1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION PEMBINA VALLEY WATER COOPERATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL GROUNDWATER SUPPLY PROPOSAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FRIEDENSFELD COMMUNITY HALL FRIEDENSFELD, MANITOBA NOVEMBER 7, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Volume 1 2 APPEARANCES: CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION Mr. Terry Sargeant - Chairman Ms. Gisele Funk - Member Mr. Ian Halek - Member Mr. Kenneth Gibbon - Member Mr. Doug Smith - Report Writer Ms Cathy Johnson - Commission Secretary Ms. Joyce Mueller - Administrative Secretary PEMBINA VALLEY WATER COOPERATIVE: Mr. Sam Schellenberg - CEO Mr. Steve Wiecek Mr. Harm Maathuis PRESENTATIONS: WATER CAUCUS- MANITOBA ECO-NETWORK Mr. Glen Koroluk Ms. Kimberly Balance Mr. David Brooks Ms. Lindy Clubb Mr. Charles Scharien - RM Grey, RM Dufferin, Town of Carman, Village of St. Claude Mr. Herm Martens - RM Morris, RM Montcalm and Town of Morris 3 PRESENTATIONS: (continued) Mr. Art Petkau - RM Stanley, RM Thompson, City of Winkler, Town of Morden Mr. Bill Zacharias - Director of planning and engineering for the City of Winkler 4 INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 1 Letter from Minister to Chairman of CEC, May 26, 2006 2 Terms of Reference from the Minister of Conservation, May 2006 3 Presentation Environmental Assessment Process, Tracey Braun, Environmental Approvals and Licensing, Manitoba Conservation 4 Presentation - Pembina Valley Water Co-op by Sam Schellenberg 5 Presentation - Groundwater, by Harm Maathuis 6 Presentation- Supplemental Groundwater Supply Project, Project Hydrogeology Overview by Steve Wiecek 7 Environmental Act Proposal, Pembina Valley Water Co-op Supplemental Groundwater Supply Pipeline December 2005 8 Pembina Valley Water Co-op Groundwater Supply Pipeline, November 2005 9 Pembina Valley Water Co-op Supplemental Groundwater Supply Environmental Act Proposal information for the well and associated area, December 2005 10 Pembina Valley Water Co-op Supplemental Groundwater Supply Hydrogeologic Assessment Report, November 2005 11 Pembina Valley Water Co-op Supplemental Groundwater Supply Project Additional Information Submission, September 2006 5 INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 12 Background Study, PVWC Regional Water System Master Plan Final Report, December 2003 13 Pembina Valley Water Co-op, Expert CV Harm Maahuis 14 Pembina Valley Water Co-op Expert CV Steve Wiecek 15 Pembina Valley Water Co-op Water Conservation Plan, June 1998 16 Written Submission - Frank Render 17 Testimony of Water Caucus of Manitoba Eco-Network to Clean Environment Commission 18 Summary and recommendations 19 Pembina Valley Water Co-op, comments - Proposed Supplemental Groundwater Supply System 20 Map - Pembina Valley Water Co-op Supplemental Groundwater Supply system 21 Map - Pembina Valley Water Co-op Supplemental Groundwater Supply system 22 Map - Pembina Valley Water Co-op Supplemental Groundwater Supply system 23 Manitoba Water Caucus Expert CV David Brooks 24 Manitoba Water Caucus Expert CV Glen Koroluk 25 Manitoba Water Caucus Expert CV Kristen Bingeman 6 INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 26 Manitoba Water Caucus Expert CV Kimberly Balance 27 Booklet "The Soft Path for Water In A Nutshell," by Oliver M. Brandes and David B. Brooks. 28 Presentation - Manitoba EcoNetwork 29 Presentation - Lindy Clubb 30 Presentation - Charles Scharien - RM Grey, RM Dufferin, Village St. Claude 31 Presentation - Charles Scharien, Town of Carman 32 Presentation - Herms Martens - RM Morris, RM Franklin, Town of Morris 33 Presentation - Art Petkau - RM Stanley, Town of Morden Presentation - Bill Zacharias - City of Winkler 7 1 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006 2 UPON COMMENCING AT 9:05 3 MR. SARGEANT: Could I ask you all to 4 take your seats, please. We will start the 5 proceedings. I would like to say good morning, 6 ladies and gentlemen and welcome. 7 My name's Terry Sargeant. I'm the 8 Chair of the Clean Environment Commission, as well 9 as Chair of this panel. With me on the panel this 10 morning are on my left Ken Gibbons, to my right 11 Ian Halket and Gisele Funk. In addition to the 12 panel, I would like to introduce staff and 13 advisors who are assisting us with this review. 14 At the desk just to my left, the Commission 15 Secretary, Cathy Johnson; our report writer, Doug 16 Smith; and at the door, our Administrative 17 Secretary, Joyce Meuller. 18 I would like to call these hearings 19 officially to order. The hearings on the proposal 20 brought forward by the Pembina Valley Water 21 Co-operative. First of all, I would like to begin 22 by thanking all of the participants for their 23 involvement and the efforts they have put into the 24 process leading up to this event. 25 The purpose of CEC Hearings is to 8 1 provide an open and accessible process to allow 2 for public input into decision-making. This will 3 assist the Clean Environment Commission in 4 providing recommendations to the decision-makers 5 as to the merits of this particular proposal. 6 This, in turn, will assist decision-makers to come 7 to the correct decisions by providing diverse, 8 well-reasoned and well-informed perspective on the 9 merit of this proposal. To achieve this we will 10 strive, as much as is reasonably possible, to 11 ensure a thorough and comprehensive review. 12 The Manitoba Clean Environment 13 Commission is an arm's length agency of the 14 Province of Manitoba. We derive our authority 15 from the Manitoba Environment Act. We conduct 16 these hearings, in general, in accordance with the 17 process guidelines with respect to public 18 hearings. These guidelines help to ensure that 19 the hearings remain fair and open forums for the 20 exchange of information and ideas, and that they 21 provide full opportunity for public involvement in 22 the environmental assessment process in Manitoba. 23 We strive to be as informal as 24 possible. However, hearings in respect of complex 25 projects do require some structure. Still, 9 1 flexibility and common sense will be given 2 preference over rigid bureaucratic rules. 3 We are here today at the request of 4 the Minister of Conservation to conduct a public 5 hearing in respect of this particular proposal put 6 forward by, as I've said a moment ago, the Pembina 7 Valley Water Co-operative. This proposal is to 8 construct a water pipeline from an area to the 9 north of the community of Sandilands to a Water 10 Treatment Plant owned by the Co-op in Morris, 11 Manitoba. 12 The Commission was mandated to conduct 13 the hearings to consider the potential 14 environmental, socio-economic and cultural affects 15 of this proposal. At this point, I would like to 16 call on the Commission Secretary, Kathy Johnson, 17 to read into the record the scope of the 18 Commission's review as set out by the Minister. 19 MS. JOHNSON: This letter is dated 20 May 26, 2006 from the Minister of Conservation to 21 the Chair of the Clean Environment Commission. 22 "Dear Mr. Sargeant: 23 The Environmental Assessment and 24 Licensing Branch of my department has 25 received an Environmental Act Proposal 10 1 from the Pembina Valley Water 2 Co-operative Inc. for the development 3 of a supplemental groundwater supply 4 system for municipal water supply, 5 sourced in the Sandilands vicinities. 6 Based on the many public concerns and 7 requests for further environmental 8 review of this project, I have decided 9 that a public hearing should be 10 conducted by the Clean Environment 11 Commission. Terms of Reference for 12 the public hearing are enclosed. The 13 hearing should be conducted as soon as 14 practicable and the report on the 15 hearing should be submitted to me as 16 soon as possible following the 17 hearing. 18 Ms. Tracey Braun, Director of the 19 Environmental Assessment and Licensing 20 Branch, will coordinate department 21 participation in the hearing." 22 And I now move on to the "Scope of the Review" in 23 the "Terms of Reference": 24 "For the potential environmental 25 effects of the Proposal, the 11 1 Commission shall consider the four 2 reports associated with the Proposal, 3 and public concerns, and provide a 4 recommendation on whether an 5 Environment Act Licence should be 6 issued to the Pembina Valley Water 7 Co-operative Inc. for the project. 8 Should the Commission recommend the 9 issuance of an Environment Act Licence 10 for the Proposal, then appropriate 11 recommendations should be provided 12 respecting: 13 the potential environmental effects of 14 the proposed water withdrawals from 15 the Agassiz Sandilands Upland area 16 aquifer complex and its movements by 17 pipeline to the proposed service area; 18 measures proposed to mitigate any 19 adverse environmental effects 20 resulting from the project and where 21 appropriate, to manage any residual 22 adverse effects; and 23 future monitoring and research that 24 may be recommended in relation to the 25 project. 12 1 The Commission is requested to make 2 non-licensing recommendations on other 3 matters as appropriate. In 4 particular, recommendations on matters 5 that are regulated by other Manitoba 6 statutes should be addressed as 7 non-licensing recommendations pursuant 8 to the Environment Act. 9 The Clean Environment Commission's 10 recommendations shall incorporate, 11 consider and directly reflect, where 12 appropriate, the Principles of 13 Sustainable Development and Guidelines 14 for Sustainable Development as 15 contained in the Sustainable 16 Development Act." 17 And that's dated May 2006. 18 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. The 19 Commission is convening the hearing here in 20 Friedensfeld for two days, today and Thursday. We 21 will sit this evening to allow for presentations 22 by members of the public. There is a Schedule of 23 Proceedings available at the registration desk. 24 A few words about housekeeping issues. 25 First, members of the public wishing to make a 13 1 presentation must register at the desk. Also, if 2 you wish to receive a copy of the final report, 3 you should also register at the desk. 4 Second, a verbatim transcript of each 5 day of the proceedings will be posted on the 6 internet the morning following each session. 7 And, finally, at the conclusion of the 8 hearings, the Commission will make a report 9 containing advice and recommendations to the 10 Minister. The Environment Act allows 90 days, 11 following the closing of the hearings, for this 12 report to be submitted. Following the submission 13 of the report, the Minister will determine the 14 date upon which the report will be released to the 15 public. 16 Let me give you a quick overview of 17 the hearings and how they will proceed over today 18 and Thursday. Following my opening comments, we 19 will have a brief presentation from the Province 20 of Manitoba on their role in the Environmental 21 Review of this project. Following that, the 22 proponent, the Pembina Valley Water Co-operative, 23 will give us a comprehensive overview of their 24 proposal. This will be followed by a 25 cross-examination or questioning of the proponent 14 1 by members of the panel, as well as by the one 2 registered participant, the Water Caucus of the 3 Manitoba Eco-Network. 4 There will be -- and I expect this 5 will be a bit after lunch, there will be an 6 opportunity for members of the public to ask 7 questions of the proponent. Let me just note that 8 we will be breaking at 12, from 12 to 1 for lunch, 9 and at 5:00 until 7:00 for dinner. Neither lunch 10 nor dinner will be provided here, so you are on 11 your own for that one. 12 This afternoon, following questions, 13 the Manitoba Eco-Network will make its 14 presentation. Panel members and representatives 15 of the proponent may ask questions of the 16 participant. After supper, this evening, there 17 will be presentations by representatives of some 18 of the municipalities in this region and an 19 opportunity for some members of the public to have 20 their way. 21 Thursday will be much like this 22 evening. We will hear from municipal officials 23 and the general public. And there will also be an 24 opportunity for members of the panel to place any 25 further questions to the proponent. 15 1 And before we close off Thursday 2 afternoon, the Manitoba Eco-Network and the 3 Pembina Valley Water Co-operative will have an 4 opportunity to make final comments. 5 I should also note that all presenters 6 will be sworn in prior to giving any testimony 7 here over the next couple of days. 8 Finally, two things that I don't 9 tolerate. One is cell phones ringing. I heard 10 one dingling a little while ago. If I hear a cell 11 phone go off, I'm generally known to pick it up 12 and jump on it. I also don't tolerate any side 13 conversations while people and the Chair are 14 making presentations and questioning. If you feel 15 compelled to engage in conversations, please step 16 outside. Aside from that, let's get on with 17 business. Ms. Braun, please. 18 MR. KOROLUK: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I just 19 have a point of clarification before we start on 20 the terms of reference. 21 MR. SARGEANT: Sure. 22 MR. KOROLUK: It is said, under the 23 Scope of Review, we shall consider four reports. 24 I just want some clarification if the two 25 additional reports, one being the Pembina Valley 16 1 Water Co-operative Additional Information 2 Submission of September 2006 and the Pembina 3 Valley Water Co-operative Regional Master Plan 4 that was requested in September by the Commission, 5 are they going to be considered within the Scope 6 of Review? 7 MR. SARGEANT: They will. Thank you, 8 Mr. Koroluk. I noted that as Kathy was reading 9 the Terms of Reference, the comments about four. 10 These Terms of Reference were written up at a time 11 when there were four initial reports. Subsequent 12 to the Commission's review and the panel members' 13 review, we sought further information. So those 14 two reports that you specifically identified, and 15 any other information that we would have received 16 from the Pembina Valley Water Co-operative in the 17 ensuing weeks and months, they are all on the 18 table today and will be considered by the panel. 19 MR. KOROLUK: Thanks. 20 MR. SARGEANT: Ms. Braun. 21 MS. BRAUN: Good morning. Can 22 everybody hear me? My name is Tracey Braun. I'm 23 the Director of the Environmental Assessment and 24 Licensing Branch for Manitoba Conservation. 25 MR. SARGEANT: Technology is wonderful 17 1 when it works. 2 MS. BRAUN: Sorry for that delay 3 there. I am Tracey Braun. As I mentioned, I am 4 the Director of the Environmental Assessment and 5 Licensing Branch for Manitoba Conservation. And I 6 am here this morning to present to you a brief 7 summary of the process which was followed under 8 the Environment Act for the Pembina Valley Water 9 Co-operative Supplemental Groundwater Supply 10 System Project. 11 I basically organized my presentation 12 as follows. I am going to give a brief overview 13 of the chronology focusing on key milestone dates 14 that happened. I am going to provide a summary of 15 the public consultation process, a summary of the 16 responses that our branch received as part of this 17 process. And then I'm going to recap with some 18 post-hearing steps for Manitoba Conservation, what 19 we're going to be doing when this hearing closes 20 on Thursday. 21 Okay, the chronology of the process. 22 As is our normal process, and I have listed that 23 here, we received an Environment Act Proposal from 24 the proponent on December 14, 2005. And as we 25 normally do, we assigned it to a Branch Technical 18 1 Coordinator Project Manager. And for this 2 particular project, that person is Bruce Webb. 3 And you will see him at the front desk. He will 4 be here with me during the hearing for this 5 project. 6 We distributed the proponent's 7 submission to our Technical Advisory Committee on 8 December 19th. And that Technical Advisory 9 Committee consists of members of the Provincial 10 Government. And have I listed them out here, 11 agriculture, food and rural initiatives; 12 conservation; culture and tourism; health; 13 transportation and government services; industry 14 and mines; intergovernmental affairs and trade; 15 water stewardship; and Seine-Rat River 16 Conservation District. We also sent the proposal 17 out to our Federal agencies through the Canadian 18 Environmental Assessment office. 19 MR. GIBBONS: Ms. Braun, if you could 20 click on slide show there, we could get a bigger 21 view of the slides. Just click it and it will 22 advance. 23 MS. BRAUN: Anyway, the last goal I 24 also wanted to say that circulating it through the 25 Federal agency is part of our Manitoba-Canada 19 1 agreement on Environmental Assessment cooperation. 2 The project was advertised in the 3 Emerson Southeast Journal on January 14, 2006; 4 and, also the Steinbach Carillon on January 5, 5 2006. 6 It was placed in the following public 7 registries: Main Street Library of Manitoba 8 Conservation, Manitoba Eco-Network, the Winnipeg 9 Public Library, and the Jake Epp Public Library in 10 Steinbach. Copies were provided to the Rural 11 Municipalities of Piney, La Broquerie, Hanover, De 12 Salaberry and Morris. 13 The deadline for the public and TAC 14 comments was January 30, 2006. We do normally 15 give a 30-day period for that review. In this 16 particular case, we extended it to February 6, 17 2006 because we missed the cut-off date for one of 18 the local newspapers, so we wanted to make sure 19 that we gave that extra time. 20 As a result of the Public Review, we 21 received 27 submissions. One was from the 22 Seine-Rat River Conservation District. We had the 23 letter from the Buffalo Point First Nation, four 24 rural municipalities filed submissions. The City 25 of Steinbach. We had four other non-government 20 1 organizations. We had numerous private citizens. 2 And we had a petition. And throughout that, there 3 were numerous requests for a public hearing. 4 In terms of the TAC comments, we 5 received comments from 7 provincial agencies and 6 two federal. There was no additional information, 7 technical information, that was required from the 8 proponent in order to address those TAC comments. 9 All public and TAC comments were placed in the 10 public registries on February 16, 2006. 11 A summary of the public concerns that 12 were raised: Aquifer sustainability, the 13 withdrawal impacts, water demands and use, and 14 that's for present and futures, and then the 15 relationship of the project with other water 16 management policies and projects. 17 After assessing all of this 18 information, the Minister of Conservation 19 requested that the Clean Environment Commission 20 hold public hearings. And he made that request on 21 May 26, 2006. The Terms of Reference were 22 provided to the Commission. And we heard those 23 earlier this morning. And the Environmental 24 Assessment and Licensing Branch notified all of 25 the public participants about the hearing on 21 1 June 2, 2006. And then subsequently, at that 2 point, the CEC process commenced leading to the 3 hearing here today. 4 So then what happens, well, from an 5 Environmental Assessment and Licensing Branch 6 perspective, we attend the hearing today and on 7 Thursday. And we will await the presentation of 8 the Commission's report on this hearing to the 9 Minister. And based on the results of that 10 report, a licensing decision would be made. If 11 there are recommendations that are not followed, 12 notification must be given to the Commission about 13 that. Notification will also be given to the 14 public participants. And then all of this 15 information will be placed on the public 16 registries. 17 And so, basically, that concludes my 18 presentation this morning. And I would like to 19 thank the Commission for the opportunity today to 20 make this presentation. I look forward to the 21 hearing, and receiving the CEC report. Thank you. 22 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you, Ms. Braun. 23 Mr. Schellenberg, would you and your group take 24 the stage? 25 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, while 22 1 these gentlemen are playing with the technology 2 again, I would like to read into the record the 3 exhibits. Exhibit Number 1 will be the letter 4 from the Minister. Exhibit Number 2 will be the 5 Terms of Reference. And Exhibit 3 is Tracey's 6 presentation. 7 8 (EXHIBIT 1: Letter dated May 6, 2006 9 from the Minister) 10 11 (EXHIBIT 2: Terms of Reference) 12 13 (EXHIBIT 3: Ms. Braun's Environmental 14 Assessment Process Presentation) 15 MR. SARGEANT: You seem to have better 16 technology out there in the private sector than we 17 have. It works at first. 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chairman, and Commission and ladies and 20 gentlemen. 21 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. Schellenberg, I 22 would like each of to you state your names for the 23 record and then I will ask Ms. Johnson to swear 24 you in. 25 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Fine. I'm Sam 23 1 Schellenberg, the Chief Executive Officer from the 2 Pembina Valley Water Co-operative. 3 MR. MAATHUIS: My name is Harm 4 Maathuis. I'm a hydrogeologist. 5 MR. WIECEK: My name is Steve Wiecek. 6 MS. JOHNSON: Gentlemen, do you know 7 that it is an offence in Manitoba to knowingly 8 mislead this Commission? 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: We do. 10 MR. MAATHUIS: We do. 11 MR. WIECEK: We do. 12 MS. JOHNSON: Do you promise to tell 13 only the truth during this Commission? 14 MR. SCHELLENBERG: We do. 15 MR. MAATHUIS: We do. 16 MR. WIECEK: We do. 17 MR. SCHELLENBERG, MR. MAATHUIS, MR. WIECEK: SWORN 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Starting, 19 Mr. Chairman, we had to change projectors for our 20 display, so that was the delay. 21 Good morning, gentlemen. I will be 22 presenting the first part of this presentation, 23 and giving you the background to the request, and 24 giving you background and information related to 25 the Water Co-op. And then we will move into the 24 1 hydrogeology, which will be handled by my 2 colleagues at the front table. 3 So we will move forward with the basic 4 information first and take it from there. The 5 Pembina Valley Water Co-operative was incorporated 6 in 1991, and is owned and operated by 18 municipal 7 governments. And those are the towns of Altona, 8 Carman, Gretna, Morden, Morris, Plum Coulee and 9 Emerson. It includes the City of Winkler, the 10 Village of St. Claude. And the Rural 11 Municipalities of Dufferin, Franklin, Grey, 12 Montcalm, Morris, Rhineland, Roland, Stanley and 13 Thompson. 14 The mandate for the Water Co-op is to 15 provide treated/potable water to its members. And 16 the Co-op is governed by a board of 18 members 17 made up of each of those owners. It operates like 18 a private sector company from a governance and 19 accountability perspective. However, it is a 20 municipal entity and, as such, is tax exempt and 21 is also non-profit. 22 To give you some background as to the 23 start of the Pembina Valley Water Co-operative, it 24 grew out of the Pembina Valley Water Task Force, 25 which was established in 1988. And this Task 25 1 Force, as many of you may recall, 1988 was a 2 period of very low water levels, and in many areas 3 drought. And the Task Force was asked to address 4 water shortages in the region. Initially, there 5 was about six or seven municipalities that came 6 together, that grew to 12, to address this issue. 7 In this pursuit, they were assisted by 8 federal, provincial and private sector consultants 9 addressing water needs for initially the 50 year 10 horizon. They then reduced that to 20 years, 11 which was considered to be more realistic, 12 especially after encountering some concern related 13 to the length of the 50 year horizon. 14 The Federal and Provincial Government, 15 by the way, provided a Technical Advisory 16 Committee to this function. They then delivered a 17 400 plus page report in February of 1991 at the 18 Morris Stampede Centre. And that was delivered to 19 both Federal and Provincial cabinet people and 20 department heads. And the proposal then underwent 21 extensive CEC review in 1993 and '94, culminating 22 in environmental and water rights licensing for 23 the Pembina Valley Water Co-operative's existing 24 system. 25 In our existing system, the Pembina 26 1 Valley Water Co-operative owns the water treatment 2 plants and the pipelines and the ability to 3 distribute to our members. Our three water 4 treatment plants are located in Letellier, Morris 5 and Stephenfield. The Letellier and Morris plants 6 are on the Red River. Letellier produces 100 7 litres per second. Morris produces 35 lps. And 8 Stephenfield, which is on Lake Stephenfield at the 9 park, which is, of course, right by the Boyne 10 River, produces 25 litres per second. 11 Our service area covers 3,500 square 12 miles. We serve a population base of 45,000 plus. 13 And in using our numbers, I should add that it 14 would be nice to have the new consensus numbers 15 available to us. Technically, they should be. 16 But for all practical purposes, they are not. 17 This is, in fact, our distribution 18 network. There we go. We serve an area up from 19 St. Claude, which is our furthest extremity in 20 terms of the north and west. Dominion City, a 21 little east of Dominion City is the eastern border 22 right now. And, of course, we serve Sperling and 23 Rosenort, both in the RM of Morris. The Water 24 Treatment Plant in Morris is located here on the 25 Red River. This is Letellier. And Stephenfield 27 1 is up here. 2 The major centers that we provide 3 water to are, of course: Altona, the City of 4 Winkler, partially to the Town of Morden, Carman. 5 That's where the distribution center is, here in 6 Carman, and to the municipalities in this area. 7 On the handouts, it will be clearer for you. The 8 colours delineate the size of the lines which we 9 use. And I should add, again, these are the major 10 pipelines. This is what we need to distribute the 11 water to our members. 12 We also own the Roland reservoir, by 13 example, which helps us to balance supplies to 14 Winkler and into Miami. We own the booster 15 stations and the pressure reduction stations. We 16 need pressure reduction coming down from 17 Stephenfield to Carman and into Sperling. And, of 18 course, we have to boost pressure up from the Red 19 River, heading towards Winkler and other 20 communities further west. The system works very 21 well, and it provides water as required. 22 In our licensing, and as a matter of 23 good natural resource management, all of the 24 region's existing supplies are used to their 25 sustainable yield. And this means that Morden 28 1 uses Lake Minnewasta for 90 percent of its supply. 2 The City of Winkler is using, at the present time, 3 the Winkler Aquifer for 60 percent. And Carman 4 withdraws 65 percent of its supply from the Boyne 5 River. 6 The Pembina Valley Water Co-operative 7 is a user-pay wholesale supply system. There is 8 no municipal development in our Co-operation. 9 Water pricing includes principle and interest, 10 operations, maintenance and delivery costs. In 11 other words, it includes all of the costs. 12 And the wholesale cost is the same for 13 all of our members. And at the present time, it 14 is $5.40/1,000 gallons. And that is the 2006 15 price. And there are no volume discounts. There 16 is no declining scale. 17 Our municipal members distribute water 18 to their customers. And I know that from some of 19 the questions we receive, municipal is not always 20 clearly understood. Every one of our members is a 21 municipal entity, if you would. We have rural 22 municipalities. But the City of Winkler is also a 23 municipal entity. And for that matter, so is the 24 City of Winnipeg. 