearings and the subsequent report;  we deferentially submit the following items as issues that must be addressed before any license approvals for the operation Red River Floodway can be considered.

Our areas of concern are as follows;

1. While the Red River Ice-Jam concerns were raised and discussed in some depth, the April 12^th 2009, ice jam and pursuant flood clearly addressed which consultants opinions ought to have been followed to proactively mitigate the severe property damages.
2. While the establishment of an “ad-hoc” organization between Water Stewardship and Selkirk, St Andrews & St Clements is a novel and noble concept, – why are the costs not covered by the Floodway Authority completely as all of the equipment is seconded to address ice jams in the flood way and Winnipeg,  leaving zero equipment to deal with ice management north of Lockport.
3. During the five (5) year period; (the life of the present license) the nearly $1 Billion expansion program has  addressed a lot of flood management improvements including several focused on addressing aesthetics and tourism opportunities (which we support) however no attention or funding has been provided for the water problem north of Lockport such as;
   1. a first class Ice Management Strategy including addressing hovercraft (ice-breaking),
   2. a related strategic dredging program to deal with thick ice issues
   3. a strategic dike program to protect homes that have repeat ice jam flooding of their property
   4. a measurement, continuous monitoring and coordination system that all of the residents north of Lockport could have access to, to manage and coordinate emergency evacuations when required
   5. property buyout should not be the first and only option to address the lack of an Ice Management program

1. In general,  our overview suggests that  the Environment Act License # 2691 of July 8^th 2005 focused significantly on addressing “floodway expansion issue” which although appropriate at the time; provided little or limited focus (admittedly with the advantage of hind-sight) on operational needs post March 2009, (as our list identified above).
2. We respectfully request a hearing to deal with the identified issues as soon as possible so a set of revised operating rules can be adopted and implemented accordingly.

If these opening remarks came across as a bit testy, grumpy and impatient; it is only because our good-natured, affable communications, presentations and meetings (our website and archives are available for review) have not garnered any note-worthy or positive results on the Ice-Jam flooding concerns to-date.

Comments on Rules 1 to 3

1. 1. Comments on Rule 1

Notwithstanding our comments above, and other information attached for your review, we would strongly suggest that Rule 1 be revised to recognize that the first spring operation be changed to as follows;

1. That the floodway be brought into operations as soon as the Red River level anywhere in the city rises three (3) feet  (1 m),  or four (4) feet below the Flood Protection Level of 25.83 feet (7.87m), whichever is reached first.

1. 2. Comments on Rule 2

Notwithstanding our comments above, and other information attached for your review, we would strongly suggest that Rule 2 be revised to recognize that the building of emergency dikes along the west side is a high-risk very reactive option and would also require similar dikes on the east side. A better plan would be to pre-dike to provide the appropriate dikes in the first instance.

1. 3. Comments on Rule 3

Notwithstanding our comments above, and other information attached for your review, we would strongly suggest that Rule 3 be revised to recognize the changes suggested to Rule 1 above; as well as removing the wording “The Floodway gates should not be operated until ice in the river is flowing freely, unless flooding in Winnipeg is imminent”. We suggest that this wording (requirement) is redundant as we understand that in 2009 this Rule was ignored.

1. 4. Comments on Rule 4

Notwithstanding our comments above, and other information attached for your review, we would strongly suggest that “Rule 4 – Emergency Operations to reduce Sewer Backup in Winnipeg” is not a logical or rational requirement, nor based on the flooded basement and sewer backups that occurred during several severe rainstorms, the use of the floodway in this manner is a rather ineffective solution to the problem.

Perhaps a more practical and cost effective approach is for the city to make their pumping system more robust, and areas such as the forks which are continuously subjected to flooding might require setting their grades for walks higher or placing floating walkways to mitigate or minimize the flooding situations.

1. 5. General Comments

The Coalition for the Flood Protection North of the Floodway thank you and the “Committee” for the opportunity to share with you the concerns of the community we represent and hope our suggestions might be incorporated into the new requirements and operating rules of the new licence.

We as well respectfully request a hearing to deal with the identified issues and concerns as soon as possible so a set of revised operating rules can be adopted and implemented accordingly.

We as well believe that there is an opportunity to solve the flooding and Ice Jam from Fargo, Grand Forks to Lake Winnipeg by developing a comprehensive by-lateral cost effective program if we provide the required leadership to make it happen.

Check out the above article.  Now, let’s see some ACTION on this very soon.

We were also surprised to see two security guards present at this meeting.  Why were they there?  Are they to be present at all such budget consultation meetings or did we receive “preferential” treatment in this respect?