25 Our price, the end price, varies, by 29 1 the way, from $6.50 to $10/1,000 gallons, 2 depending on which municipality is distributing 3 and what their actual costs are. By comparison, 4 the City of Winnipeg charges $4.46 with volume 5 discounts. And the City of Portage La Prairie 6 starts at $3.80/1,000 gallons and decreases to 7 $1.02 for usage over one million gallons, which is 8 a fairly dramatic price. And one wonders if that 9 covers the cost of operations. They must be a lot 10 more efficient than we are. 11 Water consumption rates the City of 12 Winkler is at 268 litres per person per day, and 13 that is the "all in" number. The Town of Altona, 14 which is our highest number, is 373 litres per 15 person per day. And there I make a note that 16 Bunge, the canola crushing plant, which produces 17 cooking oil, uses 40 percent of this supply. If 18 you take Bunge out of the formula, their usage is 19 240 l/p/d. And rurally, including livestock, it 20 changes from 199 l/p/d to 235 l/p/d for our nine 21 rural municipal members. And by comparison, the 22 City of Winnipeg is at 361 l/p/d and the City of 23 Portage la Prairie is at 428 l/p/d. 24 Our water budget. This is the total 25 water which was distributed by the Co-op in a 30 1 12-month period, from October '05 to October '06, 2 and it is an exact number. I should perhaps give 3 you some background in terms of litring. Every 4 gallon that leaves the Water Treatment Plant is 5 metered. Every gallon that enters one of our 6 municipalities is metered. Every gallon that 7 enters the community is metered. And so we have a 8 very exact reading on what is consumed and by 9 whom. And we, obviously, need that for billing 10 purposes. It is also a good system to have in 11 terms of making sure that you recognize leakage, 12 in the event that it shows up. 13 So our total of water produced for 14 that one-year period, that 12-month period is 15 700,470,372 gallons. Used by industry, basically 16 10 percent, 68 million plus. And the industrial 17 use in our region is fairly minimal. And wet 18 industry is something we, obviously, cannot 19 consider. So one of the largest uses would be 20 Bunge in Altona. 21 Used by the agricultural industry, it 22 is 12 percent, 82 million gallons. And I know 23 this number has been questioned. And based on 24 other information, other projections that have 25 been provided, particularly as it relates to the 31 1 Cochrane report, this is the actual number. And 2 this includes the hog industries that are attached 3 to our system, that got provided by our system. 4 And the potato industry where washing is a big 5 factor in terms of demand. It includes any other 6 larger users for agricultural purposes. And we 7 have pulled them out. 8 And used by our municipalities, it's 9 eight percent. And, again, I should explain that 10 this is, in fact, the water that they used in the 11 municipality to fill the swimming pools, to make 12 the ice in the rink, to clean the streets, if 13 that's what they do with it. And it also includes 14 fire protection, anything that's used in fire 15 protection. And anything that is lost. And 16 losses, given our system and the way it's set up, 17 are readily and easily tabulated. That's eight 18 percent. 19 And domestic use is the remainder, the 20 70 percent. And domestic use is what is used in 21 the home and on the yard by the 45,000 plus people 22 that we serve at home or in part. 23 Growth and future demand. The region 24 grew 9.8 percent in population from 1990 to 2000. 25 We are suggesting that this growth rate is going 32 1 to continue. In other material that we provided, 2 we also added that in both Winkler, and in the 3 Rural Municipality of Stanley, it is going to be 4 faster and higher than that. And we will receive 5 further information on that later on, but 6 generally this is our projection. 7 The growth and water demand will 8 reflect this growth factor of, say, 10 percent. 9 And we suggest the per capita consumption, 10 however, will decline over time. And I think 11 everyone else, including the City of Winnipeg, is 12 also suggesting this. And this is related to 13 efficiencies, which we can now gain from 14 front-load washers, from other water efficient 15 devices which are coming into play in terms of our 16 homes. And it is going to bring down the demand. 17 Water conservation, this is a critical 18 component of our supply system. It was first 19 addressed in the Task Force Report in 1991. And 20 then it was prepared for the public record in 1996 21 and 1997, which was a condition of our licensing, 22 by the way. It is reviewed on a regular basis. 23 It was most recently reviewed and 24 reinforced in 2003, when we produced additional 25 brochures bringing up-to-date the water saving 33 1 devices and water-saving measures that could be 2 taken. And we also launched a radio advertising 3 program at that time, which was fairly extensive. 4 And we reviewed it again and talked to our public 5 this year when, in May, June, especially, we had 6 heavy demand on water and needed to have that cut 7 back somewhat. And the public does respond. 8 However, I would say that the user-pay pricing is 9 probably the key element in any water conservation 10 plan. And it is certainly a key element in our 11 case. 12 The Water Conservation Plan that we 13 put on the record back in '96, '97 recommended a 14 Provincial Plan with priorities, Provincial 15 priorities. And perhaps providing a template that 16 the rest of us in the province could follow and, 17 hopefully, would provide a challenge to all of us. 18 Because in terms of water conservation, we can all 19 do more. And this is something that needs to be 20 encouraged. 21 In our own case, in terms of the 22 agricultural usage, they are using considerably 23 less than projected. They are using alternate 24 supplies, wherever they can. And this is probably 25 due to economics. It has, in no small measure, a 34 1 lot to do with our pricing. They are using 2 technology, which is changing things both in the 3 barns, and certainly on the field, in terms of 4 high-tech sprayers which are able to do spot 5 spraying much more efficiently on a computer model 6 basis. And they are using common sense in terms 7 of filling their tanks in their yards overnight in 8 off-peak periods which provides some real savings 9 for us. 10 The domestic users are in line with 11 expectations. Water saving, water efficient 12 fixtures, are used in new construction and 13 renovations. And they are entering the Codes that 14 are applicable in the municipalities that we 15 serve. And building inspectors, of course, are 16 now common and very active in all of our regions. 17 These measures are encouraged by the 18 Municipal Governments, who also restrict lawn 19 watering in much of our region, and use other 20 common sense approaches to water conservation. 21 And our municipal users, meanwhile, are 22 controlling peak demands and doing so fairly 23 effectively for us. And they are also on top of 24 leakage, which is a critical factor, but one that 25 can't be neglected when you pay for every gallon, 35 1 as they do. 2 And our industrial users, the demand 3 has not grown on an industrial base, as there are 4 no volume discounts. And we do not and cannot 5 support wet industry. That's just a few comments 6 on water conservation. 7 So why are we here? We have requested 8 Environmental and Water Rights Licensing for a 9 well and pipeline with the capacity of 50 litres 10 per second. And that begs the question: What is 11 the rationale for the Sandilands supply? We have 12 a large and growing dependence on the Red River. 13 We have no opportunity for increased supplies from 14 the Boyne River, Stephenfield Lake Reservoir, or 15 other local sources. And all of our present 16 sources are extremely drought sensitive. And the 17 dam on the Red River is, at the present time, our 18 only resource in a drought emergency. And I might 19 suggest that that is viewed rather dimly by many 20 authorities, but it is the only solution that we 21 have at the present time. 22 More specifically to Red River 23 concerns, there is no minimum flow agreement 24 between Canada and the U.S., nor is there likely 25 to be one. And certainly if you are going to ask 36 1 Government: Are you talking or are you 2 considering this? They are probably going to say: 3 Yes. But the reality of the situation is it ain't 4 going to happen. The Boundary Water Treaty Act 5 provides no security. The U.S., North Dakota, 6 Fargo and Grand Forks, in particular, are very 7 dependent on the Red River for their water supply. 8 And that's a growing dependence, as they have 9 growing communities that require the supply. And 10 they share our concern regarding drought and are 11 taking measures. 12 And to demonstrate that, here is one 13 which is taken out of their draft Environmental 14 Impact Statement. It was also in their final 15 Environmental Impact Statement. The highlighting 16 is mine. This pipeline, which they are proposing, 17 would capture Red River flows downstream of Grand 18 Forks and re-circulate it back to Lake Ashtabula, 19 which is on the Sheyenne River and feed it back 20 for their usage. When this was presented at one 21 of their public hearings, I asked the question: 22 What would the flow be across the Red River when 23 you put this into place? And I was told that it 24 would be eight cubic feet per second. And that is 25 barely a dribble. 37 1 The last time around, when we had dry 2 periods, they were concerned about providing water 3 to Pembina. That is alleviated because they can 4 run a pipeline to Neche. And that is groundwater 5 supply and that comes from quite a distance west. 6 This is what the river looked like in 7 1910. In 1936, that's the bottom of the river. 8 This is 1970. And this is 1988. And in 1988, the 9 Mayor of Morris, who is in the audience, walked 10 across the river himself in regular boots. And he 11 will be happy to tell about it if you corner him 12 over coffee. 13 And in 1988 the Province had to go, 14 hat in hand, specifically to the U.S., 15 specifically North Dakota, and request additional 16 releases from their impoundments. And those 17 impoundments include Lake Traverse and Red Lake. 18 At the time, they cooperated. And we were given 19 what usually amounted to 32 cubic feet per second. 20 And at that time, the only plant that we had on 21 the Red River was at 32 litres per second, which 22 is an awful lot less than we have right now. 23 I am suggesting that a similar request 24 today would get a frosty response, given the 25 relations between Manitoba and North Dakota, as 38 1 reflected in the number of water-related disputes 2 between them, and demonstrated by the cases of 3 litigation presently before the courts on both 4 sides of the border. 5 So given that that's the scenario, and 6 bear in mind that the area we serve is the second 7 largest next to the City of Winnipeg, this growing 8 diversified industrial base provides employment, 9 not just in the region, but west, north and east 10 of it. And by example, we have busloads of 11 employees coming in from Winnipeg to Rosenort 12 every morning and going back every evening. And 13 we have, certainly, commuters coming in from 14 considerably east of our area and also west. 15 With much of our economic activity 16 being export oriented, the region brings new 17 dollars to the province and provides a significant 18 tax base. Given the important role that it plays 19 provincially, and given its growing population 20 base, to leave this area dependent on an uncertain 21 U.S. supply of water is not prudent when this 22 supply can be supplemented from Manitoba 23 resources. 24 And this brings us to the specifics of 25 the proposal. We are proposing a well north of 39 1 the Sandilands, and that is on the overhead right 2 there. And we are then proposing to run the 3 pipeline in disturbed right of ways, highway right 4 of ways, down 404 to 12, across to St. Malo, down 5 59 to La Rochell, and down 23 to Morris. There 6 will be more information on this in the next 7 presentation. 8 Environmental mitigation and 9 management practices. 98 percent of the pipeline 10 route is disturbed right of way. All legislation 11 and regulations will be adhered to as it relates 12 to wildlife, wildlife habitat and fisheries 13 concerns. Stream crossings and other sensitive 14 areas will be completed using horizontal 15 directional drilling to install the pipeline. And 16 this is a technology that has matured. And it is 17 certainly a technology of choice for us in many 18 other areas as well. And the pipeline route was 19 chosen to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. 20 And if you look at that previous schematic, you 21 will see that there was a more direct route, but 22 we decided not to take that. 23 That concludes my initial comments 24 related to background. I am now going to be 25 turning it over to my colleagues at the table. 40 1 And they are going to be addressing the -- they 2 are going to be the addressing the hydrogeology. 3 They will talk to you in detail about the well and 4 about the aquifer. 5 With me, and speaking first, will be 6 Harm Maathuis. Harm Maathuis received his Master 7 of Science Degree in hydrogeology from Vrije 8 University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. And 9 since 1976, he has worked as a hydrogeologist for 10 the Saskatchewan Research Council. His experience 11 includes local and regional hydrogeological site 12 characterizations, contaminant hydrogeology, 13 groundwater monitoring, network design, reviews of 14 monitoring data, groundwater observation, well 15 networks and so on. He is going to provide an 16 overall background for you. 17 And he will be followed by Steve 18 Wiecek, who is going to be talking about the 19 specifics in greater detail. Steve's background 20 is a Bachelor of Science in geology and a Bachelor 21 of Science in geological engineering from the 22 University of Manitoba. And since 1982, he has 23 been a practicing geoscientist and geological 24 engineer. And his areas of practice include 25 geological engineering, environmental geology and 41 1 hydrogeology. 2 So, Harm, I am going to pass this over 3 to you and then to Steve to take it from here. 4 MR. MAATHUIS: If you don't mind, 5 Mr. Chairman, and everybody can hear me, I 6 probably prefer to stand and talk. It is a little 7 bit easier. 8 MS. JOHNSON: Excuse me just one 9 second. We need you to use the mike because the 10 transcriber can't hear you without it. 11 MR. SARGEANT: No. We have a 12 walk-around mike. 13 MR. MAATHUIS: I can do it like this, 14 too. 15 MR. SARGEANT: We can give you a 16 walk-around mike that you can just clip to your 17 lapel, if you wish. 18 MR. MAATHUIS: Okay. Can everybody 19 hear me? We will talk about the groundwater 20 supply. So I will give a kind of general, very 21 brief overview of what groundwater actually is. 22 And what do we in terms of groundwater 23 investigations, how do we go about it? 24 My outline will include a little 25 description about what groundwater is, the 42 1 geological investigations related to groundwater 2 investigations. We need to go through a number of 3 definitions, and the number of data we collect as 4 part of our investigations. 5 We, of course, have to talk about well 6 yields. And when we talk about well yields, we 7 need to talk about a few properties which are 8 important for people doing the groundwater 9 investigations. 10 So what is groundwater? Groundwater 11 is something we stand on every day. We walk on it 12 every day. It is the water below the surface of 13 the ground where the sediments are being 14 saturated. On ground level we have three zones 15 there. The upper few metres below us are 16 unsaturated, which means that between the 17 particles -- that not all of the space between the 18 particles is occupied by water. And then up to 19 certain depths, everything is saturated and there 20 is no air between the particles. 21 To give an example, here are some 22 sands. The sand grains, if it is saturated, the 23 groundwater and all of these pore spaces are being 24 filled with water. You can also think about 25 granite, or limestone, fractured then the water 43 1 will be in the fractures, but not necessarily in 2 the rock itself. Some areas you can have 3 limestone. You can have solution channels and 4 there can be lots of water in those kinds of 5 channels. 6 Now, how do we go about doing a 7 groundwater investigation? Any information about 8 the surface, the only way to get it, or the most 9 common way to get it, is testhole drilling. You 10 go out with a rig and you drill a hole. And you 11 can did do it over a particular area. You look at 12 the kind of holes which have been drilled in the 13 past. As well, you drill some additional holes in 14 the area of interest. 15 And then you want to have a 2 or 3D 16 kind of idea of what the geology is. And you 17 establish that with the cross-section. The 18 cross-section is nothing else than a kind of 19 vertical slice through the earth's surface. 20 Anyway, this is a geological cross-section. What 21 it shows are the different geological layers. In 22 this case, we have an upper sands. We have a 23 silt. We have a lower sand. We have a sandstone. 24 And then deeper down we have rocks. 25 But aquifers are sand and gravels, 44 1 sandstone and fractured rock. Now, we are talking 2 about something that has water in there. You can 3 take that water out. So there is another word 4 which is called aquitard. And an aquitard is also 5 a saturated geological unit. And it allows for 6 water to flow through, but not in quantities 7 sufficient that you can put a well in and make it 8 have a water supply. Aquitards are formed by 9 tills. Tills are sediments deposited by glaciers, 10 very tight. Silts, clays, shales and, of course, 11 unfractured rock, you can't get too much out of 12 those. 13 Now, in addition to those basic 14 definitions of aquifer and aquitard, there are two 15 other concepts you should know about. And we 16 classify aquifers. And the basic clarification is 17 we have unconfined aquifers and semi-confined 18 aquifers. Now, essentially as to what the 19 definition says, in an unconfined aquifer, you 20 have the sand. This is the whole thickness of the 21 sand. It is, in part, saturated. And here we 22 have the water table. So at the bottom there is 23 an aquitard. But at the top, the water level is 24 formed by the water table. 25 In contrast, in a semi-confined 45 1 aquifer, we have essentially a water bearing zone, 2 sandwiched between two layers which are relatively 3 tight. The whole aquifer is saturated. But in 4 this case, the water level in the aquifer is above 5 the top of the aquifer. And we call it 6 semi-confined because, as we saw before, there is 7 still flow possible in aquitards. 8 So here we have the geological 9 cross-section. Here the geological cross-section 10 is translated into a hydrogeological 11 cross-section. The setting is geological. And in 12 this case, an unconfined aquifer. The sands here 13 form an aquifer. And because they are sandwiched 14 between silts and clays, which form -- and tills 15 which form an aquitard, we have a semi-confined 16 aquifer. The aquifers down here are also 17 semi-confined. Now I have talked about aquifers 18 and aquitards and what they are. 19 Geological settings are often quite 20 complex and, therefore, hydrogeological settings 21 are often quite complex. In the upper case, we 22 have one geological unit. But then there are 23 geological units in our areas that are pure 24 aquifers and others are aquitards. The whole 25 Sandilands complex kind of represents this. And 46 1 there areas that are aquifers and there are areas 2 where there are no aquifers. Conversely, you can 3 have complex formations, geological formations, 4 which all consist of sands and they form one 5 hydrogeological unit. 6 One of the more important things in 7 hydrogeology is what do you learn from the very 8 simple measurement of water levels. Now, to give 9 you a basic understanding of what a water level 10 is, you have a well in the ground. At a certain 11 depth, you know the elevation of the top of your 12 well. You can measure the depth of your water, so 13 you can determine the water level elevation. 14 Why are water level elevations 15 important to us? Now, here I have an aquifer. I 16 have two wells. The water level in this well is 17 higher than that well, so there is a water level 18 difference. We also know the distance between 19 those wells. 20 And then we can determine, it is a 21 kind of A divided by B, an hydraulic gradient, 22 which is the difference in water level between 23 here and here divided by the distance. Why is the 24 hydraulic radiant important to us? It tells us 25 something about where the groundwater is flowing, 47 1 in which direction. It also, if we know the 2 properties of the aquifer, tells us a little bit 3 about the amount of flow. 4 It is very basic that an aquifer's 5 flow tends to be horizontal. And in this slide, 6 it either can go this way and that way. In 7 aquitards, because they are so tight, the flow can 8 either be upwards or downwards. 9 Now, we have a certain aquifer where 10 we are doing our investigations. And you have got 11 a number of points for which you have water level 12 data. Now, then you can construct very simply 13 lines, by the water level, a certain value. Now, 14 why that is important? The direction of flow is 15 perpendicular to those lines where the water level 16 rises to the same elevation. 17 You can do that also in 18 three-dimensional, three dimensionally, if you 19 have wells at various depths. And, ultimately, 20 you get to a kind of a picture that gives you a 21 kind of global idea of the flow of groundwater. 22 In this case, and this comes from a USGS 23 publication. We have an unconfined aquifer. We 24 have two semi-confined aquifers. You can see that 25 the water drop in here can go either to this creek 48 1 here, or it can go down, or it can go even further 2 down. And it really depends on the pathway the 3 water droplet takes, you know, how long it will be 4 in the underground. Essentially, any drop that 5 gets to the water table, at some point in time 6 will end up back to the ground's surface. 7 We have to talk a little bit about the 8 yield of a well because that's what it is all 9 about. The yield of a well is dependent on a few 10 very basic properties. And maybe I will go 11 through them relatively quickly. Transmissivity 12 is indicated by the letter "T", and I will explain 13 what it is. Storage coefficient, aquitard 14 properties, you know, obviously, intuitively you 15 know that if you have a relatively semi-confined 16 aquifer, probably the yield of the well depends a 17 little bit about -- it depends on the 18 characteristics of the overlaying and the 19 underlaying aquitards. It depends also on the 20 available drawdown. The available drawdown 21 essentially is the area at the top of the aquifer. 22 In the aquifer, the water level rises to this 23 level, so this difference is the available 24 drawdown. So a little bit more abstract now on 25 some very basic definitions, but a basic 49 1 understanding is required to follow what is coming 2 next. 3 An unconfined aquifer. Now, an 4 unconfined aquifer -- oh, I did something wrong 5 here. I hope I don't have to go back totally. 6 Sorry about that, my mistake. Okay. In an 7 unconfined aquifer, if you put a well in there and 8 you start pumping, then the pores between the sand 9 gradients drain, and that's where you get your 10 water from. 11 In a semi-confined aquifer it is a 12 little bit different. It is rather quite complex. 13 But it comes, in part, from expansion of water and 14 because we have a load on the aquifer, compression 15 of the aquifer. 16 The important thing here is for you to 17 remember that if you have a well in an unconfined 18 aquifer, you get for the same amount of water 19 level drop. So, for example, if you drop, for 20 example, one metre, you get a hell of a lot more 21 water out of an unconfined aquifer compared to a 22 semi-confined aquifer. 23 One of the most important properties 24 in groundwater is referred to as hydraulic 25 conductivity, a kind of difficult word, but a very 50 1 simple concept. Here we have a cross-section of 2 an aquifer overlain by an aquitard. Now, we take 3 a little block out of here. And that block is one 4 metre high by one metre wide. And we apply an 5 hydraulic gradient of one metre. So everything is 6 1, 1, 1, 1. And then gets you the hydraulic 7 conductivity. The volume of water that will move 8 through a porous medium, so we have the sand here, 9 and a unit time, for example a day, under a unit 10 hydraulic gradient -- hydraulic gradient was the 11 difference in water level divided by distance of 12 one -- through a unit area. We have here an area 13 which is 1 X 1. So it is a very basic property of 14 groundwater. It tells us something about the flow 15 which can get through there. 16 Now, here we looked at this little 17 piece. But, in fact, we are dealing with the 18 whole aquifer. And there's where the word 19 transmissivity comes in. And transmissivity is 20 something that Steve will talk about later. 21 Transmissivity is the rate of flow under a unit 22 hydraulic gradient -- so we are still dealing with 23 a unit hydraulic gradient -- through a 24 cross-section of unit T over the thickness of the 25 aquifer, so hydraulic conductivity applies to 51 1 here. If the thickness of the aquifer is "b", 2 then the transmissivity is just the hydraulic 3 conductivity times the thickness of the aquifer. 4 Relatively quite simple concepts. 5 Now, what we're really after is 6 knowing how much flow is going through a 7 particular aquifer. And this was established in 8 the 19th Century by a Frenchman called Mr. Darcy. 9 It's a very simple A x B x C. What do I need to 10 know? I need to know, kind of, the area. I need 11 to know what your hydraulic conductivity is and 12 what your head difference is. See, the water 13 levels here are different than what the distance 14 is. So the flow through an aquifer is nothing 15 else than your hydraulic conductivity, times your 16 area, times your hydraulic head difference. 17 Now, I talked about these properties. 18 So the question is, how do you determine these 19 kind of properties? Now, you do that by 20 conducting a pump test. What is a pump test? A 21 pump test is very simple. You have a production 22 well over here from which you can pump water. And 23 within your hydrogeological setting, you put in 24 monitoring wells to measure the drawdown caused by 25 the pumping. And you can analyze those data and 52 1 get your basic information on your hydraulic 2 properties. 3 Now, what is happening when you start 4 pumping? We start out here with a semi-confined 5 aquifer. Here is an aquitard and an aquifer, and 6 then you have a level here. The water level in 7 the aquifer is similar over here. Now, in order 8 to pump, you have to take out some water to start 9 with, to get things going. So after a certain 10 point in time, when they start pumping, the water 11 level in the well drops. And away from the well 12 and the aquifer it drops, as well, but not as 13 much, obviously, as in the pumping well. 14 This here, this line, is referred to 15 as the drawdown cone. It tells you how far your 16 impact of pumping will be. So within the aquifer, 17 there is flow towards the well, but there is also 18 some additional downward flow through the 19 overlaying aquitard. 20 Now, sustainability is something that 21 you want to achieve. And in terms of groundwater, 22 it is that the drawdown doesn't change any more 23 with time. So if I go back one, I started out 24 with an a drawdown cone, you know, that is 25 relatively small and then, over time, the drawdown 53 1 drops a little bit. What you want to achieve is 2 that the drawdown cone doesn't extend over time 3 anymore. Then you are at the situation that all 4 of the water you have pumped essentially comes 5 from additional recharge to the aquifer. In other 6 words, at that point, you have developed stable 7 conditions again. 8 And, finally, in hydrogeology, of 9 course, water quality is also always an issue. 10 And taking groundwater samples for chemical 11 analyses is always part and parcel of groundwater 12 investigations. So I will leave it at this, and 13 hopefully you have a little better understanding 14 of what groundwater is and why we do things. 15 MR. SARGEANT: Can I interrupt now? 16 We would like to take a short break. And we will 17 come back perhaps in about -- it is just before 18 quarter after. So let's come back about 25 after, 19 about 12 minutes. 20 (Proceedings recessed at 10:15 and reconvened at 21 10:25 a.m.) 22 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Adjusted the lighting 24 as much as we can, so hopefully it will help you 25 to see the screen a little better. Mr. Wiecek. 54 1 MR. WIECEK: Mr. Chairman, members of 2 the Commission and ladies and gentlemen, I will be 3 providing an overview of the groundwater aspects 4 of the project. The outline of the presentation 5 is I will start by reviewing the site selection 6 process that this project went through, and then 7 we will go through the field investigations, the 8 results and the assessments, and then finally 9 conclude with the proposed monitoring and 10 contingency plan. 11 The first aspect that we need to deal 12 with when we talk about site selection processes 13 is to get a good understanding of the hydrology of 14 southern Manitoba, the geology and the 15 hydrogeology, to explain where potable water is 16 and where it isn't and why it's there. 