On Thursday, January 28th, 2010, four members of the Coalition for Flood
Protection North of the Floodway were denied attendance to the Press Release
at the Benson building on Ferry Road, where Minister Melnick and MLA Dewar,
along with other provincial and municipal officials,  were in attendance  to
show the “new toys” they had acquired to tackle ice breaking activities on
the North Red River.  Excuses given for denying us access ranged from “not
enough room” to “this is not a public meeting”.  When the media are invited,
it suggests to me that the information being disseminated is being made
public!  We would like to know who issued the edict that Coalition members
should be denied access to this event.

‘An Ignorant Thing to Say’

MLA’s comments raise ire of flood protection coalition, suggests residents should take responsibility for their own properties

Follow this link to the press release that followed the January 26th, 2010 meeting with Minister Wowchuk and MLA Greg Dewar in Selkirk.

To:  Christine Melnick. Manitoba Water Stewardship

As per your request, members of the Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway (Coalition) met with representatives of the North Red Community Water Maintenance Inc. (Maintenance Inc).

While we are appreciative of your efforts to get this meeting arranged; it is ironic that something as urgent as dealing with concerns related to a flood that occurred on April 12th could not be addressed until November 12th 2009 (seven months later) despite the letters and telephone calls of promised reviews and the details to be discussed.

For the most part the exchange was informative; and we would be pleased to again meet with Maintenance Inc. to have further open dialogue on the proposed plans for the spring of 2010.

The following are some of our thoughts following the meeting:

We were glad to learn that there was fundamental agreement on what needs to be accomplished in order to mitigate/eliminate ice jamming event(s) during the spring ice break-up period…that is to open as early as possible (target March 15th), and to keep open, a channel in the ice cover from one end of the problem area to the other (the wider the channel the better) and to dredge the river bed in strategic areas (the deeper and wider the better).  This is the ultimate goal.

We appreciate that there have been advances in technology, quantity and quality of equipment and that the evolution of the organization from an ad-hoc committee to a results oriented organization continues at Maintenance Inc, and we laud their efforts to reach the ultimate goal.

However as the events of this past ice jam filled spring have shown, serious short falls exist and these must be addressed to eliminate the conflict of mandate, priorities and resources.

The partnership between the Provincial and three local governments to jointly provide ice jam flood management systems and protection is an admirable ideal in a perfect world.  However the anecdotal evidence on this short relationship indicates that the concrete results are not in keeping with the Provinces version of the successes.

That one member of Maintenance Inc found it necessary to influence the location that ice breaking activities occurred, in spite of the fact that this was contrary to understood best practices, is not indicative of a focused organization with a unified and clearly defined mandate (referring to the City of Selkirk’s ability in 2009 to concentrate ice breaking activities in the Selkirk region).  However it is indicative that the members themselves feel that they have to take unilateral steps for their own communities as they do not believe that the “ultimate goal” can be accomplished and are therefore willing to use their influence to get the required services by preferential treatment.

Provincial priorities also trumped the critical needs of the Municipal partners resulting in resources being seconded with no alternate plans in place to address the added risk to the Municipalities and leaving them with no equipment to continue opening a channel north of Selkirk (referring to the fact that the Amphibex’s were pulled out of service in the North Red, at a time when they are most needed, and placed on standby in Winnipeg).

The blunt announcement by Water Stewardship Executive Mr. Steven Topping at the November 12th meeting stating  that the Province had decided to withdraw from any further interest in the surplus hovercraft, (although surprising to the coalition) provided no response from the other partners. This behaviour would suggest that communication between the partners is not based on open discussions of opinions or options but is instead based on Provincial decrees.

The Management of Ice

Despite assurances to the contrary we do not see that Maintenance Inc. has the means to consistently open and maintain a channel that is 22 ½ km long (let alone any longer).  We appreciate that they are learning and employing new methods every year, however we have watched progress every year and they are still a long way off from achieving the ultimate goal, especially when considering the experiences of 2009.

Opening the channel is a good start…there is no thought to the maintenance of the open channel (i.e. keeping it open).  Most years this may not be an issue.  During critical years with long extended winter-like weather conditions…a definite must do.

Methods being used to score the ice to promote unassisted break-up once the water starts to flow are unproven and fall short of the ultimate goal as stated above.

We believe that Maintenance Inc. is doing their best with the equipment at their disposal.  They are to be commended for their efforts.

We do wonder whether Maintenance Inc is not being over extended which can result in unsafe practices.

We believe that Maintenance Inc. is under resourced for the job that needs to be done… especially during critical years when the ice is very thick and very structural, and when there is little opportunity for an extended period of natural melt before the river starts to flow (as witnessed in 2009).  A quicker, more reliable, and safer solution is required in order to consistently achieve the “ultimate goal”.

Dredging

·         Despite being identified as a required element to reduce the probability of ice jamming occurrences there is no dredging currently being done, nor is there any indication that this will occur

·         As discussed at the meeting the Amphibex’s have the capability to perform dredging activities very efficiently

·         We have the need and we have the means, we are lacking somebody with the authority and the “will” to make it happen.

Hovercrafts

·         Lets not forget the events of last March (upstream of the Lockport locks) and April (downstream of the Floodway exit at Lockport)  where nearly 30 days of ice jam flooding occurred during which time;

hundreds of volunteers  filled and placed thousands of sand bags,

temporary mobile flood (sausage) dikes were installed,

hours of photo ops with local and provincial politicians musing that no more could be done to manage the critical situation,

the settlement of Breezy Point, and their neighbours on the east side of the river, were wiped out,

certainly should suggest that it is time for new ideas and approaches to deal with these challenges.

Nobody (including Mr. Topping) is in a position to say conclusively that a hovercraft will work, or will not work, in the North Red River…it remains an unknown.

Hovercrafts are commonly used for this application in other watersheds…so why not the North Red River?

The idea of a hovercraft for Red River ice breaking applications has been a consideration within Manitoba for a long time.  Over 12 years ago an expert brought in by the province indicated that the potential for ice jams could be reduced with the use of a hovercraft and that at that time there were only two hovercrafts on the continent suitable for the job.  Twelve years later we are no closer to the answer.  Now one of these same machines is available for Manitoba trials.  If we do not act now we will still be debating this in another 12 years time, and possibly after another 4 or 5 future occurrences of ice jamming events.  A rare opportunity is being wasted.

In the event that it does work…Hallelujah!  Here, in one machine, lies the potential to achieve one critical objective of the stated ultimate goal.  The probability of future ice jamming events is suddenly greatly reduced…not only in the Selkirk region but the benefits could possibly be extended along the length of the complete Red River waterway.  This not only applies to benefits of an open channel but possibly extends to the additional benefits associated with reduced flood related pollutants in Lake Winnipeg.

The Coalition heard many reasons from Mr. Topping why this machine was not the right machine for us.  Most objections were related to the position that this was not the machine for the long term…it had too many flaws and short comings.  Let’s find out if it works first and then worry about what comes next.

The one objection from Mr. Topping that resonated was the apparent fact that the Hovercraft was not able to be delivered to Manitoba because of its size and bulk.  I doubt that all avenues have been explored…delivery from the north, south, east or west.  Hopefully where there is a “will”, there is a way…the Coalition has definitely not seen a demonstration of the “will” from this government. (A friend from the Armed Forces suggested that if the province couldn’t do it then they would.)  I think that if Manitoba really wanted to access this machine, it would have been here a long time ago.

The very disturbing piece of news that was delivered by Mr. Topping was that the Hovercraft option was off of the table as far as Manitoba was concerned.  Somebody, please explain the logic of this decision.

As pointed out at the beginning, while the meeting with Maintenance Inc did provide some useful information, the Coalition is not optimistic that anything will come of it.  I believe that Maintenance Inc will continue to do their best with what they have, but that they are destined to continuously fall short of the ultimate goals.  As long as the Provincial partner continues to make unilateral management and operating decisions with no real regard for the needs of the other partners, and fails to provide adequate resources to address ice jam mitigation in the North Red River, the problems that we witnessed in 2009 will no doubt continue for the foreseeable future.

Given the unprecedented funding that is being expended on the widening of the existing floodway to counter a flood threat in Winnipeg that has a very low probability of ever occurring, the question remains why sufficient funding has not been made available to address the very real, and all to frequently reoccurring instances of ice jam related flooding in the North Red River.  Why does the Provincial government continue to turn a blind eye to the plight of northern Red River residents, and to discount potential solutions without a fair trial?

Bruce Allen, Secretary

Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway

Dear Mr. Allan (…)

I have been asked by the Premier of Manitoba to respond to your email dated September 10, 2009 in which you express your concerns about a mitigation, flood proofing and diking program for areas of Red River North.

Following the 2009 Spring Flood, requests from Manitobans for a provincial diking and mitigation program has been common.  Permanent flood mitigation works, such as diking, are not eligible under the Federal Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangement (DFAA). However, the Government of Manitoba has proposed a cost-shared mitigation program to the Government of Canada for these sorts of projects, and we are now waiting for their response.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Government’s attention.

Steve Ashton

Minister responsible fo Emergency Measures

c.   The Honourable Greg Selinger, Premier

The Red River Floodway Act (Bill 23)

EMO’s Disaster Financial Assistance Guidelines