17 This first line is showing the average 18 annual precipitation across the prairie provinces, 19 but also across Manitoba. The one thing you will 20 notice is across southern Manitoba, anyways, 21 precipitation varies from 450 on the western 22 boundary up to 600 millimeters per year by the 23 time you get to the Ontario border. 24 The project area is located down in 25 that southwest corner about where the 55 1 550-millimeter per year contour is. The other 2 thing to notice is that this corner receives in 3 excess of 550 millimetres of precipitation, and it 4 is actually greater than the annual average 5 precipitation anywhere in the prairies, except for 6 the Rocky Mountains themselves. This increase in 7 precipitation in that corner of the province is 8 reflected in this official geology of southeast 9 Manitoba. This is a simplified geological map 10 produced by the province. The blues on here are 11 clays of the Red River Valley. The greens are 12 tills of the lake terrace plains. As the 13 elevation rises, you get into more of the tills. 14 The yellows and the oranges are various sand and 15 gravel deposits that are distributed through the 16 area. The pink is we are into the Precambrian 17 Shield bedrock. There is very little soil in that 18 area. And the grays are these extensive organic 19 deposits that have formed because of the increased 20 precipitation and generally poor drainage in 21 there. 22 The project area is within one of 23 these sand and gravel deposits within the organic 24 area. This one is known as the Sandilands 25 glaciofluvial complex. It is just one of a series 56 1 of these types of deposits through the area. The 2 other thing is within these organic areas is also 3 a series of swamps and bogs through the area of 4 St. Lab, the Rat River and the Brokenhead Swamp. 5 When as we look at the regional 6 geology, and this is a cross-section basically 7 from Manitou, through the Manitoba escarpment, 8 across through to Zhoda, which is just southwest 9 of Sandilands. The Sandilands project is just off 10 to the right here. We see this is the general 11 geology across southern Manitoba is Precambrian 12 bedrock overlain by sandstone and shales. These 13 are the Winnipeg formation sandstones that form 14 one of the aquifers. This is overlain by a 15 sequence of carbonate rocks of which the upper 16 part is known as the upper carbonate aquifer, and 17 that is a secondary dissolution of the carbonates 18 has formed permeability in there. 19 As we go up, we get into these reds, 20 which are other shale layers. And then there is a 21 whole sequence of shales, plus another aquifer 22 called the Swan River formation up in that area. 23 The overburden is generally pretty 24 typical across the province, it is clay over 25 tills. And locally we get these surficial sand 57 1 deposits and sand deposits at depth. 2 The one thing that is very, very 3 marked in the hydrogeology across the province is 4 a dividing line basically in this area at the Rat 5 River where groundwater on the eastern side is 6 flowing from recharge all the way through this 7 area, generally towards the east to the discharge 8 points along the Rat, the Red and Lake Winnipeg. 9 To the west, we have two groundwater components. 10 We have groundwater moving upwards through these 11 deep formations which is called the Western Canada 12 sedimentary basin. And that's water, very old 13 water, that's coming up from depth. We also have, 14 again, recharge occurring through the clays, which 15 is contributing some water to the overall water 16 balance west of the Rat River. 17 The big thing that's different across 18 here is the quality of the water. All of this 19 water that's coming up from depth within that 20 Western Canada sedimentary basin, it's saline, 21 it's non-potable. So even though the upper 22 carbonate aquifer exists in that area, it contains 23 saline, non-potable water that can't be used. 24 That discharge of that water into the overburden 25 has also affected the groundwater supplies within 58 1 that overburden, and limits which ones can 2 actually be used as a potable water supply. 3 To the east of the Rat River, 4 groundwater flow, we are dealing with a smaller 5 groundwater flow from recharge within this area. 6 The age of that water is substantially less. And 7 as such, as it moves through the various 8 sequences, we get relatively fresh potable water 9 through that whole area. 10 This is a map -- the Winnipeg 11 formation sandstones is a groundwater flow. And 12 just to further illustrate that concept, it is 13 groundwater moving from depth, from west to east, 14 towards Lake Winnipeg. And from the recharge 15 areas in the Winnipeg formation primarily 16 northwest to north to Lake Winnipeg. 17 This is -- within that particular 18 formation, this is the dividing line between the 19 fresh and the potable water. This is the deep 20 water moving up through the sequence. This is the 21 fresh water being recharged and moving through the 22 sequence from the east. 23 A similar dividing line occurs within 24 the carbonate aquifer above the Winnipeg 25 formation. This is a just a contra plot of the 59 1 TDS concentrations, it is a measure of water 2 quality. And the blue line here is, again, 3 basically the dividing line between where you can 4 find potable water within the carbonate aquifer 5 and where the water is saline to non-potable due 6 to that influence from the deep sedimentary basin. 7 So with that description in mind of 8 how water is distributed and how the water quality 9 is distributed across southern Manitoba, we will 10 go into a site selection process that was 11 undertaken. 12 The area that we looked at is east of 13 the Red River. And one of the first areas that 14 was eliminated from consideration very early in 15 the project was anything within 12 miles of the 16 U.S. border. It was desirable to avoid aquifers 17 that might have the potential to get into the 18 international boundary issues. So that area was 19 eliminated. Very quickly, too, is also this area 20 to the north, which includes Steinbach, Kleefeld 21 and the areas around there, including Friedensfeld 22 where we are at today, was excluded from 23 consideration. It's been fairly extensively 24 developed, and development is continuing in 25 future, and it is reasonable to expect that the 60 1 demands for water in that area would be increase. 2 Finally, the other area that was early 3 on eliminated from consideration was basically to 4 the west of the Rat River to the Red River. And 5 as we've discussed before, this is getting into 6 the saline water zone, both within the bedrock 7 aquifers and also the overburden aquifers, there 8 is very little suitable water, potable groundwater 9 available in the area. So the first pass, that 10 left us with is this area in here. 11 The next thing we looked at was we 12 compiled the areas of potential environmental 13 concern. These are a series of designated areas 14 of special interest, protected areas, wildlife 15 management areas. It is just considered desirable 16 to stay away from these environmentally sensitive 17 areas. And the black line in here shows kind of 18 the offset from those areas that were considered, 19 if possible, to avoid those areas. 20 When we overlaid this on the previous 21 areas taken under consideration, we were left with 22 three basic areas, one in this eastern or western 23 part Sarto Pansy, what has been called in here the 24 Zhoda area, and then the Bedford Ridge area. 25 Sarto Pansy has ground water available 61 1 both in the overburden and the bedrock aquifers. 2 There is some development in the area and 3 development is continuing. And it is reasonable 4 to expect that that demand for water in the area 5 would continue in the future. So that was -- 6 based on the potential interference with future 7 groundwater users, that was taken out of 8 consideration. 9 Moving on to Zhoda, we are into a more 10 poorly drained area here. There is less 11 development in the area. And it's not restricted 12 from development, but certainly because of the 13 drainage in the area, there is less development. 14 Groundwater is available here in the limestone 15 aquifer. It has been proven up by pump tests. So 16 that was a possibility to consider, is to take 17 water from the carbonate aquifer in this area. 18 19 Finally, there is the Bedford Ridge 20 area which is located within the Sandilands 21 Provincial Forest. This is an area that the 22 province has set aside for the perpetual growth of 23 timber for timber harvesting. As such, the 24 development within that area is restricted. It is 25 basically restricted to activities that did not 62 1 interfere with the regrowth of the forest, so it 2 had limited potential for future development, and 3 that could potentially interfere with other users. 4 It also -- the previous research of the area, and 5 we will talk more about that, it has shown that 6 there is a series of overburden aquifers within 7 the sand and gravel deposits within the area. And 8 there is a very deep water table up to 38 metres 9 deep, so interaction with the plant root zones and 10 the water table is minimal. 11 So we are moving on. We will start 12 talking about the details of the site geology and 13 hydrogeology and the field investigations that 14 were conducted. 15 The study area that we are considering 16 here, the proposed wall site is located here on 17 the Bedford Ridge, which is located within that 18 Sandilands Provincial Forest. The towns of 19 Marchand, Sandilands, and Kerry are the three 20 major population centres in the area. 21 The first step in the investigation of 22 this area is we compiled the existing domestic 23 wells. Whenever a well is drilled, the drillers 24 are required to file a log of that well with the 25 province. And that information is available and 63 1 is used to develop a knowledge of the stratigraphy 2 of the area. 3 We also compiled all the previous 4 research work that has been done in this area, 5 which included work by water stewardship, the 6 Geological Survey of Canada, Universities of 7 Manitoba, Ottawa and Carlton. With that 8 information, we had a basic understanding of the 9 stratigraphy in there, but we needed to do more 10 drilling to better enhance the details of that. 11 So a series of test holes were drilled along 12 basically an east/west and a north/south line to 13 develop more details of the geology in the area. 14 From that, and Harm has already talked 15 about a bit about the stratigraphy in the area, we 16 have developed this outline of the two overburden 17 aquifers, the upper sands and the lower sand 18 aquifer, separated by the two aquitards which, in 19 this case, it is an upper silt and a lower till. 20 And then, finally, the thin Winnipeg 21 formation at the base of the sequence overlying 22 the precambrian bedrock. Within this area, based 23 on the results of all of the monitoring work that 24 was done in the area, general groundwater flow, 25 recharge occurs throughout the area. And then 64 1 within the upper sands, recharge moves. It is 2 restricted from moving downwards by the aquitard 3 underneath. It doesn't prevent complete movement, 4 but it restricts it. So the majority of the 5 recharge water moves downwards within this upper 6 sand to the low lying areas. 7 As far as the proposed pumping well 8 location, we are primarily looking at recharge 9 occurring in the uplands, moving down through the 10 upper sands, through the aquitards, or areas where 11 the aquitards are absent, and moving laterally 12 through that lower sands where it disperses up 13 into a series of different formations. 14 With that basic understanding of the 15 geology of the hydrogeology and how groundwater 16 worked in the area, we undertook an aquifer 17 pumping test. The purpose of the test, there is 18 two things we are doing with the test. One is to 19 measure the transmissivity and the storativity of 20 the aquifer. And the second thing is we are 21 looking to measure the short-term dynamic response 22 of the aquifer pumping. We are looking for 23 evidence that there is boundaries or restrictions 24 in the aquifer, either positive boundaries which 25 are recharged areas, or negative boundaries which 65 1 are areas where flow is restricted. That test was 2 conducted at 107 litres per second. The requested 3 rate for this project is 50 litres per second. 4 But, generally, we try to do the pump test at the 5 highest rate possible for the test well to 6 maximize the effects we have over the duration of 7 the test. And that response to pumping was 8 monitored at a network of 21 monitoring wells 9 scattered through the three aquifers and over the 10 area. 11 And this is a map showing -- these are 12 the wells within the lower sand unit that was 13 monitored during the test, and beside each we show 14 the measured response. This circled area is the 15 limit of the drawdown that was observed by the end 16 of the test. We observed up to 6.3 metres right 17 at the pumping well, and this goes out to zero at 18 the margins there. Outside of this area, no 19 response to pumping was measured. 20 Groundwater, the response to pumping 21 in the upper sand unit was also measured 22 throughout the test. There was a series of six 23 wells, including one located in the upper sands 24 directly above the pumping well location. There 25 was no response reported in any of these wells 66 1 which indicates, especially in this location, it 2 confirms the interpretation of the aquitard that 3 that's limiting the influence, the hydraulic 4 influence, between the upper and the lower, 5 insofar as the effects could not get up to that 6 upper aquifer. And we also, at the same time, 7 monitored through the existing three wells the 8 response to pumping in the sandstone unit. And, 9 again, no response was detected in those wells. 10 So as a result of the pump test, and 11 actually I will just back it up a bit, one of the 12 other aspects of this response to the pumping in 13 the lower sand unit is we have a definite boundary 14 to the north. This aquifer is bounded to the 15 north. There is a restriction to flow across to 16 the north here. Basically, there was no -- even 17 though the pump drawdown extended to the south 18 that distance, there is no response detected to 19 the north, which indicates that within that zone 20 there is a restriction to flow. There is some 21 sort of finer material preventing significant flow 22 from occurring. 23 Also, from the geology of the area and 24 the aquifer response, we also know that there is a 25 boundary to the south of this. So these two 67 1 boundaries are the basic northern and southern 2 limits to this aquifer, based on the pumping test 3 results and what we know of the geology. 4 So as I indicated, the lower sand unit 5 is definitely bounded to the north and south. The 6 pump test results also showed us that there is a 7 higher transmittivity zone that is present to the 8 south of the pumping well. The transmittivity -- 9 in any aquifer, the transmittivity varies. What 10 this tells us is that test well was not in the 11 most productive part of the aquifer. There are 12 other parts of it that are more productive. And, 13 of course, there was no response to the pumping 14 that was measured in either the upper sand unit or 15 the underlying sandstone unit. 16 The transmittivity and storativity 17 values calculated from the results of the pump 18 test are 0.01 metres squared per second and 8 19 times 10 to the minus 4. Now, those values of 20 transmittivity, storativity, are used in 21 conjunction with a continuous pumping rate of 50 22 litres per second. And the known limits to the 23 aquifer to the north and south, and analytical 24 methods to estimated the extent of drawdown that 25 would occur at steady state after continuous 68 1 pumping of 50 litres per sec. The limits shown on 2 here are the limited extent, or the interpreted 3 extent of the drawdown that would occur if this 4 project proceeds to continuous pumping. 5 Using that information, we then 6 proceeded to look at the potential environmental 7 effects of such a drawdown. This is a map showing 8 the depth to water within that upper sand unit. 9 Superimposed on this is that drawdown, the 10 interpretive extent of that drawdown. And keep in 11 mind that that drawdown cone is within the lower 12 sand unit. There are no effects that are expected 13 to extend upward into the upper sand unit through 14 the aquitard. However, if they were to extend 15 upwards, within the majority of the upland area, 16 groundwater is at a depth of greater than five 17 metres below the surface. The water table is at a 18 depth of greater than five metres, and is actually 19 up to 38 metres. So even if the drawdown could 20 extend through the aquitard into the upper 21 aquifer, and then do some drawdown in there, the 22 water table is already below the level of the root 23 zone of the plants and, therefore, would have 24 minimal effect on the surface environment in the 25 area. 69 1 The down gradient, once we get off the 2 Bedford Ridge the water table becomes shallow, 2.5 3 metres to 3 metres depth below grade. The 4 drawdown cone will extend out below that area 5 within the lower sand unit. Certainly, the 6 information we have from both of these monitoring 7 well nests is that there is a strong hydraulic 8 rating between the upper and the lower sand unit. 9 And as I indicated, that restricts the amount of 10 flow that can occur through that aquitard, and, 11 therefore, it will restrict the effects of the 12 drawdown from moving upwards into the upper sands. 13 As far as existing groundwater users 14 go, we compiled the available information on the 15 existing groundwater users. Major users, there is 16 a number of wells in the Village of Sandilands to 17 the south. As we indicated, the aquifer is 18 bounded to the south, the geology indicates that, 19 and the results of the pumping tests indicate 20 that. So there is no -- the drawdown cone is not 21 expected to extend to the south of Sandilands. 22 To the west to Kerry -- or to the east 23 to Kerry, there is a number of wells in that area. 24 As I indicated on the cross-section, there is a 25 groundwater flow divide, where groundwater is 70 1 flowing on that side to the east and on this side 2 to the west. And these drawdown cones will not 3 extend beyond that groundwater flow divide. It's 4 a fundamental change in the direction of 5 groundwater flow, so there will be no effect to 6 Kerry. 7 Marchand is an area -- there is a fair 8 number of wells in Marchand, and a number of them 9 are flowing wells. There is no effect of drawdown 10 cone because of that restriction, the boundaries 11 to the aquifer, no effects of drawdown are 12 expected to propagate. And as we will talk, when 13 we get to the monitoring plan, to confirm that we 14 have specific wells in that area to confirm the 15 lack of effect. 16 And, then, finally, to the west is 17 this area where there is a number of domestic farm 18 wells in the area. The drawdowns are not expected 19 to extend to the west to that area, but we will 20 also be monitoring that to confirm that result. 21 One other final thing when we look at 22 the environmental effects, we also have to look 23 sustainability of the resource. And before I get 24 into that, I have to caution that estimates of 25 sustainable yield are just that, they are 71 1 estimates. You cannot just take a recharge 2 estimate and consider that to be a safe withdrawal 3 from the yield. The state of the art is what was 4 referred to as the water budget myth in the 5 industry. And if you just calculate the static, 6 non-pumping recharge rate, you are not taking into 7 consideration the dynamic response of the aquifer, 8 and, therefore, you are not getting a true picture 9 of what the yield is. Nevertheless, a sustainable 10 yield estimate has value as a general concept 11 because it does provide us with information on 12 generally what's there. 13 So if we look at the overall estimated 14 recharge rate based on published information for 15 the entire region, and this estimate was done 16 using the Thornthwaite method, which takes into 17 consideration precipitation and evapotranspiration 18 and general drainage, it doesn't really take into 19 consideration the specifics of the aquifers 20 themselves. It is more from a regional 21 perspective. 22 The estimated recharge rate is 71 23 millimetres per year. If we extend that over the 24 entire area of the Sandilands glaciofluvial 25 complex, which is 1.9 billion square metres, it is 72 1 a square calculation to come up with 137 cubic 2 decometers per year of average annual recharge to 3 the area which, if you break that down to a flow 4 rate is about 4300 litres per second, that would 5 be the equivalent flow rate. 6 If we just look at the estimated area 7 of recharge to the pumping well, in this case we 8 are looking at an area 10 kilometres, which is 9 basically from the pumping well to the east to 10 where the groundwater flow divides, and the 11 northern and southern limits to the aquifer. And 12 based on specific investigations done within that 13 area and to look into the recharge to those sandy 14 soils, because that particular area is underlain 15 by sands, the estimated recharge rate within that 16 area, 174 millimetres per year. It is much higher 17 than the regional rate because sands are more 18 permeable. It is a deep water table. This is an 19 area that has the potential to absorb a lot of the 20 precipitation. And anyone that has been up there 21 also knows there is very little drainage up there. 22 Most of the water or the precipitation that falls 23 on that seeps into the ground and becomes part of 24 the groundwater budget. So just within that area 25 of recharge to the pumping well, using those 73 1 values, the estimated recharge rate is 2 14,000 cubic decometers per year or the equivalent 3 of 400 litres per second. 4 So, finally, we will be moving on to 5 the proposed monitoring and contingency plan for 6 this project. As part of the monitoring plan, the 7 province currently has a network of monitoring 8 wells that they have been monitoring since the 9 early '60s in the area. They will continue 10 monitoring that, as well as that monitoring 11 network will be supplemented by monitoring wells 12 that will be installed and monitored by the 13 proponent. All three aquifer units will be 14 monitored. And that includes the upper sands, the 15 lower sand and the sandstone unit, and it will be 16 monitored on a continuous basis. There will be 17 digital equipment used to continuously record 18 water levels. The plan also includes a program of 19 groundwater quality monitoring, and there will be 20 quarterly and annual reports to the regulators for 21 review. 22 Within the lower sand unit, the 23 specific monitoring wells that will be monitored 24 will include the three wells that are currently 25 monitored by the province, basically along an 74 1 east/west line. That will be supplemented by 2 eight additional wells to be monitored by the 3 proponent, including a well, the existing wells 4 installed as part of this test within the area of 5 the pumping well, two new wells installed to the 6 east and west, and an additional well to be 7 installed near Marchand to confirm the lack of 8 impact in that area. 9 Within the upper sand unit monitoring 10 wells, the province is currently monitoring five 11 wells scattered through this area, including this 12 one which has been monitored since approximately 13 1962. That will be enhanced with additional 14 monitoring at the pumping well location, and also 15 in the shallow sands adjacent to Pocock Lake. And 16 within the sandstone unit, the province is 17 currently monitoring these three wells on a 18 basically triangulation basis. And a fourth well 19 will be installed to monitor, again, by Marchand 20 to confirm the lack of impact to that area. 21 So with regards to the contingency 22 plan for the protection of existing groundwater 23 user in the area, a standard requirement of any 24 water rights licence is to provide mitigation 25 should any existing users be affected by the 75 1 groundwater withdrawal. This mitigation typically 2 can include repairing the existing well, which can 3 mean a redevelopment of the well to improve its 4 efficiency and capacity, lowering of the pump, or 5 other measures to ensure that the well is still 6 capable of providing the required supply. It may 7 necessitate providing a new well or a new water 8 source. Or if no mitigative solution can be 9 found, the other option is to reduce or cease the 10 pumping and find an alternate source. The 11 determination of the appropriate mitigation plan 12 is done in consultation with the owner of that 13 particular well and water stewardship. 14 As far as the protection of the 15 environment goes, as we have shown, there is a 16 comprehensive monitoring program that's in place 17 that will be assessed regularly. And if it is 18 shown that the withdrawal is having an adverse 19 effect on the environment or the groundwater 20 resource, i.e. that the water is not sustainable, 21 then the pumping rate will be reduced or ceased 22 and alternate sources of supply will be developed. 23 That concludes my talk. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wiecek. 25 I just have a question perhaps on clarification. 76 1 You showed us on some of the slides some of the 2 limits, the boundaries of this aquifer to the 3 north and south. Do you have a general idea how 4 large this aquifer is? 5 MR. WIECEK: As far as the lower sand 6 unit itself? 7 THE CHAIRMAN: The one that you're 8 interested in. 9 MR. WIECEK: The eastern and western 10 limits has not been fully defined. The difficulty 11 there is until we know the long-term dynamic 12 response, the hydraulic response to pumping, it's 13 very difficult to say in advance which ones of 14 these zones in the distance are providing water, 15 like how does water specifically flow through the 16 area? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: So you know that there 18 is a northern boundary not too far north of your 19 well? 20 MR. WIECEK: That's right. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: And then a southern 22 boundary just north of the Village of Sandilands? 23 MR. WIECEK: That's right. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: But you don't know the 25 east and west boundaries? 77 1 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: And how deep is it from 3 top to bottom? 4 MR. WIECEK: Top to bottom, 5 approximately 200 to 300 feet from top to bottom. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Through most of that 7 area? 8 MR. WIECEK: Through this area, yes. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 10 MR. HALKET: Good morning. I have a 11 few questions, you might say, about the 12 presentation. Very informative, thank you. I 13 would like to talk about alternatives that you've 14 considered, first of all. This isn't part, 15 really, of that or it is part of it. I know that 16 you considered, and you eliminated groundwater 17 alternatives to a water supply for the Pembina 18 Valley Water Co-operative. But what surface water 19 supplies did you look at or alternatives? 20 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The surface water 21 in this region has been studied repeatedly. It 22 was studied in considerable detail back in 1988, 23 '89 leading up to the 1991 report, and has been 24 reviewed since then as well. Basically, you've 25 got several options. 78 1 The best option, and our MLA for the 2 RM, Mr. Jack Penner, is in the audience, and one 3 that he would certainly strongly support, and is 4 very much in favour of is the Pembina River and 5 that is, of course, on the U.S. and the Canadian 6 side of the border. And on the Canadian side of 7 the border in Manitoba that would involve of an 8 impoundment with a dam at Calida and an 9 impoundment in the Pembina gorge. 10 This has a couple of serious problems 11 attached to it, the first being environmental. 12 You have, and I'm not sure how active they are, 13 but certainly back a decade ago you had the 14 Pembina Valley Protection Association, which had 15 225 paid up farm family members who were 16 determined to make sure that this didn't happen 17 because, from their perspective, and I would 18 suggest from a provincial perspective, this is an 19 important ecological area that would be inundated 20 with water. 21 The other problem is because the 22 Pembina is drought-sensitive and because, by 23 agreement, we have to pass on 50 percent of the 24 flow to North Dakota, it means that the 25 impoundment if it was supposed to provide any 79 1 stability in terms of water supply would have to 2 be large, which is the concern that -- and this is 3 what raises the concern related to this. 4 So those were the issues related to 5 the Pembina. And I am moving very quickly. And I 6 will be happy to answer more specifically if you 7 have more questions. We also looked at all of our 8 creeks and streams, including the Tobacco and the 9 others, and I have provided some information 10 specifically to the commission on that. Again, 11 with the same intent, what would happen if we took 12 and put impoundments on all of these coming off of 13 the Pembina escarpment, how much water can we 14 collect? What kind of security would there be to 15 that supply? And that's, again, where the problem 16 came in because the security is not there. And 17 PFRA will tell that you two years out of ten are 18 drought years, two years out of ten you are not 19 going to find recharge or water that is going to 20 fill those impoundments. And this is why the 21 irrigators, for example, in the area are allowed 22 and are licensed to use impoundments from these 23 streams, recognizing that two years out of ten on 24 average they won't have water, so that's why we 25 walked away from those. 80 1 In terms of other areas, obviously, 2 the river aquifer has been studied in great 3 detail, as I am sure you are aware, and the 4 sustainable yield has been determined and doesn't 5 allow us for any further withdrawals from that 6 particular source. So groundwater in the rest of 7 the area is not a factor. Surface water, 8 basically you are looking at the streams, you are 9 looking at the rivers. You are looking at the 10 Boyne, for example, which is fully allocated. 11 And, again, we are drawing from Lake Stephenfield, 12 which is impoundment of the Boyne, but there is no 13 further allocation that can be made from that 14 source or other impoundments made along that 15 river. So very quickly, those are some of the 16 others that we have certainly looked at. We would 17 far and away prefer an in-region solution to our 18 particular problem because it would take care of a 19 lot of other problems for us. 20 MR. HALKET: Have you also considered 21 tying into the City of Winnipeg's water supply 22 system? 23 MR. SCHELLENBERG: That issue was 24 raised back in '89 and '90 with them very 25 specifically. And the response that we got is 81 1 very similar to the response that neighbouring 2 communities have been receiving in the vicinity of 3 Winnipeg for quite sometime. And I am sure you 4 are aware of what the response, and it isn't 5 positive. 6 MR. GIBBONS: Sorry, if I may follow 7 up on that line of questioning. The point has 8 been raised elsewhere that it may be possible to 9 provide some conservation of local water, surface 10 water, through retention ponds and the like for 11 spring runoff and so forth. Has that been 12 examined as well? In other words, not using the 13 streams and rivers of the area, but to use the 14 spring runoff as a potential source, not 15 necessarily exclusively for, but perhaps in the 16 context of water supplies for livestock operations 17 and things of that sort that might reduce some 18 demand? 19 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Certainly when we 20 did the in-depth study, and the Province and the 21 Federal Government at that time, and PFRA have 22 been involved on an ongoing basis, I might add, 23 that's been looked at very closely. And one of 24 the reasons why our agricultural usage numbers are 25 lower than what most people anticipated is, in 82 1 fact, that they are using impoundments. The only 2 area in -- the only area of the AG industry where 3 they prefer to use treated water would be in the 4 dairy operation whenever they can access treated 5 water and also in the hog industry, especially for 6 weanlings. 7 In terms of our own look at it, yes, 8 we did look at it. And, as a matter of fact, a 9 lot of our communities were using those kinds of 10 impoundments for their water supply prior to the 11 water co-op's formation and our ability to provide 12 water to them. And these small systems come with 13 some serious problems attached to them, largely 14 related to water quality. And so in our case, for 15 example, we took out a number of these smaller 16 operations, including St. Joseph, by example. I 17 think in total, Rosenort, Lowe Farm and a number 18 of others, I think it totalled about a dozen. 19 Simply because of the water quality, in terms of 20 being able to meet the Canadian drinking water 21 standards, it wasn't there. It is prohibitively 22 expensive and extremely difficult, and it's just 23 not an efficient approach. 24 MR. GIBBONS: Thank you. 25 MR. HALKET: Okay. I wondered if you 83 1 had considered horizontal wells in the hyperergic 2 zone of the Red River as a source for water 3 supply? 4 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Could you repeat 5 that? I didn't catch the first part. 6 MR. HALKET: I wondered if you had 7 considered horizontal wells in the hyperergic zone 8 or the saturated zone of the Red River as a 9 possible source of water supply to your water 10 intakes? 11 MR. SCHELLENBERG: That, to the best 12 of my knowledge, has not been explored in great 13 detail. I think the concern would be the drought 14 sensitivity of that supply based on river flows. 15 Do you have any further opinion on that? 16 MR. WIECEK: If I understand it 17 correctly, you're talking about horizontal 18 drilling along the bed of the river? 19 MR. HALKET: On the periphery of it. 20 MR. WIECEK: On the banks. But it is 21 eluvial sediments, which are clays and silts. It 22 would take a substantial network of those wells to 23 develop any significant supply to get the water to 24 move through those clays and silts. And there 25 would be certainly significant -- DFO would have 84 1 significant concerns about that amount of work 2 being done in the river bank. 3 MR. HALKET: My question was had you 4 considered it? 5 MR. WIECEK: No. 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It has not been 7 given a detailed study. But certainly I suspect 8 that if DFO was present, they would be the first 9 to advise us that they would not tolerate it. 10 They have tremendous strengths and capabilities. 11 They are the only inspectors, to the best of my 12 knowledge, that are armed. Eventually, 13 apparently, customs will be, too. 14 MR. HALKET: As for other 15 alternatives, did you look at desalinization of 16 some of the groundwater supplies in the bedrock 17 aquifers throughout the Pembina Valley area? 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Desalinization? We 19 have certainly looked at the economics and the 20 costs of it. And at the present time, given the 21 state of the technology, and in terms of cost, the 22 economies simply aren't there. I mean, it would 23 saddle our region with a cost for water that would 24 be prohibitive. And I mean, like, layers of 25 prohibitions above where, you know, what we could 85 1 tolerate. It would remove our economic viability 2 and would certainly make us extremely undesirable 3 as a place for people to reside. 4 MR. WIECEK: Certainly the other 5 aspect of desalinization is that process generates 6 a high concentration backwash. And then the 7 question becomes, well, what do you do with it? 8 MR. HALKET: I was just wondering if 9 you had considered it? 10 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yes, we did. As a 11 matter of fact, it was considered in the context 12 of the Winkler Aquifer Management Plan when that 13 was developed. Because, as you know, the Winkler 14 Aquifer is underlain by very saline water. And 15 they looked at it, and the issue was, cost was 16 actually the big one. And I know that Bruce Webb 17 was in attendance for some of those discussions. 18 The other big problem that you had is 19 precisely this, what do you do with the residue? 20 It was proposed we look at, and I think there was 21 some work done, on putting us into deep wells. 22 But if you look at the charts that came up, those 23 deep wells, and when you closer to the Red River, 24 we already have problems with salinity coming to 25 the surface, and this would only enhance that. 86 1 Even if you could argue, from a scientific 2 perspective, that maybe it wouldn't -- the 3 perception would certainly be there, as far as the 4 general public was concerned, that this would be 5 the case, then you would have a huge fight on your 6 hands in terms of trying to get that done. 7 MR. HALKET: Okay. My next few 8 questions come to just understanding the amount of 9 water you are talking about here. You are talking 10 50 litres per second extracting from the 11 Sandilands area to the Pembina Valley Water Co-op. 12 And that's -- although in some of the reports, in 13 the first report that I read, I came across the 14 number of 300 litres per second as an output, an 15 ultimate amount of extraction. Is it 50 litres 16 per second or is it 300 litres per second? Could 17 you clarify that for me, please? 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It is 50 litres per 19 second, that is our request, that's the 20 application. And that's the only number that was 21 used. The number of 300, and where that surfaced, 22 and I can explain that as well, is we were asked: 23 What would it take, in a drought of the kind that 24 we haven't seen as yet in Western Canada, if you 25 lost all of your existing supplies, including Lake 87 1 Minnewasta, the total use of the Winkler Aquifer, 2 the Boyne River system, et cetera, et cetera, we 3 are talking complete devastation, what would it 4 take to then provide that region with water? And 5 the response to that would be somewhere in the 6 area of 300 litres per second. What we are 7 looking at is 50. 8 There are economies here which 9 determine this. There is also common sense which 10 determines this. We are proposing a 12-inch pipe 11 from the Sandilands down to Morris. This is the 12 most efficient way in which we can do it. It is 13 also a line which will carry 50 litres per second. 14 It won't do any more. And when you are looking at 15 the type of capital investment that we are putting 16 into the ground, that is probably your best 17 guarantee that there won't be any further 18 withdrawals from the Sandilands, unless and until 19 there is a very, very stringent reason for doing 20 so. And in that case, obviously, the review 21 agencies, such as yourself and the province, would 22 become involved very directly and very quickly. 23 MR. HALKET: So this proposal, then, 24 is 50 litres per second, no more? 25 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Correct. 88 1 MR. HALKET: I was intrigued by your 2 comments on the water budget myth. 3 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Okay. 4 MR. HALKET: I think the experience of 5 some hydrogeologists would be that in order to get 6 a snapshot of a resource, a water budget would be 7 a valuable tool to use. Can you explain again why 8 you see a water budget for an aquifer to be a 9 myth? 10 MR. MAATHUIS: Yes. And I will answer 11 that question -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you speak into a 13 microphone? 14 MR. MAATHUIS: I will answer that 15 question using a power point presentation. It all 16 boils down to the whole issue surrounding 17 sustainable yield. And what is sustainable 18 yields? Sustainable yields is the development and 19 use of groundwater that can be maintained for an 20 indefinite time, without causing unacceptable 21 environmental, economic or social consequences. 22 Let's have a look at hypothetical 23 groundwater system. It can be either an 24 unconfined aquifer or a semi-confined aquifer. We 25 are in a natural state, and that means that there 89 1 is some recharge going into the system. There is 2 some discharge going out of the system. 3 Everything is in balance. And the water level in 4 the system essentially remains at the same level. 5 Now, in 1940 Mr. Theis wrote what is a 6 very important concept, stating that: 7 "Under natural conditions, previous to 8 the development by wells, aquifers are 9 in a state of approximate dynamic 10 equilibrium." 11 So what happens, then, if you put in a well and 12 start pumping? The next sentence is: 13 "Discharge by the wells is thus a new 14 discharge superimposed upon a stable 15 system, and it must be balanced..." 16 and this is really the critical issue, 17 "...it must be balanced by an increase 18 in recharge of the aquifer, or by a 19 decrease in the old discharge, or by a 20 loss of storage in the aquifer, or by 21 a combination of these things." 22 Now, let's have a look at what this means. Here 23 we have the same system, but now we have that 24 additional pumpage in here. That pumpage results 25 in an increase of recharge. Of course, when you 90 1 start developing a water supply, for definition, 2 you have to take some out of storage initially, 3 and you get a decrease in discharge. So the first 4 line says pumpage equals the increase in recharge, 5 plus decrease in recharge plus a change in 6 storage. It's a very simple equation. 7 What we are aiming at is at getting to 8 that stable condition in the end. And when that 9 is achieved, then pumpage is equal to the increase 10 in recharge and a decrease in discharge. What 11 does that say? That says that, yes, it is very 12 useful to have some idea. The emphasis is "some". 13 We don't need any really defined quantitative 14 number, some idea about the virgin recharge. But 15 it has no role in determining what your 16 sustainable yield or yields of an aquifer is. 17 Because what we are interested in, and what is the 18 dominating factor, is the long-term response of 19 the aquifer to the imposed change, that is the 20 overriding issue here that that has to be 21 determined. You want to get to the stable 22 situation again after you have imposed a 23 disturbance in the term of pumping. So that's 24 what is really emphasized here is the importance 25 of monitoring, very carefully, in all of the 91 1 various aquifers, what the impact of pumping is. 2 So, yes, quite often if you are 3 dealing with a surficial aquifer, so an unconfined 4 aquifer, starting somewhere at the top, it would 5 be nice to know what your recharge is. And it 6 gives you a kind of bulk idea what you could pump 7 out of that aquifer. For semi-confined aquifers, 8 whatever is happening at the top, the recharge 9 implies recharge to the water table. The 10 semi-confined aquifer's recharge to -- 11 semi-confined aquifer is not influenced, is not 12 dictated, is not controlled by recharge to the 13 water table per se. What determines the recharge 14 to a semi-confined aquifer is how much additional 15 water can be pulled through the aquitard. And 16 that additional amount of chemicals through the 17 aquitard is dictated by the vertical hydraulic 18 conductivity of that aquitard. So what I'm trying 19 to say is that for surficial aquifers, unconfined 20 aquifers, it is kind of helpful to know what your 21 recharge is. For semi-confined aquifers it 22 becomes less relevant to know. But what is 23 important at all points in time is your dynamic 24 response, and monitoring your dynamic response to 25 the end use pumping. And that has been taken care 92 1 of by the extensive monitoring networks which are 2 being proposed. 3 MR. HALKET: So what I hear you saying 4 is that an aquifer changes in its response to 5 pumping, its dynamics change to its response. But 6 how would you assess how much water is in an 7 aquifer and how much is available for usage? 8 Wouldn't you do that through a water budget? 9 Wouldn't you want to know how much is coming in 10 and how much is going out and how much is in 11 storage before you start to develop an aquifer? 12 MR. WIECEK: On the basis of a 13 pre-development estimate, yes, but that is not 14 going to be the ultimate value. 15 MR. HALKET: Oh, I agree it would 16 change under -- but you would want to start 17 somewhere. 18 MR. WIECEK: So a typical -- 19 MR. HALKET: So my question, then, is 20 can you provide a water budget for the aquifer 21 system that we're talking about developing here? 22 MR. WIECEK: For that lower sand unit, 23 based on the information we have, the estimate is 24 14,000 cubic decometers per annum, based on what 25 we know at this stage. That would be refined over 93 1 the long term, as we know the long-term response 2 to pumping and the dynamic response. 3 MR. HALKET: That number you are 4 throwing at me, 13, where does that come from? 5 MR. WIECEK: That comes from the 6 estimate of the recharge through the -- 7 MR. HALKET: That's what's coming into 8 the aquifer, the way I understand it? 9 MR. WIECEK: That's right. 10 MR. HALKET: But what's in storage and 11 what's moving out, do we have any handle on 12 that? 13 MR. WIECEK: Well, the storage doesn't 14 change substantially. Under static conditions 15 storage is -- I mean, there is a fluctuation on 16 water levels based on seasonal trends, but that is 17 minor compared to the total volume in storage. 18 So, basically, storage under static conditions 19 doesn't change. So ultimately recharge has to 20 equal discharge. It's a straight mass balance at 21 that point. 22 MR. HALKET: Yes. So my next piece on 23 this is do we know where the recharge is going? 24 If this is the discharge, if you are saying this 25 is a recharge that's coming in, the storage is 94 1 static, okay, so this discharge is then coming out 2 somewhere? 3 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 4 MR. HALKET: Where is that going? 5 MR. WIECEK: In this case in the lower 6 sand unit? The available information is part of 7 it infiltrates up through the aquitard to the 8 upper sand unit. Once we get down to the 9 lowlands, at that location there is an actual 10 upper gradient from the lower. That flow rate is 11 restricted by that aquitard. It doesn't prevent 12 it, but some part of it goes to there. Part of it 13 goes down into the Winnipeg formation and is part 14 of the recharge to that Winnipeg formation. The 15 other part of it goes laterally. As you get 16 beyond the lower sand unit, as typical with these 17 types of deposits, it disperses into a series of 18 smaller lenses of sand and gravel, and so the 19 water is moving through that. 20 MR. HALKET: Now, have you measured 21 this, like, where the water is going from the 22 aquifer? 23 MR. WIECEK: We've measured it within 24 that part of the lower sand unit that we've 25 monitored, down to those test holes installed in 95 1 the lower unit. 2 MR. HALKET: So what you're saying, 3 then, is that the water that is coming through 4 from that lower sand unit is going in to replenish 5 wetlands on the surface, replenish other aquifers 6 that are around it, is that what -- 7 MR. WIECEK: That's right. That's 8 part of the overall component. 9 MR. HALKET: Okay. 10 MR. WIECEK: So, again, within that 11 whole Sandilands glaciofluvial complex, the 12 estimate from there is 130,000 cubic decometers, 13 but that is looking at the whole complex, which 14 also is replenishing wetlands, which is also 15 replenishing the bedrock aquifers. This lower 16 sand unit that we are looking at here is just one 17 small component of that. 18 MR. HALKET: Okay. So, you see, I see 19 a value in having a water budget for an aquifer 20 because then I know what's coming in and going 21 out, as you've said. And if the storage isn't 22 changing, then the mass balance equation tells me 23 what's going in and what's going out are about the 24 same; is that correct? 25 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 96 1 MR. HALKET: Okay. My question, then, 2 is basically understanding where that water is 3 going? Like, if we are going to be taking water 4 out of an aquifer, obviously it was on its way 5 somewhere else, okay? And so that's what I'm -- 6 my question, then, is where was that somewhere 7 else? Like, have we looked at that? Do we know 8 how this aquifer is sustaining or feeding the 9 downstream? 10 MR. WIECEK: Down to specific details 11 of specific flow paths, no, that's not practical 12 to do that. 13 MR. HALKET: Okay. I was just 14 wondering -- 15 MR. WIECEK: Okay. 16 MR. HALKET: -- if we know that side 17 of the equation at all? 18 MR. GIBBONS: I would like to pursue 19 this line of discussion for a moment more, if I 20 could. The previous slide, it's off the screen 21 now, not the last slide, but the slide before, 22 made reference to the establishing of a new 23 dynamic equilibrium, what might be called a steady 24 state once the discharge -- sorry, once the 25 drawdown has started. And that would be the 97 1 drawdown on top of whatever the natural discharge 2 might be and so forth. 3 Perhaps you could explain to me how it 4 is possible for that to reach a steady state if, 5 for example, we are taking out 50 litres per 6 second? And let's assume a time frame of the 7 following sort, so we can put it in concrete 8 terms, 50 litres per second during the first year 9 is taken out. That's not 50 litres that's going 10 out now. It is an additional 50 litres compared 11 to what goes in now. At the end of that year, 12 presumably there will be some effect on the water 13 table, et cetera. It doesn't necessarily -- and 14 what I guess I am unclear about is, is there an 15 assumption after year one, or whatever, that there 16 will be a new study stating the water table will 17 stabilize? Because the word "stability" was used, 18 at a certain level, after a period of X months, 19 years, whatever? And if so, how would that be the 20 case, or would there, in fact, be a continuing 21 decline? Based on the fact that we used to get 22 4300, I think the figure was used, 4300 litres per 23 second recharge, some of that is going out now. 24 Naturally some is being used for wells, et cetera. 25 We are going to take another 50 litres out. How 98 1 can there be a steady state at any point in the 2 future, when you are taking additional water out, 3 if the recharge hasn't increased by 50? In other 4 words, wouldn't the graph, in effect, be 5 continuing slowly, but surely, not very quickly, 6 we are talking about a fairly slow rate here, but 7 nonetheless it would be in the vicinity of 1/10th 8 of 1 percent a year? I guess 50 over 4300 would 9 be 1/10th of 1 percent, or something in that 10 range, or a little over that. I haven't 11 calculated it. But there would be a slight 12 decline each year, unless the recharge rate 13 increased, is that correct, or am I 14 misunderstanding the term of "stability" in this 15 context? 16 MR. MAATHUIS: Yes. What I'm talking 17 about are two changes, all right? When you have a 18 system that is equilibrium, you superimpose 19 something on it. The two changes are an increase 20 in recharge and a decrease in discharge. When you 21 have a system -- how can I -- I am trying to look 22 at the technology. If you have a system with 23 perfect equilibrium and you start pumping, you get 24 a new equilibrium. The only difference with the 25 old equilibrium is that your water level at the 99 1 beginning, whether it is an official aquifer or in 2 a semi-confined aquifer, obviously, it is somewhat 3 lower. But you need a lower water level to 4 create, if you wish, that additional recharge 5 where there is that decrease in discharge. So, 6 yes, you can, at all points in time, get to a new 7 equilibrium. 8 Now, what happens if my pumping is way 9 too high? Yes, then you are correct, then 10 whatever you are pumping, if that becomes more 11 than your increase in recharge and the decrease in 12 discharge, then the water has to come from 13 storage, and it will go down, down, down, down, 14 right? 15 If, for example, your pumping only has 16 a very little effect, you get, very simply, a 17 little drawdown cone and at somewhere else in the 18 aquifer you might not even notice it, and there is 19 where, you know, where that cone of influence 20 comes from. The aquifer will -- the pumping will 21 react to the system by extending its drawdown cone 22 until it gets stable. It's only if you start 23 pumping way too much that you never will get to 24 the stable condition and then, of course, things 25 will sink out of sight, if you wish. But in this 100 1 case it will not happen. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Why do you get an 3 increase in recharge? I can understand the 4 decrease in discharge when you start to pump. Why 5 do you get an increase in recharge? 6 MR. MAATHUIS: Certainly in 7 semi-confined aquifers -- if I may, 8 Mr. Commissioner, go back to the slide? 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 10 MR. MAATHUIS: Here we have a 11 schematic illustration of a semi-confined aquifer. 12 We have the aquitard at the top, an aquifer and 13 another aquitard at the bottom. This is the 14 initial condition. During the initial condition, 15 we have somewhere a water table over here, so the 16 water table is in the aquitard. In the well in 17 the aquifer, you have a water level indicated by 18 the red line which is lower than the water table. 19 As I said in my introduction, we are interested in 20 differences in water level. So there is a 21 downward flow the way I sketched it here. 22 Now we start pumping. When we start 23 pumping, we lower the water level in the aquifer. 24 As a result, this airway here, there is a little 25 bit more recharge. And now we start pumping again 101 1 a little bit more. You see, in this case, that 2 the drawdown has expanded. It has become a little 3 bit larger, but you also see that these arrows 4 become larger. So the amount of flow through the 5 aquitard, so there is additional recharge in the 6 cone of drawdown. The amount of additional 7 recharge, of course, is the highest near the well, 8 if you wish, and decreases away from the well. So 9 the water -- this additional water is coming 10 through the aquitard from the water table, and 11 that is the water which is being pumped out. 12 Here I have sketched or superimposed 13 the initial pumping just to show what is 14 happening. If we start out here -- let me say in 15 the initial year we create a drawdown cone. We 16 induce some additional recharge. After a time, we 17 have reached stable conditions. In other words, 18 this drawdown cone will not change in time 19 anymore. There will be no additional drawdowns as 20 I keep on pumping. And why is that? Because I 21 have created additional recharge by vertical flows 22 through the aquitard, so it starts to balance. In 23 that case, there is no more water taken out of 24 storage from the aquifer. And all of the water 25 that I'm pumping from the aquifer comes from 102 1 additional flow through the overlying aquitard, 2 that is the increase in recharge. 3 MS. FUNK: Just a small question here. 4 What I read inside the reports is that this 5 aquifer is going to be used in drought conditions, 6 right? You will be pumping out the 50 litres a 7 second, and it's for drought conditions. Has 8 anybody looked at what the drought conditions -- 9 what would happen with this aquifer during drought 10 conditions? 11 MR. WIECEK: As I indicated, these 12 groundwater -- this area has been monitored for as 13 far back as the 1960s, including through the 14 droughts of the 1980s. And there are monitoring 15 records available from these wells that show how 16 the aquifers normally respond to decreases in 17 precipitation. I could find it. It would take me 18 a little while. I could find the actual 19 hydrographs for the area. But within that upper 20 sand unit, it's on the order of two litre decline 21 in water levels is the normal drought response. 22 So any incremental, and it is just a straight 23 incremental increase in drawdown, would be 24 associated with the pumping. But, like we said, 25 it is coming from the lower sands. The drawdown 103 1 is primarily focused in the lower sands. And the 2 water is coming from decreases in discharge and 3 slight increases in recharge, so the effects 4 dissipate by the time you get to the water table. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could find 6 those charts during the lunch break and we could 7 come back to it this afternoon? 8 MR. WIECEK: Okay. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Because I think that 10 will be an area of some more questioning. Ken, 11 did you have more? 12 MR. GIBBONS: I just want, if I can, a 13 further clarification. I am not sure if you are 14 referring to the same charts that I have in front 15 of me. I have the charts from the report that was 16 issued, the supplemental report from 17 September 2006. And it shows, in the case of one 18 monitoring station, a variation of about five 19 metres over the time period from 1965 to a low 20 point, that's at four to five metres, at various 21 times, from 1965 down to 1990. And it's gone back 22 up again, so it is at a historically high period 23 now. But it does show variation over time, 24 certainly, that is fairly significant, I suppose. 25 And if we could find out which ones you are 104 1 referring to, and it might be helpful to know 2 whether you are referring to this chart or to some 3 others. This is for the monitoring station 4 OE-001. 5 MR. WIECEK: 001 is the one that's in 6 the center of the Sandilands Glaciofluvial 7 Complex. 8 MR. GIBBONS: But I guess what I am 9 trying to get some clarification on is, it seems 10 to me, that there is an assumption that the 11 aquifer is being replenished by the aquitard, 12 that's my understanding. Because the reference to 13 the idea that the drawdown area around the well 14 will be replenished, will be recharged, if you 15 will, that there will be an increased recharge, is 16 not an increased recharge that comes from other 17 sources, other than what's already in the ground, 18 is that what I'm hearing? 19 MR. WIECEK: No, that's not correct. 20 MR. GIBBONS: Where does it come from, 21 then? 22 MR. WIECEK: The limiting factor to 23 recharge to a semi-confined aquifer is the flow -- 24 is the flow-through that aquitard. The volume of 25 water that's above it in the unconfined aquifer, 105 1 whether that's going up and down, doesn't have a 2 significant bearing on it, because the limiting 3 factor is how much water can get through that 4 aquitard. So that's what we are saying there, is 5 that becomes -- 6 MR. GIBBONS: Well, I'm not sure that 7 is answering the question that comes from your 8 earlier statement. Your earlier statement said 9 there would be a drawdown, and then with the 10 increased recharge. So the question is, where 11 does the increased recharge come from? In other 12 words, what is the assumption behind where an 13 increase recharge will come to create a steady 14 state after you take 50 litres per second out of 15 the system? And I guess that is what is throwing 16 me off here because I'm not sure where that's 17 coming from. There has been several references 18 now to an increased recharge. 19 MR. WIECEK: It is coming from an 20 increase in the hydraulic gradient through the 21 aquitard. Groundwater flow, it is controlled. 22 There are three factors that control groundwater, 23 or the calculation of the volume of groundwater 24 flow. One is the hydraulic conductivity, that is 25 a fixed property of the aquifers or aquitards. 106 1 The other one is the cross-sectional area, the 2 area through which flow can occur, so that's 3 basically the size. And the third is the 4 hydraulic gradient. And that's the one factor 5 that changes when you are pumping, is that by 6 increasing the hydraulic head difference, you are 7 increasing the gradient. 8 MR. GIBBONS: Sorry, but in that 9 context, then, the water that flows through that 10 gradient, where is it coming from? What I'm 11 getting at, I guess, is a sense that we are 12 talking about groundwater recharging groundwater, 13 because you are talking about the gradient 14 affecting the groundwater. There is an 15 assumption, and let me go back to the original 16 point that was made in one of the other -- the 17 earlier references; we are going to pull 50 litres 18 per second out, and there is going to be a 19 recharge that will allow that to enter into a 20 steady state. Where does the 50 litres come from? 21 What I'm hearing is that it's coming from other 22 aspects of groundwater from the aquitard or 23 wherever. But presumably we need to find some 24 recharge coming from outside the aquifer, that is 25 rainwater, et cetera. 107 1 MR. WIECEK: Precipitation infiltrates 2 to the upper aquifer -- 3 MR. GIBBONS: Right. 4 MR. WIECEK: -- which then, part of 5 that, infiltrates through the aquitard to the 6 lower aquifer. And so the increased recharge is 7 the induced infiltration from the upper aquifer to 8 the lower aquifer. 9 MR. GIBBONS: And that will increase 10 because either, A, there is room for it to 11 infiltrate as a result of the water being drawn 12 down, or is it being -- is the increase coming 13 because there is more rain? 14 MR. WIECEK: No. 15 MR. GIBBONS: This is what I am having 16 trouble getting people to pin down, where the 17 water is coming from? And it would help me 18 understand the recharge issue because this goes 19 back to the budget question. And we would like to 20 have a sense of what's going into the system in 21 order to assess whether or not what is going out 22 of the system is, in fact, somehow sustainable. 23 MR. WIECEK: Yes. No, it's coming 24 from ultimately precipitation infiltrating through 25 the upper aquifer, through the aquitard to the 108 1 lower aquifer. There is that 50 litres per second 2 that is being diverted out of the upper aquifer 3 over a very broad area. Within that particular 4 area, as we talked about, it's a very deep water 5 table. So a minor, a small decrease, like over a 6 large area, 50 litres is not a lot of water. It 7 is not going to have an effect on the surface 8 environment. It will have some small decrease in 9 the water table in that area. 10 MR. GIBBONS: This is what I'm getting 11 at. Because before what we were getting is a 12 sense of steady state, which implies no change. 13 But there must naturally be a change. Unless we 14 have an increase in rain. 15 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 16 MR. GIBBONS: There would have to be 17 some slight decrease in the available water in the 18 water table of the aquifer, et cetera? 19 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 20 MR. GIBBONS: Okay, that's what I 21 needed, thank you. 22 MR. HALKET: I would like to ask a 23 question. What it seems to me that you are 24 saying, and you can correct me if I'm wrong here 25 again if I'm wrong or right, that there is no real 109 1 increase in recharge, we are making an estimate on 2 recharge in terms of a water budget here. But 3 when you start pumping the lower aquifer, when you 4 referred to an increase in recharge, what you 5 really mean is that the system's dynamic response 6 is going to change. And that the water -- you are 7 going to decrease hydraulic gradient around the 8 confluence of the well. And it is going to be 9 pulling the water, more easily, shall we say, from 10 the surface aquifer, the unconfined surface 11 through the aquitard, is that basically what it 12 is? 13 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 14 MR. HALKET: Pardon me? 15 MR. WIECEK: That's basically correct, 16 yes. 17 MR. HALKET: So now we're talking 18 about diverting water within the system or, you 19 know, the system is reacting to the pumping. Do 20 you perceive this reaction to the pumping, if it 21 is going to affect the unconfined aquifer above, 22 what kind of affect would that have up there to 23 the unconfined aquifer, and maybe to the beto zone 24 above that? Would you look at an increased 25 hydraulic gradient there as causing any affect to, 110 1 say, the root structure of plants? 2 MR. WIECEK: No. I mean, as we 3 discussed, there is, first of all, a deep 4 unconfined water table in there, in excess for 5 most of the area, it is in excess of five metres 6 up to 38 metres. The beto zone above there -- any 7 lowering of that water table does not increase the 8 gradient through the beto zone of the unsaturated 9 flow, that will continue at its current pace. So 10 as far as diverting water that would be available 11 for the surface plants and the wetlands in the 12 area, no. 13 MR. HALKET: So then those changes 14 would then probably take place in the unconfined 15 aquifer above; is that correct? 16 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 17 MR. HALKET: To the hydraulic -- to 18 the pumping in the unconfined well? 19 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 20 MR. HALKET: And the changes, you're 21 saying, would be localized to the aquifer above, 22 then? 23 MR. WIECEK: To the broad area. 24 MR. HALKET: To the broad area above 25 it. 111 1 MR. WIECEK: Of the drawdown area 2 site. 3 MR. HALKET: To the drawdown area. 4 Okay. And there would be, then, some downstream 5 changes to that unconfined aquifer, would there 6 be? 7 MR. WIECEK: To the unconfined 8 aquifer? 9 MR. HALKET: Yes. 10 MR. WIECEK: Which currently flows 11 west of the Bedford Ridge to the lowlands area 12 below there, that's correct. 13 MR. HALKET: And so, basically, you 14 are taking the water, then, that would come from 15 that unconfined aquifer that you are pumping out 16 of the -- in terms of your increased recharge 17 piece? 18 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 19 MR. HALKET: Okay, got that. 20 MR. WIECEK: It's a net mass balance, 21 yes. 22 MR. HALKET: Okay. I liked that 23 slide, if we can put it back up again, where you 24 were calculating the recharge. And I would still 25 like to continue down this avenue of what the 112 1 recharge is to this aquifer, just to see -- I 2 guess my questions all come to the idea of 3 interpretation here and interpretation of the 4 numbers. So you make two recharge estimates, one 5 for the area around the well and one for the 6 whole -- 7 MR. WIECEK: Sandilands Glaciofluvial 8 Complex. 9 MR. HALKET: The whole Sandilands 10 Glaciofluvial Complex. And I notice in the whole 11 Sandilands Glaciofluvial Complex you use a 12 recharge estimate or a rate of 71 millimetres per 13 year. But around the well system itself, around 14 the well system, or the cone of influence that you 15 have portrayed, you use something like 174 16 millimetres a year? 17 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. That's 18 based on studies within that area. 19 MR. HALKET: Okay. Can you explain 20 the difference, why such a difference, to me, 21 please? 22 MR. WIECEK: Okay. Part of this study 23 that looks specifically at the recharge rates for 24 the area, that study looked beyond this specific 25 area here, also to other areas where it determined 113 1 in a clay soil area the recharge rate is estimated 2 based on that study on 43 millimeters per year. 3 For the sandy areas, the recharge estimate was 134 4 millimeters per year. 5 If we look at the overall sort of 6 official geology, we can see that the area, in a 7 broad sense, portions of it underlaying the 8 surface is sandy, which is particularly in the 9 area of this study. Other portions of that 10 complex, the surface is underlain by clays or 11 tills, which will have the lower recharge 12 associated with them. And when you get into the 13 net balance of lower 43 millimeters in the areas 14 with just clays, because the water has a better 15 tendency to runoff rather than recharge, versus 16 the sandy areas with a high recharge rate, you get 17 a net balance that is coming to something on the 18 order of that 71 millimeters per year over the 19 broad area. But within specific portions of that 20 area, you have suitable soil conditions for a very 21 high recharge rate to occur. Others, the 22 conditions such as clay, clayey areas, the 23 recharge is very slow because it cannot get to the 24 clays with any significant fashion and you end up 25 with a significant amount of water runoff in those 114 1 cases. 2 MR. HALKET: Yes. And in your report 3 you characterized these estimates as being fairly 4 conservative? 5 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 6 MR. HALKET: And the Thornthwaite 7 method that was used to calculate the -- gave you 8 71 millimeters a year. Okay. And then if you 9 look at your cone of depression, or where the cone 10 of depression is, and you are using 174 11 millimeters a year, was that also from the 12 Thornthwaite? 13 MR. WIECEK: No. That was calculated 14 using actual tracer tests on nested piezometers 15 within that area. 16 MR. HALKET: Okay. This 71 17 millimeters that you are using here from the 18 Thornthwaite method, if I understand the 19 Thornthwaite method right or correctly, that is a 20 method that takes the total precipitation within 21 an area? 22 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 23 MR. HALKET: And then it subtracts the 24 evapotranspiration from that, the losses due to 25 evapotranspiration? 115 1 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 2 MR. HALKET: And then it defines the 3 rest of the water that is left over as recharge? 4 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 5 MR. HALKET: Now, that recharge then 6 includes water that may not make its way to the 7 aquifer. It may be water that runs off into 8 streams or other surface water, let's say, or 9 surface depressions. It may be water that runs 10 through the beto zone horizontally and never 11 reaches the water table or the groundwater table. 12 In this calculation of the Thornthwaite method, 13 the Thornthwaite method, I think, is presuming 14 that all water is recharged to the aquifer once 15 you take evapotranspiration losses out of the 16 equation; is that correct? 17 MR. WIECEK: That's basically correct, 18 yes. 19 MR. HALKET: So then this 71 20 millimetres per year is not a total recharge to 21 that aquifer, would not be a total recharge. Some 22 of that is going to surface runoff. Some of that 23 is going to flow in the beto zone. So that if I 24 was to interpret those numbers, I might want to 25 use a number that may be a little bit less than 116 1 71? 2 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 3 MR. HALKET: Got you. 4 MR. WIECEK: In an area, such as in 5 the Red River Valley, where these clay soils can 6 get a lot of runoff, your net recharge is going to 7 be less because you see a lot of runoff in the 8 area. As we discussed, this area here is fairly 9 poorly drained. And while there may be some 10 localized runoff, the water is moving primarily 11 through the ground in that area. When you look at 12 the topography of the area, certainly the drainage 13 channels are very poorly defined. 14 MR. HALKET: But there is topography 15 in the area? 16 MR. WIECEK: Yes. Oh, there is a fair 17 bit of release from here. 18 MR. HALKET: So there could be a lot 19 of water running horizontally through the beto 20 zone through the flow, that sort of thing? 21 MR. WIECEK: Through the unconfined 22 aquifers, yes. 23 MR. HALKET: And even above the 24 unconfined aquifers if it's sandy. Because one of 25 the pictures that I'm getting about this aquifer, 117 1 and the Bedford Ridge area, is that there is a 2 great variety of soils in that area. They are 3 predominantly sandy, but there is a lot of lenses. 4 And it is quite a complex system, is it not? 5 MR. WIECEK: That's correct, it's a 6 very complex system. 7 MR. HALKET: Yes. And, therefore, 8 there may be quite a few avenues below the soil 9 that transmit water horizontally in this area. My 10 point, I guess, that I'm getting to here, is that 11 assuming that from Thornthwaite's equation that 12 everything you lose after evapotranspiration goes 13 into recharge, to me that's not a conservative 14 estimate. Conservative estimate would be saying 15 that there are other losses within the system, and 16 maybe the number should be a little bit lower than 17 that. I'm just asking you what you think about 18 that? 19 MR. WIECEK: Well, when you look at 20 the glaciofluvial complex itself, the majority of 21 it is overlain by sandy soils. And, therefore, 22 going by Cherry's estimate of 174 millimeters, is 23 actually, if you did an average -- likely, and it 24 hasn't been done -- but if you did an average of 25 the areas of the complex that were underlain by 118 1 the lower permeability clays and tills versus how 2 much of the area is overlain by sands, the average 3 would probably be on the higher end because the 4 bulk of the soils over the -- under the complex 5 are sands. 6 MR. HALKET: I was looking at Cherry's 7 paper on this. And in the Bedford Ridge system, 8 she actually -- she had three sites that she 9 looked at within this area. And she calculated -- 10 not using Thornthwaite's method, but actually 11 calculated -- 12 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 13 MR. HALKET: -- what she thought the 14 recharge was in those areas. And at one of the 15 sites, one of the three sites, she reports that 16 the recharge was 43 millimeters, plus or minus 26 17 millimeters a year. 18 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 19 MR. HALKET: And this is because she 20 said it was a clay, or sand site, or a clay till 21 site. And she also goes on to say "that if 22 this" -- and this I quote from her report: 23 "That if this value is not used, then 24 the calculation of the average 25 recharge rate, the value would be 119 1 closer to 30 millimeters per year plus 2 or minus eight millimeters a year." 3 She goes on to say that: 4 "The local recharge rates estimated at 5 each site indicate that there is 6 significant spatial variation in 7 groundwater recharge throughout the 8 study area." 9 And all three sites of hers that she chose were on 10 the Bedford Ridge. And she goes on to say that: 11 "These findings would indicate that 71 12 millimeters a year is at the high end 13 of the estimates from her tracer 14 findings." 15 Could you comment on that? 16 MR. WIECEK: Based on my experience 17 with those soils, and the work that I've done in 18 that area, I would say it's probably on the lower 19 end. 20 MR. HALKET: Okay. Well, here is a 21 report that has three sites. And I agree one of 22 them is up at 170 or so millimeters per year in 23 terms of recharge, but there is one that is down 24 at 43. So I guess I come back to my estimate, or 25 to my original equation, or original 120 1 interpretation here and say -- or original 2 question about interpretation, and would say that 3 you are saying that your numbers, in terms of 4 recharge, are conservative estimates. But Cherry 5 has got three numbers here, one which is very low, 6 and in the Bedford Ridge area. And that would 7 lead me to believe that that 71 or 70, I forget 8 what the number was, is not so conservative. 9 And if we could go back to that 10 calculation, please. And then a different 11 interpretation of those numbers might lead to a 12 lower estimate of the total recharge in that area. 13 And if we could go to the next slide. You are 14 using a recharge here, an estimated recharge, of 15 174 millimeters a year, which would seem to be at 16 the high end of Cherry's numbers, considering the 17 three test sites that she did on the Bedford 18 Ridge, one of them being as low as 40 millimetres. 19 And, as a matter of fact, in the one that you had 20 40 millimetres, she said that is an average of 21 that site. Her average of that site would be 22 somewhere below that, 20 to 30 millimetres per 23 year. This seems to me that if we use the lower 24 number here, it would take that annual recharge 25 calculation of 400 litres per second, if you 121 1 wanted to take that down to, say, I would imagine 2 a more conservative number, say 50 millimetres a 3 year or 70 millimetres a year, under half of that, 4 it would take you down to 200 litres per second in 5 terms of recharge within that site. Would that be 6 another interpretation? 7 MR. WIECEK: That would be another 8 interpretation, yes. 9 MR. HALKET: Yes, okay. Another point 10 here is if we do take that down to 200 litres per 11 second, and if you follow along with my reasoning, 12 all of that recharge now is not going to -- to the 13 groundwater supply or to the aquifer. Some of it 14 may be moving, and preferentially in the beto zone 15 out of the area, too, and not get to the aquifer, 16 would you agree with that? 17 MR. WIECEK: Clarify that, please? 18 MR. HALKET: I said all of this 19 recharge here that we're talking about, it may not 20 be making its way vertically through the soil. It 21 may be making its way horizontally through the 22 soil and may not even become part of the recharge 23 of the aquifer system itself? 24 MR. WIECEK: It will become the 25 recharge for the upper unconfined aquifer and then 122 1 will move lateral through there. And a portion of 2 it will also move downwards from the aquitard to 3 the lower semi-confined aquifer. 4 MR. HALKET: Yes. Now, if we take 5 this number as, for example, if we take 174 6 millimetres and use a number that's about half of 7 that, let's say 70 millimetres a year, which is a 8 little less than half, or 73, and use that, we are 9 looking at about 200 litres per second. 10 But my understanding is that this is a 11 recharge zone for four aquifer systems. Like, we 12 have an upper -- we have an upper system, an 13 unconfined aquifer, sand aquifer. We have the 14 aquifer of interest here, which is the lower sand 15 aquifer. But below that we also have two bedrock 16 aquifers, don't we, we have the Red River 17 formation and the Winnipeg formation that are 18 being recharged out of this area, too? 19 MR. WIECEK: Out of the broad regional 20 area. 21 MR. HALKET: Out of the broad regional 22 area, but also this area, too. This is -- this is 23 the main recharge area for the sandstone aquifer 24 that lies below, that's my understanding from the 25 geological reports, anyway. And it's also one of 123 1 the main recharge areas for the carbonate aquifer 2 that runs through this area, too. 3 MR. WIECEK: If I could speak to that, 4 please? 5 MR. HALKET: Pardon me? 6 MR. WIECEK: I've just got a short 7 presentation here that speaks to that. 8 MR. HALKET: Oh, okay. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to do that 10 now or after lunch? Do you want to finish it off 11 now? 12 MR. HALKET: How long will it take? 13 THE CHAIRMAN: How long will the 14 presentation take, Mr. Wiecek? 15 MR. WIECEK: Five minutes. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's do that now, and 17 then we will break for lunch. 18 MR. WIECEK: Certainly, as you are 19 saying, it's basically common knowledge that 20 groundwater is recharging in that area to the east 21 of the Sandilands area, the broad Sandilands areas 22 to, in this case, it's the Winnipeg formation, but 23 it's also to the carbonate aquifer. If we look at 24 a geologic cross-section coming straight out of 25 Winnipeg, going straight west, this is what we 124 1 see. This is Winnipeg. And going along Highway 2 15, passed Dugald, the Brokenhead River, the Hazel 3 Creek area above there, and all of these wetlands 4 below there. 5 Certainly in this area, we see the 6 typical soil profile, clay over till, the 7 carbonate aquifer, underlain by the sandstone 8 aquifer, the granites. And one thing you see in 9 this area is we have got extensive sand deposits. 10 One of those extensive sand deposits that, in this 11 case, is actually extending down and is in contact 12 with the carbonates and the sandstones. So you 13 can see a very clear path way for the majority of 14 the water to get through from these rivers, these 15 water surfaces and sources, down through the 16 sands, off to the sandstones and the carbonates. 17 So certainly there is an obvious pathway for the 18 water to get from its source, from that surface 19 source, which is the rivers, the precipitation in 20 the rivers through to the aquifer. 21 In the case of the Winnipeg formation, 22 the water is moving basically from the north to 23 that area towards Lake Winnipeg. If we go further 24 south and take a look at another geologic 25 cross-section down in this area, which is the 125 1 project areas just to the north area here, but 2 there is another cross-section to consider here, 3 and I have highlighted that this is the limit, the 4 eastern limit of the Winnipeg formation. And, in 5 particular, the Winnipeg formation and the 6 carbonates have been eroded here and replaced with 7 shales. That's what you see on this cross-section 8 going along the Rat River, through Zhoda, the 9 Village of Sandilands and Woodridge. What we see 10 in this area is actually sandstones. And the 11 carbonates do not exist because they have been 12 eroded off and replaced with these shales. You do 13 see -- in the Sandilands area, you do see that 14 whole -- I am just showing it as a single unit for 15 simplicity here -- this whole Sandilands complex. 16 Groundwater recharges up through the uplands and 17 it moves laterally. In this case, it is 18 restricted from getting down by these underlying 19 clays and tills, and the fact that this aquifer is 20 the formation of sandstones, and carbonate 21 aquifers don't exist at depths there. A portion 22 of it is moving off through these silts. Which, 23 in this case, these silts are a series of -- it is 24 a silty unit with a series of sand and gravel 25 lense layers in it. 126 1 Just going back to that broad regional 2 cross-section again, we are talking about this 3 area through Zhoda here, where the carbonates have 4 been eroded off and then overlain by these shales. 5 One thing to note, when we go back to the such, is 6 that recharge is occurring not only through the 7 upper sands but also through the tills. I mean, 8 recharge occurs, of course, throughout the area. 9 So, finally, if we just look at the 10 particular project area, and that's that same 11 schematic that we were showing to you before, the 12 upper sands, this unsaturated zone -- or not 13 unsaturated zone, unconfined zone in here, is 14 restricted from moving into the Winnipeg 15 formations by this underlying aquitard in the 16 lower tills. There are places where the tills 17 become very thin and there is an increased avenue 18 for water to get through there, but it is still 19 restricted because cross-sectional area, the 20 amount of exposure has a major factor on the 21 volume of water. 22 So basically what we're saying here is 23 that, yes, this area does provide some recharge. 24 Certainly when you get to the south of this, to 25 the Zhoda-Sandilands area, the carbonates don't 127 1 actually even exist in this area. This whole 2 area, as we saw up here, is a definite known 3 avenue for high flow of recharge to the aquifers. 4 This whole area becomes the zone of recharge to 5 that bedrock aquifer, not just this one particular 6 zone. It is the cumulative effect not only of 7 this deposit, but all of these deposits, and the 8 water that's within the organics here, 9 infiltrating through the ground to the bedrock. 10 MR. HALKET: Thanks. Can you go back 11 to that, to the slide, the local slide of the 12 local geology and stratigraphy? No, the last one 13 you showed of the area around the Bedford Ridge, 14 that one there. 15 MR. WIECEK: Oh, right. 16 MR. HALKET: That's the slide that's 17 in the geological or the hydrogeological reports 18 that you have here, correct? 19 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. Those 20 are the sections. We've just cleaned them up in 21 here with colour to clarify them. 22 MR. HALKET: And the arrows that 23 you've got, in terms of the preferential flow of 24 groundwater in that slide, that's the 25 interpretation of where you think the water will 128 1 go? 2 MR. WIECEK: Based on the monitored 3 water levels, yes. 4 MR. HALKET: Okay. Now, I look at 5 that and I see sort of a tiered keg sort of 6 structure. There is three aquifers there. There 7 is the Winnipeg formation aquifer, sand aquifer on 8 the bedrock, and then there is the lower sand unit 9 aquifer, and what you have depicted as an upper 10 sand unit aquifer there. Now, if I go back to 11 your calculations on recharge, if you could flash 12 those up for a second, please. 13 MR. WIECEK: That's in another slide 14 here. Okay. 15 MR. HALKET: Now we're looking at this 16 annual recharge rate, if we were to use another 17 estimate of recharge within the area of, say, 18 around 70, we are looking at around 200 litres per 19 second. And now what I see here is three aquifer 20 systems below. So I would suggest, then, that not 21 all of that recharge that we're seeing is going to 22 one aquifer system, or that you would -- that it 23 would be prudent to divide that number by three, 24 because there are three aquifers that this 25 recharge is being used for. So another 129 1 interpretation of that equation, or this 2 calculation, would take us to 200 litres per 3 second and then divided by three. And now, all of 4 a sudden, we're down to around 60 or 70 litres per 5 second to that aquifer as a recharge number to 6 use. And the proposal is to use 50 litres per 7 second, which is 750 over 70, somewhere around 8 80 percent, let's say, of the total recharge of 9 the aquifer for that particular aquifer, the lower 10 sand aquifer. That's another interpretation that 11 you could run on the same numbers that are 12 being -- on the numbers and the research that has 13 been presented so far. And I was wondering what 14 do you -- what would be your interpretation of 15 that? 16 MR. WIECEK: Going back to this 17 cross-section here, another way to try and 18 estimate the flow through that lower sand aquifer 19 is to look at this hydraulic gradient. We have 20 done the pump test. We have measured the 21 transmittivity of the aquifer, and from that we 22 get the conductivity. We know the hydraulic 23 gradient. We measure that off of the monitoring 24 wells in the area. And compared to a normal 25 regional gradient, it is very steep. We have, 130 1 from the pump test, we have got some idea of the 2 boundaries of the aquifer, so we have a 3 cross-sectional area of where the water is flowing 4 to. 5 If you take the measured conductivity, 6 the known area of the aquifer, and that gradient, 7 you end up with a flow, an initial estimate of 8 flow through that lower sand unit on the order of 9 400 litres per second. Which, if you work that 10 backwards, that, therefore, what that calculation 11 says is that all of this recharge is going through 12 the lower sand unit and none of it is going 13 through, you've got a net deficit. It suggests 14 that there is more recharge out there that we are 15 not accounting for yet. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think I am 17 going to interrupt this debate for a little while 18 so we can take a break for lunch. It is now just 19 about quarter after 12. I had indicated that we 20 would break for an hour, but I note that most of 21 you will have to drive into town and back to get 22 some lunch. So we will give you an hour and a 23 quarter. I am going to start at 1:30 sharp. 24 (Proceedings recessed at 12:15 and reconvened at 25 1:30 p.m.) 131 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come to order, 2 please. We're a little later than I had indicated 3 but once again, we had technological glitches 4 which we have only partially corrected. 5 You'll note some different people at 6 the front of the room. We're going to have a 7 slight change in the program. The Manitoba 8 Eco-Network has a presentation that I wanted to 9 complete today, so I have put them on now to make 10 their presentation. Following that, the 11 proponent, that's the Water Co-op, and the 12 panelists may have questions of the Eco-Network. 13 And once their presentation is concluded, we will 14 return to asking questions of the Water Co-op. 15 First of all, could I ask each of the 16 four of you to state your names for the record and 17 then I will have the Commission Secretary swear 18 you in. Mr. Koroluk first, please. 19 MR. KOROLUK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 20 Glen Koroluk, I'm the water caucus coordinator for 21 the Manitoba Eco-Network. 22 DR. BROOKS: I'm David Brooks, 23 Director of Research for Friends of the Earth 24 Canada. 25 MS. BALLANCE: Kimberly Ballance and 132 1 I'm a masters student at the University of 2 Manitoba. 3 MS. CLUBB: Lindy Clubb, I'm 4 representing three environmental groups and I'm a 5 member of the Manitoba Water Caucus. 6 (MR. KOROLUK: SWORN) 7 (DR. BROOKS: SWORN) 8 (MS. BALLANCE: SWORN) 9 (MS. CLUBB: SWORN) 10 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, 11 Mr. Koroluk. 12 MR. KOROLUK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 13 I'm a bit awkward for my presentation today 14 because my screen isn't working so I'll be doing a 15 lot of twisting around. I'm not ignoring the 16 crowd or the panel. I appreciate a lot of the 17 intense questioning this morning. I'm happy to 18 see that a lot of thought has been put into this 19 proposal. We feel this is a very large issue that 20 we have to deal with. 21 And just to give a bit of a background 22 for my personal side. I'm from near this region, 23 kind of. My mother's homestead is in around the 24 Sarto area and I spent my summer holidays there as 25 a kid up to the age of 16. It's very dear to me. 133 1 We used to go to Sandilands and pick blueberries. 2 And the other side the Red River too is also 3 important to my life as I lived in the small town 4 of St. Jean Baptiste for about seven, eight years 5 and my dad worked in Morris at the bus plant 6 there, Flyer Industries, and the Plum Coulee was 7 where I learned to skate and play hockey. I 8 recall many a time losing the hockey puck at 9 springtime into the flowing water. 10 So both these regions are really 11 important to me and we've got a big issue here to 12 talk about. 13 I want to begin by getting this slide 14 show to work first. First off, I want to talk 15 about the project rationale or the justification 16 of the project. Why is this project in front of 17 us right now? We've got four different scenarios 18 or rationales placed in front of us. In the 19 December 2005 filing, the actual application, all 20 it said is that the Pembina Valley region is 21 susceptible to drought and that they needed this 22 water for emergency supply. 23 And then, you know, recently in 24 September 2006, with the supplementary filing, we 25 discover that maybe that this pipeline will supply 134 1 water to new customers outside of the traditional 2 area that Pembina Valley currently supplies. And 3 by new customers, we mean those municipalities 4 from where the pump well is to where it reaches 5 Morris. So it would be the east side of the Red 6 River. 7 And then we also find out in the 8 September 2006 document that there's going to be 9 population growth in the Pembina Valley area, 10 mostly attributable to immigration from Germany. 11 And then there is another document 12 that isn't in the public registry but it was 13 requested by us and subsequently by the Clean 14 Environment Commission and it's called The Master 15 Plan. It's prepared late in December 2003. And 16 it sort of does some projections of people and 17 livestock. So now we find out that this water may 18 be required for the population growth and the 19 growth in the livestock industry. And in 20 particular, the livestock we're talking about is 21 the hog sector. 22 So, you know, we question what the 23 true rationale of this project is and I think we 24 have to find out more of those details. 25 So briefly, you know, the context of 135 1 our analysis, we indicated that we do a policy 2 analysis and then that analysis is in 3 consideration of the many public concerns that 4 were filed in January of 2006 and that's part of 5 the terms of reference of this hearing. And also 6 part of the terms of reference is the issues 7 raised by this project that are regulated by other 8 Manitoba statutes. So we're going to spend a bit 9 of time on that. And what we really wanted to do 10 is see if this analysis attempted to determine if 11 this project fits with stated public policy and 12 legislative instruments. 13 We also noted that the proponent was 14 required to assess their proposal according to the 15 principles and guidelines of sustainable 16 development. And that was a request made by the 17 CEC. And we let the panel be the judge to see if 18 the proponents adequately addressed those 19 principles and guidelines. 20 To start off, I mean we heard a lot 21 about the areas. I don't want to talk about it 22 too much more, but we want to look first at the 23 area that we're targeting to move water, the 24 aquifer. And we've heard it is a unique area. 25 The complex, the glaciofluvial complex, it's a 136 1 source for five watersheds within the area. And 2 we've heard parts of it supply the sandstone and 3 carbonate aquifer which are two major bedrock 4 aquifers in Manitoba. The area is extremely rich 5 in biodiversity and the water there provides water 6 for the wetlands and bogs and the entire 7 ecosystem. 8 We looked at some of the policies out 9 there over the last half generation which deal 10 with water protection and we've got Manitoba's 11 water policies from 1994, you know, the water 12 strategy of 2003, similar to the water policies 13 but a different government in power with a 14 different spin, but basically saying the same. 15 And then we've got the Water Protection Act of 16 2006 and some key amendments to the Water Rights 17 Act in 2006 which happened at the same time we got 18 the Water Projection Act. 19 Now, the 1994 Water Policy, Manitoba's 20 water policy is very specific for groundwater. It 21 says, 22 "Groundwater development and 23 utilization shall be managed so that 24 long-term sustainability of aquifers 25 is achieved and existing uses are not 137 1 negatively impacted." 2 And the strategy says much of the same 3 thing. And the Water Protection Act which sort of 4 takes in our policy sort of allows us or enables 5 us, it's enabling legislation, it gives us the 6 legal mechanisms to protect the groundwater. And 7 we can do that by designating that area as a water 8 quality management zone. 9 And also, the sequential amendments to 10 the Water Rights Act allows the Minister of Water 11 Stewardship to investigate and take into 12 consideration any scientific information in order 13 to protect the aquatic ecosystem. So we've got 14 this new tool now that we can use to protect that 15 aquifer if we wanted to. 16 And I just want to say, having said 17 what the legislation can do and what our policies 18 are, I just briefly want to reference some 19 material that was sent in a few days ago by Frank 20 Render, who won't be presenting today, but he 21 worked for the Department of Water Resources for 22 many years. He's a retired civil servant and his 23 expertise was the groundwater and he knows the 24 groundwater in this area. And he reviewed all the 25 materials from the proponent. And briefly I'll 138 1 just say a couple of things that he said. And 2 it's in the record with the CEC right now and I 3 believe the proponents have this, too. But he 4 says the recharge capability is not known. The 5 area has not been studied sufficiently to allow 6 realistic long-term average recharge number to be 7 stated, water is virtually incompressible so that 8 if a particular pumping situation does draw more 9 water than the average recharge rate, it has to be 10 taken from some other part of the hydrologic 11 cycle. 12 And he also says, you know, the 13 general region does have considerable aquifer 14 development such as the Steinbach area, the RM of 15 Hanover. And he also states that the 16 contributions of streams and wetland areas and 17 other natural phenomena have not been evaluated. 18 And this follows a lot of the questioning that was 19 here this morning. 20 So if we do that sort of test as to 21 what our policies are, what the project is and 22 what we have as legislation, we have a good deal 23 of discrepancies there. 24 I want to get into some of the other 25 legislation, recent legislation that we do have. 139 1 We have a piece of legislation from 2000 called 2 The Water Resources Conservation Act. It 3 basically says no person shall drill for, divert, 4 et cetera, remove, sell, convey, transport water 5 from a water basin or a sub water basin. That's 6 the law in the books right now according to this 7 Act. 8 So in relation to this project, and we 9 haven't seen the full aerial extent of the lower 10 sand unit, we have heard this morning we don't 11 know the eastern or western boundaries and we've 12 got some maps in our presentation. So we predict 13 and we think that the lower sand unit likely 14 extends into the Whitemouth River watershed which 15 is part of the Winnipeg River sub-basin. When I 16 say sub-basin, I mean a sub-basin of the Hudson 17 Bay basin. 18 We right now are situated in the Red 19 River sub-basin. So the Water Resources 20 Conservation Act says you cannot move water from 21 the Winnipeg River sub-basin to the Red River 22 sub-basin. That's against the law. And so we 23 really question -- I guess we're asking that a 24 more detailed analysis takes place on the size of 25 this aquifer. 140 1 We'd also like to mention that the 2 transfer of water also sets a precedent that would 3 signal that additional water from this region is 4 available for the taking. And back in the early 5 nineties, the City of Winnipeg did an 6 investigation themselves on the upper part of the 7 glaciofluvial complex in the RM of Reynolds, just 8 south of Highway 1. They studied that area for 9 two years and so they were looking for a 10 supplementary supply of water, too. And again, in 11 the early nineties, that was after our dry period 12 in the late eighties. So I mean the transfer of 13 water from this region and possibly from the other 14 sub-basin will set precedence which is contrary to 15 the law. 16 I thought maybe I'd just get a couple 17 of maps. This is the Red River basin. As you 18 see, 80 per cent of it extends down into the U.S. 19 all the way down to South Dakota, the blue 20 highlights, the Red River basin. The green is the 21 Sandilands glaciofluvial complex. You'll see 22 where the proposed well location is with the star. 23 And you'll see, you know, the sub-basin in and 24 around that area. And that narrower drop, 25 actually that's the Lake Winnipeg sub-basin. And 141 1 then to the east is the Winnipeg River sub-basin. 2 Well, here is the close-up of the 3 area. The well site in the red sort of marks our 4 sub-basin boundaries. You know, on the east side 5 of St. Labre is the Winnipeg River sub-basin. And 6 then the west is the Red River sub-basin. If you 7 follow some of the discussion this morning and 8 some of the graphs in their submissions from the 9 proponent and look at the scale, you just have to 10 go about 7 to 10 kilometres to the east which has 11 been identified as one of the recharge areas that 12 they know of right now. And you'll be into the 13 other sub-basin. 14 And another law we came across, and 15 this is recent, is the RM of Piney by-law. This 16 also has to do with the transfer of water. The 17 Rural Municipality of Piney with by-law 45/06 18 under The Municipal Act prohibits the removal of 19 groundwater or surface water originating in the 20 municipality's source aquifer by means of 21 pipeline, tanker truck or other equivalent bulk 22 methods. 23 So some of us sort of question why are 24 we here to start with? The RM of Piney has a 25 by-law that says you can't take the water out of 142 1 their jurisdiction. 2 So we'd like to point out, and we 3 didn't have the time to hire legal experts and we 4 certainly suggest that independent legal advice is 5 required for this, but, you know, in an amazing 6 Supreme Court case, Spray Tech versus the Town of 7 Hudson, it ruled that the municipality had the 8 authority to regulate the use of lawn care 9 products through its by-law making process. And 10 that decision by the Supreme Court upheld the 11 Quebec Cities and Towns Act, which is much like 12 our Municipal Act, which states that a council may 13 make by-laws to secure peace, order of (inaudible) 14 the governance, health and general welfare in the 15 territory of the municipality. And our Municipal 16 Act gives that sort of same authority to our 17 municipalities. 18 And briefly, another issue that was 19 discussed this morning is climate change and the 20 requirements for using precaution when you make 21 decisions. Again, these principles are contained 22 in the Manitoba Water Strategy of 2003 and it's 23 also in the Water Resources Conservation Act. 24 Part of its preamble, it says, 25 "Whereas, in light of the fact that 143 1 future domestic needs and the 2 potential effect of climate change are 3 unknown, such as a water resource 4 management scheme, should be based on 5 the precautionary principle and on 6 sustainable water resource management 7 practices." 8 So we don't think the proposal has 9 addressed the issues of climate warming in the 10 particular area where they want to withdraw water 11 from. They bring that up as an issue, as a 12 rationale to bring water into their region but 13 they don't do it justification for the other part 14 of the province. 15 So just briefly, the summary of the 16 issues specific to the Sandilands glaciofluvial 17 complex. Manitoba is committed to ensuring 18 aquifer sustainability, protecting groundwater 19 resources. We feel that the proponent fails to 20 fully demonstrate that this project will not 21 compromise ecosystem functions to the aquifer. 22 And Manitoba is also committed to the Protected 23 Areas Network. And in that particular natural 24 region, there's some incomplete work. We saw that 25 where the protected areas are existing in place 144 1 but there are a lot of areas identified to be 2 designated as protected, and we haven't seen any 3 of that information. 4 Manitoba is also committed to 5 rejecting sub-basin transfers and bulk removals of 6 water. They are committed to the precautionary 7 principle. 8 And our conclusion is the proposal is 9 out of step with Manitoba's stated principles and 10 objectives concerning groundwater as well as some 11 of the laws in place. 12 Now, I want to move to the other side 13 of the river, to the west side of the Red River, 14 and talk about some of the water planning issues 15 in that area and some of the policies in place and 16 laws in place and take a look at what's happening 17 there. 18 Manitoba's position, again, we go to 19 our water policies and to our water strategies. 20 You know, water use and allocation decisions 21 should ideally be made within the framework of 22 integrated basin, watershed, and aquifer plans. 23 And the Water Protection Act of 2006 lets us do 24 this. Again, as I say, it's enabling legislation. 25 There's not a requirement that people have to do 145 1 it, it's voluntary. And that's kind of where 2 we're at right now, trying to do some watershed 3 planning. 4 And watershed planning is not a new 5 concept. The 1987 Federal Water Strategy called 6 for watershed planning. In 1994, we had an 7 Assiniboine River Advisory Board that called for 8 watershed planning. And that advisory board 9 actually was a result of the Pembina Valley Water 10 Co-op wanting to take 15 cubic feet per second of 11 water out of the Assiniboine River. So we had 12 hearings already with Pembina Valley looking for 13 more water back in the early nineties. And so we 14 got these recommendations, watershed planning. We 15 had a major public consultation process for water 16 use and allocation in the province in 1999 and 17 2000 it calls for watershed planning. 18 So we've still got a long ways to go 19 in that perspective. 20 And in this particular region where 21 the Pembina Valley Water Co-op supplies water, 22 that planning process hasn't started to our 23 knowledge. We are aware of two major planning 24 exercises that have taken place. We've heard 25 about the Winkler Aquifer Management Plan. That's 146 1 very specific to that aquifer in the Winkler 2 region. We also have the Stephenfield Lake 3 Watershed Management Plan, and that's a more 4 recent plan. The Lake Stephenfield Plan is a 5 positive step but it captures a real small part of 6 the two watersheds in that area, that being the 7 Morris River watershed and the Plum Coulee River 8 watershed. 9 And what we do notice, too, is that, 10 you know, watershed planning is good but it's also 11 a result of problems that have happened. And in 12 particular with the Winkler plan, they did the 13 planning process because the aquifer is 14 overallocated. And my understanding, there are 15 still problems with that aquifer. 16 Again, another visual here. The dark 17 red is the Red River basin. I just want to show 18 you that, it doesn't come up really good, but 19 really, where Pembina Valley Water Co-op supplies 20 its water to, there are two main watersheds, the 21 Plum Coulee which takes in sort of the R.M. of 22 Stanley and Rhineland and north of that is the 23 Morris River aquifer. And there are no 24 conservation districts in the area too. 25 Historically, conservation districts have done 147 1 some of the watershed planning in parts of 2 Manitoba and they'll take on more of that 3 responsibility. There is a conservation district 4 just slightly north of the supply area, and that's 5 the LaSalle Red Boyne. 6 But the majority of the area does not 7 have a CD nor does it have a watershed authority 8 planning process happening yet. 9 And we did hear this morning, too, 10 that proponents, you know, they are committed to 11 watershed planning and they are committed to an 12 in-basin or in-region solution to their supposed 13 water difficulties. And in fact, the Pembina 14 Valley Water Co-op has a seat on the Red River 15 Basin Board which encompasses the entire Red River 16 basin in the U.S. and Canada. And I know the 17 Co-op is committed to some of the principles that 18 the Red River Basin Board have put out. And that 19 is, you know, in-basin water supply is preferred 20 and conservation being an important priority. 21 I won't talk too much on water 22 conservation or water conservation policy, the 23 second part of the presentation will deal with 24 that. But I mean water conservation is a very 25 high priority in Manitoba right now and it is also 148 1 something that can be done through the Water 2 Protection Act. Pembina Valley Water Co-op has a 3 conservation plan. It was required of them back 4 in 1994 when they were given a water rights 5 licence, an environment licence to take water out 6 of the Red River. 7 We're not too sure what sort of 8 evaluation or progress or any updates of this plan 9 where that's at and we are aware that the Clean 10 Environment Commission asked some of those 11 questions, too. We haven't seen any response yet 12 and I'm sure there will be more questioning on 13 that later on. 14 International implications. Just 15 briefly, there are other international 16 implications we think with this project. And if 17 we look at some of the policy Manitoba has been 18 presenting in some of the statements, our province 19 has been emphasizing water management practices 20 that respect natural systems and conservation 21 measures. Some of you are aware of some of the 22 issues, and they are difficult issues as Sam has 23 pointed out. We've got projects south of the 24 border called the Garrison 2. It's called the Red 25 River Valley Water Supply Project. It's an 149 1 interbasin transfer of water from the Missouri 2 River into the Red River. That's a possibility. 3 There's NAWS, which is also known as the Northwest 4 Area Water Supply. Again, that's another 5 interbasin transfer of water. And we all know 6 about Devil's Lake and that's more of a watershed 7 transfer. It's an intermittent watershed in the 8 Red River basin. 9 But Manitoba has been very vocal on 10 telling our American friends that we've got to 11 conserve and we've got to, you know, put forth a 12 sustainable water strategy in the region and in 13 the basin. And we didn't see that when the 14 province, when the TAC, the Technical Advisory 15 Committee, did its review of the proposal. 16 Some of the international 17 implications, I mean this is a long shot. Again, 18 we're not lawyers and we're not hydrogeologists. 19 But, you know, if you look at the map, the 20 glaciofluvial complex extends into the U.S. It 21 dips slightly into Minnesota. So, you know, the 22 extent of the interconnectivity of the lower sand 23 unit to the entire complex is somewhat 24 undetermined. So I guess we ask the question, you 25 know, is this an international issue and should 150 1 the International Joint Commission be notified 2 about this project? It's something that we have 3 to determine. 4 And we've heard this earlier this 5 morning. This is an international implication. 6 Water security, I guess apportionment, fair share. 7 We do have apportionment agreements in other 8 watersheds and basins across the U.S./Canada 9 border. We heard of the one on the Pembina River 10 where 50 per cent of the Pembina River in Canada 11 has to go in the U.S. We have an agreement on the 12 Milk River that's similar in Alberta, Montana. We 13 do not have an apportionment agreement on the Red 14 River. And before we start talking about, you 15 know, moving water all over the place, we've got 16 to deal with this issue. The U.S. and Canadian 17 governments have to deal with this issue. And I 18 don't think the proponents should be using this as 19 another rationale to say they have to secure water 20 from elsewhere. This issue has to be taking place 21 first. 22 I mean there is a board on the Red 23 River basin, it's called the International Red 24 River Board. That's the board that functions out 25 of the IJC. They do have a subcommittee right now 151 1 that is looking at apportionment. They are trying 2 to determine the instream flow needs of the Red 3 River for various uses at the border. So we 4 should be investigating more of this, this 5 information that's out there for us. 6 And that's my part of the 7 presentation. And now I'd like to let Dr. Brooks 8 talk about his part. 9 DR. BROOKS: Thank you very much, 10 Glen. Chairman, members of the panel, I don't 11 have a lineage in Manitoba like Glen. I didn't 12 even grow up in Canada. But I have been working 13 on water issues for the last I guess 20 or 25 14 years of my life, mainly on water policy. And the 15 decision to build a pipeline is a profoundly 16 political decision. I mean political with a small 17 "p" not a capital "P". It means it's a public 18 policy issue because it has so many implications. 19 I have written out my testimony and I 20 attach to it a brochure that explains where I'm 21 coming from with the approach to water. I am 22 embarrassed to say there is an error in the very 23 first line. I say that my presentation covers two 24 aspects. We were working on this, amending it, 25 going back and forth with e-mails. It should say 152 1 three aspects, not two aspects. The lesson here 2 is something I've learned a hundred times and 3 never seem to learn it adequately, is you should 4 always do your final editing on paper and not on 5 the screen. It always looks good on the screen. 6 What I'm really offering today from 7 Friends of the Earth, we worked in collaboration 8 with Glen and the water caucus of the Manitoba 9 Eco-Network as we do with the Saskatchewan 10 Environmental Society and the Ecology Action 11 Centre in Nova Scotia across the country and 12 various programs is to offer some suggestive 13 analysis. We don't contend that our numbers here 14 are definitive but we intend to offer evidence 15 that suggests there's a lot of questions to be 16 raised about the pipeline. 17 I really want to provoke more 18 understanding to indicate where we have to go. We 19 didn't really have time enough between the award 20 of intervenor funding and to do this more 21 carefully, although I think the kinds of analysis 22 we're talking about are entirely possible. 23 The three points I'll be covering are, 24 first, the cost of the pipeline. Does it make 25 sense to build a pipeline of this kind? And to 153 1 look at water rates and what they can get back for 2 it. Second, I want to raise questions about the 3 demand for the water. Do we have to assume that 4 there will be large and necessary increases in 5 water? And third, some questions about land 6 management in this area. A land management 7 decision is always a water management decision or 8 always has implications for a water management. 9 And we think some of these are decisions that need 10 a lot more public scrutiny. 11 Throughout, I'm assuming that we're 12 talking about a pipeline. I was working on the 13 earlier assumptions that it's basically needed for 14 a growing population that runs short of water in 15 the summer time, particularly but not exclusively 16 in drought periods, but that there is a summer 17 peeking problem and that this creates a need that 18 has to be satisfied. A lot of my numbers come 19 from the Cochrane Engineering Report of 2003 and I 20 want to question one of the statements that's made 21 in there, which I'll come back to. 22 In particular, from a process point of 23 view, what I am really challenging is the absence 24 of any analysis of the no project option, the null 25 hypothesis or however you want to put it. I see 154 1 no test of what would happen if the pipeline is 2 not built. All I see are different alternative 3 pipelines or different alternatives, other supply 4 alternatives to a pipeline. But all environmental 5 assessments and all good cost benefit analyses 6 also test the no project option, and that's really 7 what I'm getting at. 8 Let me go to my first point. I'm not 9 going to read this statement, you have it before 10 you, I'll summarize it and make additional 11 comments as I go along, having heard something 12 this morning. 13 I had a lot of trouble finding out 14 what the cost of the pipeline was. Of course the 15 Cochrane report was looking at a broader concept 16 that it had upgrading plants and other treatment 17 areas. I'm not questioning any of that analysis 18 at all. And I am not asserting that the figures I 19 have come from any documents from the proponent. 20 I have chosen some numbers just to get some 21 results. They are reasonable I think. They are 22 the kinds of numbers I use when I'm often dealing 23 with uncertainty of a -- inadequate information. 24 One figure that's been given for the 25 cost of the pipeline is $11 million. I have taken 155 1 that for the sake of argument. I have then said, 2 well, carrying costs for an investment of this 3 kind are going to be about 10 per cent and that 4 you always have operating and maintenance cost. 5 I'm much fuzzier about that one. But again, for 6 the sake of argument, I used another 10 per cent. 7 What this gives me is annual costs for the 8 pipeline of around $2 million a year. When I do 9 the 10 per cent and 10 per cent times 11 comes out 10 to 2.2. Given the roughness of the calculations, 11 $2 million is close enough. 50 litres per second. 12 And from here on, I am simply dividing, I come out 13 with a cost at Morris, where it comes into the 14 PVWC pipe existing reticulation networks pipeline 15 and reticulation networks of $1.40 a cubic metre. 16 This is a lot more at the entrance to 17 the system than many people in Canada pay for 18 water. However, that's not a very good argument 19 from my side since I feel everyone in Canada 20 should be paying a lot more for water. So that's 21 not an argument that I'm pushing very strongly. I 22 think we all pay too little for our water. 23 But what I am saying is that those 24 costs are going to increase when they get to the 25 final consumer. And that gives us a huge target 156 1 for cost-effective conservation and demand 2 management techniques. 3 There is a lot that can be done. I 4 was interested, and I'm now going off anything 5 I've written here, but what I heard this morning, 6 the concept of desalination was dismissed as 7 exceedingly costly beyond the possibility. I do a 8 great deal of work in The Middle East. In fact, 9 one reason why I don't have a Power Point is I 10 only got back from a three week mission there 11 about two weeks before I had to have this ready. 12 The desalinated water is being at the plant, is 13 available in The Middle East for less than about 14 $1.00 U.S. now, so that is about $1.20 Canadian 15 right now. It's being delivered. Admittedly, 16 these are large plants, much larger than we've 17 needed here. On the other hand, they are starting 18 with sea water. And I couldn't read the contour 19 diagram with the salty water that's coming, it's 20 west of the Red River, but I think the numbers 21 were 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 parts per million which 22 is only a tenth, or a little bit more, 10 to 15 or 23 20 per cent as salty as sea water. So you're 24 starting from much less of a problem. Yes, you 25 still have the brine disposal problem and that's 157 1 not trivial. But I'm just saying that water at 2 $1.40 a cubic metre is a big target. 3 Now, let me go to the second point. 4 What could we do with this? And I'm going to 5 digress again to mention some of my background. 6 I was the first director of Canada's 7 federal office of energy conservation. I was the 8 founding director and worked in that program for 9 the first really five years of its life. In the 10 last 20 or 25 years, I had been working in 11 developing countries for the most part where I 12 found that water was a far more approximate issue 13 for many developing countries and many developing 14 regions as is the Pembina Valley area. But I 15 found the same principles are largely applicable. 16 And we're using the same kinds of analyses that we 17 did for energy conservation, most of which are 18 looking for cost-effective analyses. Can you save 19 water at a lower cost than you can deliver water? 20 And that's what I'm contending is true in this 21 case. 22 Let me start, though, by going back to 23 the Cochrane report. This report, I am assuming, 24 my background is geology and economics, it is not 25 engineering, I am assuming it is a competent 158 1 engineering report but it is not very good in its 2 economic analysis, in particular section 2 called 3 Growth and Demand Projections. The problems start 4 right off, I'm going to skim this part of my 5 paper, but there are strong terminological 6 problems. They shift back and forth between the 7 terms "scenario" and "projection." These are two 8 important analytical concepts but they are very 9 different. A scenario is a story. It is a 10 different view. It is a way of changing the way 11 things might develop. A projection is a highly 12 constrained almost mathematical thing. It's an 13 if/then. If population goes up by so much and if 14 the water use is like this, this is what the 15 results will be. It is mathematical, it is not a 16 story. The two are not the same but they are used 17 back and forth in the Cochrane report. 18 The other pair of terms that are used 19 back and forth are "demand" and "consumption." 20 Consumption is a statistic. It is what is used 21 or, if you want in the Cochrane report, what might 22 be used by consumers. Demand is a function. It's 23 a variable that depends on price, depends on what 24 industries are there, depends on the size of the 25 house, depends on family size and depends most 159 1 significantly on price. They are not the same. 2 Now this explains the confusion when 3 the Cochrane report writes, and I'm quoting now, 4 "Domestic projections represent a 5 potential need that must be 6 satisfied." 7 Nothing could be further from the truth. They do 8 use projection correctly in this term but they say 9 demand when they really mean consumption. And 10 then it takes consumption to be equivalent to 11 needs. There are two reasons why these are not 12 needs. First, consumption rates do not include 13 needs. Consumption includes everything from 14 drinking water, which I would agree is a need. In 15 fact, I need some right now, to washing 16 automobiles which very few people would define as 17 a human need. 18 Second, with the exception of a very 19 limited range of uses, mainly in households, stock 20 watering, very few needs have to be satisfied or, 21 to be more careful, have to be satisfied by water. 22 One sees over and over again 23 statements that there was no substitute for water. 24 That's simply wrong in most cases. There are lots 25 of substitutes for water, depend on what you're 160 1 trying to do. 2 So going on to make some calculations. 3 We are now talking about scenarios. High rates of 4 water use such as we experience across Canada, 5 across North America are by no means needs. They 6 do not have to be satisfied. It is the kind of no 7 project -- sorry, no pipeline project analysis 8 would use an analysis as presented in the annex to 9 the brochure I have passed around that where you 10 assume there is going to be no new water for this 11 area. We start off with this is more of the 12 nature of a scenario. 13 Let's assume you couldn't have any 14 more water. What would you do then? What are you 15 facing? I have just done a little bit with a very 16 simple analysis, choosing just one, well, one 17 particular piece of equipment in the house which 18 is the toilet. A toilet will typically use 30 per 19 cent of all water going through a house in the 20 winter time. Or if you want, it's 30 per cent of 21 all indoor use. Typical Canadian toilets use 12 22 to 15 litres to flush. There are now Canadian 23 standards for 6/3 litre flush toilets. By 6 plus 24 3, I mean I don't think I need any details, 25 sometimes you don't need as much water to flush as 161 1 other times. There's a light flush and a heavy 2 flush and I'm sure I just don't need to elaborate 3 on when you use one or when you use the other. 4 These are available, they work, they do not leak, 5 they are well designed. The early ones I know I'm 6 sure anyone who has put in a system like this 10 7 years ago found that you had to flush twice to get 8 everything down so it really wasn't a big 9 conservation. That was because the early 10 manufacturers simply reduced the flow on the 11 toilet. Well, you can never do just one thing for 12 efficiency, you have to do several things. These 13 are totally redesigned toilets that work very 14 well. 15 If we take 30 per cent of the water 16 that's used in the house, it is easy to cut that 17 volume going through the toilet in half. 18 The other thing of course that we can 19 do, going back to the other, is to ask what about 20 the prices that people are paying for water? I 21 have looked quickly at what the various RMs in the 22 area are charging. They look to be about half 23 metered. That means half are not metered. People 24 just pay a flat rate. We know that putting metres 25 in a house will reduce water consumption. 162 1 There have even been some very amusing 2 analyses where metres were put in, people were 3 still charged a flat rate, and still the 4 consumption went down. Just the presence of the 5 metre created such an effect that people were more 6 careful of their water use. And of course, if you 7 charge per unit of volume, ideally with the cost 8 going up, the more you used, just the opposite of 9 what I understand is the situation in the City of 10 Winkler where costs go down the more you use, and 11 the problem is the bigger use, as I'm going to 12 explain, comes at the peak periods. So really 13 it's a double whammy on the system. 14 So pricing, better equipment, these 15 all can be done, and I'm talking about ways that 16 are cost-effective. The City of Toronto will now 17 pay people to retrofit their toilets to take out 18 the old toilets, put in any one of the newer 19 versions. 20 I am not talking about going back to 21 outhouses. We are not talking about diminishing, 22 we're talking about changes where the user cannot 23 distinguish the difference in the effect. 24 Now, we can go a lot further. If you 25 take a new development, not an existing one, but a 163 1 new development where you can really go to the 2 limit on water efficiency, actual on the ground, 3 not paper experiments, but on the ground 4 experiments in Australia have produced new 5 subdivisions where water use rates are cut by 80 6 per cent. The average house uses only 20 per cent 7 as much water as the typical house in Australia. 8 That's also a very water constrained area and they 9 happened to be in the middle of the kind of 10 drought that you experienced in the 1980s. 11 That includes measures that we're not 12 talking about here but that are well to be 13 considered, capture of rain water from roofs 14 replaces almost all laundry water. Recycling of 15 all water except that coming from the toilet, 16 what's called grey water, for re-use. And no lawn 17 watering because they are shifting the lawns to 18 ground cover that does not require watering. 19 Now, in a typical Canadian house, 20 water use doubles in the summer which means 21 effectively that, yes, I know there is more 22 laundry in the summer, more showers in the summer. 23 But for the most part, the level of analysis I'm 24 doing here, half the water is being used outside 25 the house which means it's lawns, gardens, car 164 1 washing, local swimming pools, household site 2 swimming pools and so forth. 3 There are a number of things to be 4 said about this. Some of that water can be cut to 5 zero with ground cover that does not require -- 6 lawns are a particularly difficult thing to grow. 7 They were never -- lawns of the type we have were 8 never meant to grow on the Canadian prairies. We 9 can go back to ground cover that is just as nice. 10 If you want, you can grow cactus but that's not -- 11 lawns and cactus don't go well together. It's not 12 a particularly nice thing. But if you just want a 13 decorative lawn, you can go that far. 14 The biggest evidence is that people 15 will pay a lot for water use in their house. They 16 will not pay very much for water use outside their 17 house. Where there are summer peak rates, water 18 use drops dramatically. In economic terms, the 19 rate of water use is much more elastic outside the 20 house than it is inside the house. It's an 21 economic concept that I think it's easy enough to 22 understand so I won't go into the technicalities 23 of it. 24 This kind of analysis can be extended 25 on and on. Our point really is simple. That at 165 1 the kinds of numbers that we're dealing with, the 2 cost of the pipeline, we think you could save at 3 least as much water as the pipeline would supply. 4 We've done a little look at the non-irrigation 5 agricultural water which we understand is also 6 delivered by Pembina Valley Co-op. These uses are 7 more constant over the year. And I did learn this 8 morning, thank you for the information, that the 9 young pigs do need -- hogs may not need clean 10 water but apparently the piglets, or what you call 11 them, the weanlings do need clean water. That's 12 very useful. However, most agricultural uses do 13 not require potable water. By non-potable water, 14 I mean water that is not acceptable for drinking. 15 It doesn't mean that it's heavily polluted, it 16 just may have a higher salt content or contain 17 more suspended solids than we would like in our 18 drinking water. That's perfectly acceptable for 19 many agricultural uses. And although I know we're 20 not dealing with irrigation today, it is even 21 preferable, in many cases, for irrigation water. 22 Finally, and very quickly, I want to 23 talk about what are perhaps the most political of 24 the elements of this. Much of this land was 25 designed to drain water. The same problem that's 166 1 happening across the border, the same thing that's 2 filling up Devil's Lake is drainage water, a lot 3 of canals that are built to optimize farm 4 production. Those are entirely human-developed 5 channels. They can be undeveloped, they can be 6 redirected. Much of that water, instead of being 7 carried away, can be used to recharge aquifers. 8 We know that our water balances are much more 9 sensitive than we thought in the past. And those 10 channels can be rethought. 11 The whole future of this area in terms 12 of the agricultural industry or industrial 13 agriculture is again a choice for the people of 14 the region. If water is going to be directed in 15 large quantities to industrial agriculture, it is 16 a very important choice that has to be made 17 politically, not just privately. 18 The fact that an establishment is 19 privately profitable does not, in economic terms, 20 make it economic. That just makes it commercial. 21 The economic concept brings in other values. It 22 looks at the broader framework for water, what the 23 alternative uses are for water and ultimately what 24 the value is for water. Water, as it is treated 25 now, has no value in the ground. That kind of 167 1 concept is an anathema to economics. If I ever 2 said that water has no value in the ground, water 3 that can be pumped and has no value in the ground, 4 I think they'd come and take my degree away from 5 me. Economics is really built on the concept that 6 there are values of that water. Not because of 7 the environment, I'm staying completely away from 8 the environmental issues that Glen was talking 9 about, not because I don't believe in them but 10 because of keeping these parts of the analysis 11 separate, but water has a value and that value 12 belongs to the public, not to the person who is 13 pumping the water out. 14 So those issues really have to be 15 decided and they are inherently public decisions, 16 not private ones. They are not within the purview 17 of the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative to solve 18 nor the Manitoba Eco-Network for that matter. 19 They are public policy choices for the region as a 20 whole and the province as a whole. 21 So I'm going to conclude simply by 22 saying the summer peeking does not look like a 23 very strong argument to me. Relatively simple 24 adjustments in the equipment plus consumer 25 awareness emphasized in the summer could cut water 168 1 use, cut the peaking water that's so important. 2 I would even suggest, although I do 3 not have the numbers to justify this, but I would 4 suspect that Pembina Valley Water Cooperative 5 could make some money by going into the water 6 conservation business. Some electrical utility, 7 some of the smarter electrical utilities have 8 become energy service companies. They don't just 9 deliver electricity, they also deliver 10 conservation. They, in effect, sell conservation 11 technologies which seemingly cuts their demand and 12 therefore their revenues but they make enough 13 selling conservation technologies and selling it 14 to people to more than make up the losses. 15 Even if it's not privately profitable, 16 it is entirely possible that the gains from saving 17 water will more than exceed the losses in -- I'm 18 sorry, the gains from saving water will much more 19 than exceed the costs of building the pipeline. 20 It's a much better alternative. 21 And if I had to sum up this whole 22 presentation, I think the no project option is a 23 very resilient option and that it has a lot of 24 analytical evidence supporting it. Thank you very 25 much. 169 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 2 MR. KOROLUK: Thanks, David. And to 3 just briefly summarize and make some 4 recommendations here. We have raised some 5 significant issues related to the lack of 6 consistency in the Pembina Valley Water Co-op's 7 rationale for its proposed project. We have also 8 examined the project thoroughly with respect to 9 water policy in Manitoba, noting Manitoba's 10 commitment through its laws for watershed 11 planning, watershed conservation and sub-basin 12 transfers of water. 13 We have noted and echoed the concerns 14 of others who are not convinced that this project 15 will not compromise the sustainability of the 16 groundwater resource the Pembina Valley Water 17 Co-op wishes to exploit. 18 We have reviewed the Co-op's 19 conservation plan and feel that it requires to be 20 revisited. We have pointed to other experiences 21 with groundwater extraction in the Pembina Valley 22 Water Co-op supply region and the need for 23 watershed and aquifer plans required for further 24 development. 25 Significant information gaps in the 170 1 proposal in combination with the strong set of 2 Manitoba government public policies that do not 3 support a project of this nature lead us to 4 question the suitability of the Pembina Valley 5 Water Co-op's proposed project. Therefore, we 6 feel that before any decision can be made on the 7 sustainability of this project, a number of tasks 8 must be performed over the short to medium term. 9 And I'll let you define the length of the term. 10 On planning and water demand, a 11 watershed authority and/or conservation district 12 must be established in the Morris River and Plum 13 River watershed to develop a watershed plan. As 14 part of this plan, the authority must compile a 15 state of the watershed report, assemble a 16 comprehensive water budget and develop a source 17 protection plan. 18 Community development planning and 19 intensive livestock operation policies required 20 under the Planning Act must be integrated into the 21 watershed planning process. Water conservation 22 plans and schemes must be embedded within the 23 various levels of planning exercises, you know, at 24 the community level, watershed level and regional 25 level. And these must set benchmarks and assign 171 1 responsibilities for implementation, evaluation 2 and follow-up. 3 On legal matters, the formal 4 designation of water sub-basin boundaries under 5 the Water Resources Conservation Act must become a 6 high priority. 7 An independent determination is 8 required as to whether the transfer of water from 9 the lower sand unit aquifer in the Sandilands 10 glaciofluvial complex constitutes a sub-basin 11 water transfer as defined under the Water 12 Resources Conservation Act. 13 The Clean Environment Commission must 14 seek an independent legal opinion of the RM of 15 Piney's by-law prohibiting the bulk export of 16 water. And in order for this project to proceed, 17 a favourable Court of Queen's Bench ruling must be 18 made on the standing of the by-law. 19 On protecting a vital resource, given 20 the ecological significance and the importance of 21 the Sandilands glaciofluvial complex, 22 opportunities exist for Manitoba to protect lands 23 above the aquatic ecosystem and this can include 24 action on area already under consideration as part 25 of the Protected Areas Initiative. 172 1 Manitoba must reinvest resources to 2 fully study and understand the capacity of this 3 aquifer, its interactions with other ecological 4 services, its recharge and impacts deriving from 5 climate change. 6 On process and environmental 7 assessment, we support the CEC's recommendation of 8 June 2005 which was with respect to the floodway, 9 calling for the practice of environmental 10 assessment to be enhanced by requiring higher 11 standards of performance. 12 We would like to have a bit more time 13 and, you know, assessment guidelines, et cetera. 14 We urge the CEC to take steps to 15 ensure that, as per terms of reference for 16 hearings, all legitimate public comments submitted 17 are responded to by the proponent and that 18 adequate time is given to participants who qualify 19 for participant's assistance. 20 And for now, and the duration, as our 21 preferred option, the Pembina Valley Water Co-op 22 and their member municipalities must heed advice 23 given today by Dr. Brooks and aggressively 24 implement a demand side management program within 25 an overall sustainable water management strategy. 173 1 And thanks for your time. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that conclude your 3 presentation, Mr. Koroluk? 4 Mr. Schellenberg, do you or any of 5 your associates have any questions of Mr. Koroluk? 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, I think we 7 would have some comments, however. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Thank you very 10 much. We just received this particular 11 presentation just prior to it being presented 12 here. So there are some additional questions 13 which we may reserve for later on. 14 The Piney by-law which you brought up, 15 Glen, is a very interesting one. As a matter of 16 fact, we seriously are considering supporting it. 17 Because there are some very interesting things for 18 us in terms of what it means. It would mean, if 19 it was fully implemented, that when the water 20 crosses the international border on the Red, we 21 could have the RM of Montcalm insist that there be 22 no export of water from their jurisdiction which 23 means that we wouldn't have a problem that in 24 terms of retaining that water for our own use. I 25 would suggest the City of Winnipeg might have a 174 1 very serious problem with that kind of approach. 2 I would also suggest if that by-law is allowed to 3 stand, you might as well forget about the Water 4 Rights Act and several other acts that you 5 referred to in terms of the implications of that. 6 Now, source planning is something that 7 has a catch phrase and it's used a lot. And in 8 our case, this is all about the Red River. And on 9 the Red River, the responsibility we're going to 10 give to conservation districts or to the Manitoba 11 jurisdiction will be a very interesting exercise 12 in as much as we have neither jurisdiction or a 13 role based on international agreement. 14 And your reference to the 15 International Red River Board, in fact looking at 16 apportionment, the last time I looked at the 17 assignment which they had was to look at instream 18 requirements. And in terms of apportionment 19 within the terms of international agreement, I 20 would suggest that role is ill-defined if there at 21 all. 22 To some of Dr. Brooks' comments. The 23 Cochrane report. I think we should state up front 24 that the Water Co-op has some serious difficulty 25 with that report as well. It was never adopted 175 1 and we certainly see the discrepancies and the 2 inadequacies within that report. We provided that 3 to the Commission at their request, having argued 4 previously that it was one that we did not wish to 5 have submitted and considered in as much as it had 6 not been adopted. So your definitions and 7 comments in that regard are fair and certainly 8 some of the demand issues and demand projections 9 that were in there, as you will have seen from my 10 presentation this morning, are not ours. 11 However, in terms of your costs -- and 12 before I go to costs, the no project option, which 13 is interesting and one that I agree is something 14 that certainly would normally be looked at. 15 Except in this particular case, what we're looking 16 at is a supplemental supply, particularly as it 17 relates to low levels on the Red, drought planning 18 basically. 19 And right now, we only have one option 20 and it's from an environmental perspective and 21 from a fisheries perspective. It's abhorrent to 22 many parts of the province, but it is the only one 23 we have. We're looking for a better one. And 24 that is why it is we're pursuing the Sandilands 25 project. 176 1 But the no project option, in a worse 2 case scenario, is devastation. It's that simple. 3 If we don't have the water on the Red, if we 4 cannot access the water on the Red, we do not have 5 an in-reach alternative. And, yes, we can cut 6 down on all of our demands and take all of your 7 good advice to heart and carry it out to the 8 letter of the proposal, it is still not going to 9 result in survival in terms of large parts of our 10 region. 11 To the project costs. If I get 10 per 12 cent return on my money, especially in terms of 13 cash, I'd be the first into it and so would you. 14 It's not that kind of cost we're looking at. As a 15 matter of fact, it is a lot less. And if it 16 wasn't a lot less, I wouldn't be here. They would 17 have found someone else to manage this particular 18 operation. And in terms of 10 per cent overhead 19 and costs of operation, delightful that they won't 20 tolerate that either unfortunately. 21 So I'm here to tell you that the $5.40 22 per thousand gallons, which we're presently 23 charging, already includes the projected carrying 24 costs of this particular proposal. And we are 25 doing it for a lot less. 177 1 But having said that, I couldn't agree 2 with you more that we all pay too little for 3 water. You know that and I know that and we make 4 no apologies for what we charge for water in our 5 region and neither does my board, a lot of whom 6 are in the audience here today. 7 The area, I don't quite understand 8 where you got the impression that only part of the 9 area is metered. The area that we provide water 10 to is fully metered, absolutely every gallon. 11 That's the only way we can make a buck and can 12 actually afford to pay for a project like this. 13 So it is fully metered. And what the 14 municipalities provide is fully metered as well. 15 And again, in terms of the Water Co-op, there is 16 absolutely no declining scale, no volume 17 discounts, no deals of any kind. 18 I would agree with you that grey water 19 in terms of water conservation, and this is 20 certainly something which is being worked on at 21 the federal level and you are probably aware of 22 it, and the last time I checked, I sit on the CWWA 23 board, the last time I checked is the federal 24 health department which is still drying its feet 25 on a plan for grey water re-use. But when we can 178 1 finally get that into play, it's already been 2 approved by the CMHC by the way, as you may know, 3 and has the green light from other agencies. When 4 we can finally get this into play and start to 5 utilize this new construction and renovations, the 6 savings will certainly be in the area of 30 per 7 cent. And that is really the way to go. 8 The dual system, however, since you 9 are the one that was concerned about costs, that 10 would really escalate the cost, that is providing 11 one pipe with treated water and one pipe that 12 didn't have treated water. It's a nice theory, 13 but from an economical perspective, especially 14 with the geography we have to cover, it's not in 15 the cards. It cannot be done. 16 Summer peaking, which you raise as 17 well, is not our primary issue. That is actually 18 being managed reasonably well, contrary to what 19 you read in the Cochrane report, and it does 20 require once in a while that I do have to go on 21 air and encourage people to reread the material 22 that had been given and cut back on water and it 23 actually does work. 24 What is our problem is the low flows 25 on the Red River. We need to have, you know, 4.8 179 1 metres above our intake in order to utilize our 2 water treatment plants to their full capacity. 3 Anything less than that and we start to lose the 4 capacity that they are to be able to provide. 5 Public policy choices I agree but 6 those public policy choices should be provincial. 7 You shouldn't pick on one region. It shouldn't be 8 us and them. There's a lot of policies in this 9 province when it comes to water. So if it's going 10 to be a provincial policy, I'm all for it. 11 And the final point, and I'll get off 12 my soap box, and that's the recharge of the 13 aquifers. This in fact has been looked at and I'm 14 sure you're well aware of the fact that it's full 15 of pitfalls, especially depending on how you're 16 going to do it. And every time we have looked at 17 it, and it's certainly been looked at very 18 carefully as others in this room will attest to in 19 the case of the Winkler aquifer, and the concerns 20 related to it are very serious from an 21 environmental perspective, and particularly from a 22 water quality perspective. So it is something 23 that we have looked at but it has some serious 24 problems attached to it. 25 Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman, 180 1 to the presentation. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. 3 Schellenberg. Mr. Gibbons, you have some 4 questions? 5 MR. GIBBONS: Just one question for 6 Dr. Brooks. Basically it's a point of 7 clarification, if I could? In your conclusions, 8 based on the assessments that you have been making 9 for conservation and the like, the conclusion that 10 this could meet the needs of PVWC is an 11 interesting one. What I'd like to know, though, 12 is whether, in coming to that conclusion, are you, 13 in addition to the other things that you 14 considered, giving some consideration to the 15 population growth rates of the sort that the PVWC 16 documents are indicating which, roughly speaking, 17 if we take the last 10 years as an indicator might 18 be thought of as continuing, say, for the 19 foreseeable future at 1 per cent population growth 20 per year. Is it still doable in the context of 1 21 per cent annual growth? 22 DR. BROOKS: In a word, yes. I think 23 actually even the most recent material from PVWC 24 mentions that they expect per capita use to 25 decline a bit. The difference between what they 181 1 are saying and what I'm saying is I expect it 2 to -- I expect that it could decline a whole lot 3 by more than the population growth. So that the 4 net effect would be a declining municipal or 5 residential use. 6 MR. HALKET: I was interested in what 7 you were saying about desalination plants in the 8 Middle East. How old is that technology and how 9 old are the plants that you are talking about? 10 DR. BROOKS: Most of the new plants I 11 use a technique called reverse osmosis and all of 12 the smaller scale ones use reverse osmosis. I'm 13 not an engineer and I'm going to run out of my 14 technical knowledge pretty quickly, but in effect, 15 you have membranes through which water molecules 16 can pass but the salt molecules cannot. And you 17 have a series of these -- these membranes are in 18 series. The cost comes in pumping through those 19 membranes because the water doesn't want to go 20 through them either. So you have to use -- it is 21 a very energy intensive process. 22 And it looks increasingly -- I once 23 wrote a sentence in a -- I wrote a book on water 24 use in Israel in Palestine and I said that 25 desalination is to water what nuclear power is to 182 1 electricity, the idea being that it was much too 2 expensive ever to be useful. I still think it's a 3 wonderful sentence from a literary perspective but 4 it happens to be wrong analytically. And it turns 5 out that desalination is much more economic than I 6 had believed when I wrote that sentence, but only 7 for drinking, only for potable water. If you can 8 afford to pay for potable water what people will 9 pay for it, then desalination will work. 10 The new plants that are going in in 11 Israel along the Gulf Coast and soon enough, I 12 expect, in Gaza. We're talking about new plants 13 starting with sea water and operating at about 14 50,000 cubic metres per day. So they are big 15 plants. And they are delivering water at down or 16 below $1.00 a cubic metre. The old ones, when you 17 were distilling water, they are just gone. No one 18 talks about that process. And there were several 19 other processes but all the smaller ones are 20 reverse osmosis. 21 MR. HALKET: That's sea water that 22 they are pushing through their osmosis filters? 23 DR. BROOKS: It's sea water on 24 interior area, it's also high carbonate water. 25 There's a lot of -- people call it salty water but 183 1 it's got a lot of carbonates in it. This thing 2 that makes stuff on boilers, the flaky stuff, they 3 use the same process for that. And they are also 4 using it for recycled sewage water. Recycled 5 sewage water is increasingly also being 6 desalinated because the salts build up and has 7 adverse effects on soil quality. 8 MR. HALKET: So would you care to 9 speculate on how much it would cost to push let's 10 say water that is coming out of the carbonate 11 aquifers below the Pembina Valley? 12 DR. BROOKS: I wouldn't guess but I 13 would be surprised if it's more than $1.00 a cubic 14 metre. I don't have enough information to know 15 what's in that water nor do I have enough of a 16 picture of how the costs go down with scale, the 17 cost per unit go down with scale. I wouldn't 18 guess at that. 19 MR. HALKET: Thank you. 20 MS. FUNK: Just a quick question on 21 the desalination that you were talking about. 22 What do they do with the by-products? 23 DR. BROOKS: The salt? 24 MS. FUNK: Um-hum. 25 DR. BROOKS: Either you put it right 184 1 back in the sea or just find a place where there's 2 a good current and it disperses quite quickly. It 3 doesn't have much of an adverse effect there. I 4 say that as an environmentalist. You don't put it 5 right on top of a coral reef, but with a few other 6 places you can get rid of it quite easily. 7 The Middle East has a lot of dry 8 waddies and a waddy is just a dry river bed. And 9 it goes in there and the next rainfall, it will 10 flush down and it will cause a lot of damage but 11 over a very short area. And it's generally 12 accepted as an acceptable trade-off. It is a 13 problem but it's a manageable problem. 14 MR. GIBBONS: Sorry, Dr. Brooks, a 15 quick follow-up. You said the process is energy 16 intensive and presumably that is where of course 17 the bulk of the cost comes from, as you mentioned 18 earlier. As far as you know, is it the kind of 19 process that could be powered by things like wind 20 power or that sort of thing or through solar power 21 that might reduce costs so you wouldn't have to 22 use, for example, hydro power or perhaps 23 non-renewable energy sources like petroleum or gas 24 or whatever? 25 DR. BROOKS: I suppose the literal 185 1 answer certainly is it could be but it is a hard 2 way to go. So far as I know, all of the 3 desalination plants use fossil fuel generated 4 electricity because you want that steady supply. 5 I've never thought of how it might work with an 6 interruptible supply as you might get with wind. 7 But I think you'd want to be connected to either a 8 hydro system, as you have here, or a fossil 9 system. 10 MR. GIBBONS: Thank you. 11 DR. BROOKS: You can desalinate with 12 solar power but you need really lots, lots of flat 13 land and lots of sun. You know, you can always 14 use -- if you have enough land and enough glass 15 and aluminum, you can always generate solar 16 electricity but it's a long and hard way to go. 17 MR. GIBBONS: Thank you. 18 MR. HALKET: A follow-up to that, Dr. 19 Brooks. By using power I would imagine, I have no 20 idea what kind of power they are using in Israel. 21 DR. BROOKS: It's mainly natural gas 22 now. 23 MR. HALKET: I was just wondering the 24 price that is being put on desalinization of $1.40 25 per cubic metre, was that it, or $1.00 per cubic 186 1 metre? 2 DR. BROOKS: Yes. They are selling 3 it, don't forget, at somewhere above 50 to a 4 dollar a litre they are selling the product and 5 prices go up very rapidly with consumption. If 6 you use more than what a household would use in a 7 small apartment, you are quickly paying $4.00 and 8 $5.00 a litre for water. So you don't put much on 9 the lawn. 10 MR. HALKET: Where I was going with 11 this is the price that you were giving is based on 12 how much it takes or how much it costs to generate 13 power in Israel, or in the Middle East, and I was 14 wondering what's a comparable cost to here to 15 Manitoba Hydro? 16 DR. BROOKS: I know a lot of people in 17 Israel, I worked there, I have never gotten a good 18 figure for what they are paying for natural gas. 19 They never told me that so I can't give you an 20 answer. It's a closely guarded secret. 21 MR. HALKET: Okay. Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Koroluk, any final 23 comments? Okay. Well, I thank you and your 24 associates very much for your presentation here 25 today. We'll take about a 15 minute break and 187 1 then we'll come back with officials from the Water 2 Co-op. 3 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, just 4 before we break, can I take care of an 5 administrative matter here? 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course. 7 MS. JOHNSON: As far as exhibits go, 8 the Pembina Valley Water Co-op documents are 9 exhibits 4 to 15. That includes the three 10 presentations, the four reports referenced in the 11 terms of reference, the additional information, 12 the master plan, the expert CV's and the 13 conservation plan. Exhibit 16 will be 14 Mr. Render's written submission to the Commission. 15 And Exhibit 17 through 28 will be the material you 16 just heard and saw, the maps, the testimony, the 17 expert CV's for the water caucus. 18 (EXHIBITS MARKED) 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We'll break 20 for 15 minutes. 21 (Proceedings adjourned at 3:01 p.m.and reconvened 22 at 3:20 p.m.) 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come to order, 24 please. Mr. Schellenberg, you wanted to make some 25 comments before we resume? We'll resume 188 1 questioning now of the proponent. 2 Mr. Schellenberg is going to make some comments. 3 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Mr. Chairman, 4 commissioners, with your permission, what we'd 5 like to do is go back to where we left off just 6 before the lunch break and just review that issue 7 for just a moment. I'm going to call on Steve to 8 do that and then we can return back to the 9 questions. 10 MR. WIECEK: Following up on the 11 conversation we were having this morning. As far 12 as the recharge rates go, there are a lot of 13 what-ifs scenarios that we can get into. And 14 certainly the values coded in the Cherry thesis 15 were only one factor that was considered in the 16 assessment of the recharge to that area. Like I 17 ended up in the morning, you have to look at the 18 measured flow through that lower sand unit 19 relative to those assessments of the recharge in 20 the area. It certainly would suggest that there's 21 a lot more recharge occurring than is being 22 accounted for in those estimates. The other 23 factor we look at is the water quality of that 24 aquifer which is very comparable to what we see in 25 the water quality of the upper sand units and the 189 1 water quality in the area which suggests that the 2 water is flowing through that aquifer at a fairly 3 significant rate. Otherwise, its residence time 4 will be higher in that aquifer and there's a 5 direct correlation to increasing conductivity or 6 decreasing water quality with resident's time in 7 the aquifer. So basically all those factors have 8 to come into play when you consider the recharge 9 rates and what that sustainability of that aquifer 10 is. That's where we get our estimate that it is 11 conservative. 12 And just to follow up on this morning 13 about the hydrographs and the question about the 2 14 metres. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, the -- 16 MR. WIECEK: There was a question this 17 morning here and you just asked me to pull up. 18 MR. HALKET: I think what we're going 19 to do is come back to that a little bit later. 20 MR. GIBBONS: We can deal with that 21 later. We were going to follow up with that on a 22 separate section. 23 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Do you wish us to 24 provide that now? 25 THE CHAIRMAN: No. We'll come back to 190 1 that issue a little bit later. If there's nothing 2 else you want to elaborate on, I'll ask Ian to ask 3 his questions. 4 MR. HALKET: I'd like to start where 5 we left off this morning, too, in that calculation 6 of recharge. And I was wondering if we can put it 7 back up again because I have a question that sort 8 of came from the discussion that we have just 9 heard from Eco-Net and that is that in this 10 calculation that you have up here showing the 11 recharge for the whole glaciofluvial complex, you 12 use a number of 71 millimeters per year I think it 13 is, or is it 73? 14 MR. WIECEK: 71. 15 MR. HALKET: I'll wait until we get it 16 up and then I'll go on. 17 MR. WIECEK: 71. 18 MR. HALKET: Now you state here that 19 the area of the Sandilands glaciofluvial complex 20 is one, if I read this right, is 1,935,000,000 21 square metres. 22 MR. WIECEK: 1.9 billion and that's 23 just based on the aerial extent. 24 MR. HALKET: Now, my question here is 25 Mr. Koroluk was showing a slide earlier that 191 1 painted the extent of that aquifer, that area. 2 Now, that's the same area as we're talking about, 3 the one that Mr. Koroluk was showing, the one that 4 you were showing? 5 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 6 MR. HALKET: Mr. Koroluk stated that 7 there were five watersheds that have their head 8 waters on this aquifer. So would it be fair to 9 say that you could take that 4,300 litres per 10 second that you estimate is the recharge for this 11 total system and split it five ways, that's the 12 simplistic picture, and we're estimating that each 13 watershed is taking the same amount of water from 14 it. But would it not be fair to say that that 15 water is being distributed to three or to five 16 watersheds? 17 MR. WIECEK: The uplands, not the 18 aquifer, but the uplands Sandilands glaciofluvial 19 complex uplands are, yes, located at the 20 confluence of five different watersheds. 21 MR. HALKET: Of five different 22 watersheds. 23 MR. WIECEK: To just arbitrarily 24 subdivide it evenly between them? No, you cannot 25 do that. 192 1 MR. HALKET: I know you can't do that. 2 I think it's a very simplistic way of looking at 3 it. But I think the point is is that the 4,300 4 litres per second is not a recharge solely to the 5 sand aquifer then to the lower sand or to the 6 complex that is moving water -- this is the whole 7 thing we're talking about and it's moving water in 8 many different directions. Would that be fair to 9 say? 10 MR. WIECEK: I wouldn't agree with 11 that, no. Basically, as I've indicated, there is 12 recharge occurring throughout the area. We're 13 only dealing even with that Sandilands 14 glaciofluvial complex with one small part of the 15 overall recharge to the area. 16 MR. HALKET: What you're saying I 17 agree. You're dealing with a small part of this 18 area for your cone of influence around the well or 19 cone of depression that is created. But when you 20 look at a recharge estimate for the total 21 glaciofluvial complex, that recharge that you are 22 stating here, 4,300 litres per second, is being 23 distributed into the recharge for five different 24 watersheds. 25 MR. WIECEK: It forms a component, 193 1 each one of those watersheds. That component has 2 not been quantified. 3 MR. HALKET: Now my question is, if we 4 were to take 50 litres per second out of a 5 particular point in that watershed, how would that 6 affect the recharge downstream in those other 7 watersheds or in all of the watersheds together? 8 Do you have a handle on that? 9 MR. WIECEK: It's not on each 10 watershed, no. 11 MR. HALKET: Well, this area is the 12 head waters of five particular watersheds 13 according to Mr. Koroluk's argument. 14 MR. WIECEK: It's within at the 15 confluence of five different watersheds, yes. 16 Each one of those watersheds receives recharge 17 throughout the watershed so this is a minor 18 component on that just on a spatial area. 19 MR. HALKET: I think the point I'm 20 trying to make here is that I realize that each 21 watershed has its own particular picture and that 22 this may form a minor or a major part of that 23 recharge for that particular watershed. But my 24 question is, do we have a handle on that? Do we 25 know how much? 194 1 MR. WIECEK: That has not been studied 2 as part of this project, no. Water Stewardship 3 would have that kind of information. 4 MR. HALKET: Okay. Thank you. If we 5 go back to your other calculation on recharge 6 estimate, this is the recharge area around the 7 cone of influence for the well. And your annual 8 recharge rate estimate for this is 400 litres per 9 second. And I think this is where we left off 10 this morning before lunch is that we were looking 11 at a system of recharge to three aquifers here 12 which may reduce that number. We were also 13 looking at Cherry's estimate, which you had just 14 spoken to, and said that or suggested why you were 15 using it as a conservative estimate of your 16 numbers of 174 millimeters per year in recharge. 17 In your argument here or proposal 18 here, you also say that this 400 litres per 19 second, that the 50 litre per second withdrawal 20 would be okay because the province has, up until 21 now, allocated 50 per cent of the recharge to 22 development, recharge rate to an aquifer to 23 development. And you state that in your 24 engineering report. And I was wondering where 25 that came from. 195 1 MR. WIECEK: I do not state that in 2 the engineering report. 3 MR. HALKET: Oh. 4 MR. WIECEK: I state that it's 12 per 5 cent of the 400 litres per second. And that 6 elsewhere on other aquifers, the province has 7 applied a 50 per cent rule. I do not say they 8 apply it to this aquifer or that that's the policy 9 for this aquifer. 10 MR. HALKET: Thank you for correcting 11 me. I was wondering if maybe we could ask the 12 province why we use 50 per cent allocation in 13 other aquifers, why they use that number? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you introduce 15 yourself for the record, please. 16 MR. BETCHER: Yes. I am Bob Betcher. 17 I'm a hydrogeologist with Water Stewardship and 18 I'm head of the groundwater management section. 19 (BOB BETCHER: SWORN) 20 MR. HALKET: I guess you got the sense 21 of the question, is in some other areas of the 22 province, at least around 50 per cent of the 23 recharge rate to an aquifer is considered okay to 24 assign to development or to the water supply? 25 MR. BETCHER: It's actually quite 196 1 variable. The 50 per cent figure was first 2 applied I think in the early 1990s to the 3 Assiniboine Delta aquifer which is an unconfined 4 aquifer. And the decision to apply 50 per cent 5 was reasonable I guess with a lack of some more 6 definitive information or understanding which 7 would allow us to assign a different figure. So 8 in essence, it was chosen that throughout most of 9 that aquifer, the 50 per cent figure would be 10 applied. 11 So the policy was that through 12 licensing, we could allocate 50 per cent of the 13 amount of recharge occurring in each sub-basin 14 within the aquifer to be extracted and utilized 15 and the other 50 per cent would be to allow 16 continued discharge to wetlands for instance, base 17 flow in streams and to be used by non-licensed 18 utilizers of the groundwater resource. 19 Now, of the sub-basins that there are 20 present within the Assiniboine Delta aquifer, the 21 50 per cent rule does not apply to all basins. To 22 one sub-basin, a 30 per cent rule was applied, to 23 another sub-basin, a 15 per cent rule was applied. 24 So there was some assessment being made as to how 25 important the aquatic regime was and how much of 197 1 the recharge we wanted to continue allowing to go 2 to, to discharge essentially in one form or 3 another. 4 Now, this 15 per cent figure has 5 subsequently been applied to a couple of other 6 unconfined aquifers, that is aquifers which are 7 essentially shallow sand exposed to the ground 8 surface. It's a reasonable way of approaching it 9 in the lack of a complete understanding. 10 Eventually what we would like to do 11 though is we would like to say after 20 years of 12 monitoring in a basin which 50 per cent has been 13 allocated, is the 50 per cent rule an acceptable 14 rule or should it be a 40 per cent rule or a 60 15 per cent rule? We're not quite at that stage yet. 16 The difference between the 50 per cent 17 rule and what we're talking about today is that 18 the aquifer that we're dealing with today is a 19 confined aquifer. 20 Now in a somewhat similar situation, 21 which is the Winkler aquifer, we in fact have a 22 100 per cent rule. So if you have an aquifer 23 which is something like the Winkler aquifer in 24 essence, it's kind of like an underground lake. 25 And I hate saying that as a hydrogeologist. But 198 1 it's a reasonable concept that another which you 2 have recharge coming in, which you really don't 3 have a lot of discharge going out. To get 4 discharge out of the Winkler aquifer, you often 5 need to transport water through maybe 100 feet of 6 clay, a very slow process. 7 So you can kind of look at that as a 8 reservoir. Recharge goes in, you take 100 per 9 cent of the recharge out and allocate it, recharge 10 goes in again. And over the long-term, in a 11 confined aquifer like that, you shouldn't have an 12 issue with 100 per cent allocation. 13 You have a different issue when you 14 have essentially a fully confined aquifer such as 15 we're dealing with today in that recharge is a 16 very subtle process. It's not sand at surface. 17 It rains, the rain seeps into the aquifer. Some 18 of the water that seeps into the aquifer flows off 19 and discharges to a stream. 20 A confined aquifer is very very 21 different in that the discharge process, it's 22 often difficult to understand. Sometimes even the 23 recharge process is difficult to understand. 24 So the 50 per cent rule is something 25 which the province developed and applied primarily 199 1 to unconfined aquifers but we don't have a similar 2 rule which we apply to confined aquifers. 3 MR. HALKET: And in order to apply 4 that rule or to apply a similar type of rule where 5 you would put a percentage on the amount of water 6 to be extracted from an aquifer, what kind of 7 information would you like or would you need to 8 make that type of decision? 9 MR. BETCHER: Well, I guess you could 10 look on the 50 rule as saying that of the water 11 which flows or is available in an aquifer, the 12 provincial policy is to allow a portion of that to 13 be withdrawn and the remaining portion will 14 continue to fill its natural function through 15 discharge. 16 So in a situation like this, if we can 17 calculate the total volume of flow which is coming 18 through an aquifer, then it would be consistent 19 with provincial policies to allow the withdrawal 20 of a portion of that amount of water and utilize 21 it for human purposes so long as we continue to 22 allow a reasonable portion of that water to move 23 through the system and discharge to wetlands or be 24 lost through evapotranspiration or other 25 mechanisms. As to how you would come to exactly 200 1 what proportion of that flow that you would allow 2 to be extracted, well, that's a very difficult 3 process. But in a confined aquifer, you can often 4 look on it as being, and this was discussed this 5 morning, is that when you start pumping over time, 6 you come to a new equilibrium and it may take you 7 10 years to come to a new equilibrium. But that 8 new equilibrium in fact changes the 9 recharge/discharge conditions within that aquifer. 10 So if we are pumping from the lower 11 aquifer, initially we would be getting water taken 12 primarily out of that aquifer. Over a long period 13 of time, let's say 10 or 20 years when we develop 14 a stabilized drawdown cone, we may find that 15 instead of withdrawing 100 per cent of the water 16 from the part of the water which is flowing 17 through the aquifer itself, that we're only 18 withdrawing a certain proportion or a lesser 19 proportion of the water that's flowing through the 20 aquifer but we may have induced additional 21 downward movement of water through the overlying 22 aquitard. And, therefore, over time, we begin 23 taking more and more water out of the overlying 24 aquifer as it recharges down or moves downwards 25 through the aquitard. 201 1 So when you're looking at a confined 2 system, it's often best to look at the development 3 of a renewed stable position, a renewed 4 equilibrium position as opposed to treating it in 5 the same way as you would an unconfined aquifer. 6 The two are quite different. 7 MR. HALKET: Now what I'm struggling 8 with here is for the aquifer to shift from the 9 pristine condition, let's call it, to a new 10 equilibrium position or dynamic under pumping, how 11 would the province assess any changes to the 12 environment downstream of that aquifer during that 13 process? 14 MR. BETCHER: Well, that's really the 15 whole difficulty of hydrogeology is how do you 16 quantify the surface water/groundwater 17 interaction. And often with a confined aquifer, 18 the discharge of water from the system can take 19 place a very long distance away from where you're 20 actually doing the pumping or have the 21 development. And that's probably what's occurring 22 here. 23 So when you take a look at an aquifer 24 like that, you have to make some reasonable 25 evaluation as to how far away the proponent is 202 1 going to have to understand or develop an 2 understanding of the hydrogeology and be able to 3 quantify that hydrogeology. 4 And in a situation like this, if we 5 had a lot of money in five years, we'd come up 6 with a slightly better answer but it wouldn't be a 7 great answer. It wouldn't be all that accurate. 8 It's just that difficult to quantify the 9 hydrogeology. And in part, it's due to the 10 difficulty in quantifying the geology that you're 11 dealing with and the interconnection of various 12 aquifers. 13 So in essence, I guess the answer to 14 your question is that we have to make a judgment. 15 And in many respects, after you make the judgment, 16 is this a reasonable thing to proceed forward, 17 then you say, okay, well, we'll have to monitor 18 and see what the long-term impacts are. 19 And this is the approach which has, in 20 fact, been taken on many aquifers around the world 21 where, after many many years, you can come to some 22 understanding through the monitoring of the 23 overall sustainable yield but you can still make 24 your reasonable decision early on in the game and 25 say, yeah, we think that this will come to an 203 1 equilibrium very very quickly and that the 2 equilibrium will be such that we aren't in fact 3 having a long-term impact on the aquifer. In 4 other words, we are not impacting sustainable 5 yield of this aquifer. We are not exceeding that 6 sustainable yield. And that essentially is the 7 conclusion we come to in evaluating the report. 8 MR. HALKET: To me, the idea that you 9 can't assess the impacts of the pumping until a 10 future time frame sort of flies in the face of the 11 sustainable development guidelines in that we 12 should know what the impacts are going to be 13 before we start. 14 MR. BETCHER: Yeah. If I was a 15 physicist, I'd like to know the theory of 16 everything before I started doing work on physics. 17 It's a very difficult process and we're at a stage 18 where we can make reasonable assessments. And I 19 think we're at the stage on this project where we 20 can make a reasonable assessment in terms of the 21 overall impact. But quantifying the impact, in 22 other words, how would a stream flow change in a 23 certain stream, how much water would be lost 24 through evapotranspiration. For instance, if we 25 have groundwater discharge into a swampy area, to 204 1 have to try and quantify that is a very difficult 2 process although we can make some reasonable 3 judgments from the knowledge of hydrogeology. 4 So the question becomes what's a 5 reasonable judgment. And in essence, we're making 6 decisions under uncertainty, but we feel we have a 7 reasonable handle on the uncertainty in this case. 8 MR. HALKET: Okay. I would like to 9 ask you some more questions maybe a little later, 10 if you wouldn't mind. 11 MR. BETCHER: I won't disappear. 12 MR. HALKET: Thank you. I have a few 13 questions concerning, as we were just moving along 14 here, the down gradient flows, shall we say, into 15 the marshlands and the wetlands around the Bedford 16 Ridge area considering a 50 litre per second 17 withdrawal. And first of all, maybe what we could 18 do, Mr. Render I believe has entered a letter or 19 some ideas and thoughts on this extraction into 20 the public record. And he made some comments 21 regarding the pumping test itself. So before I go 22 down to the downstream, I'll leave the recharge 23 piece alone for now. I'd like to see what your 24 thoughts are on his comments and I wonder if we 25 can just read them into the record, his comments? 205 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be 2 considerable time-consuming. It is part of the 3 record. 4 MR. HALKET: Okay. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: It is part of our 6 public record. We've accepted it as a written 7 submission but I don't think we need to read the 8 entire four pages into the record, but you can ask 9 as many questions as you like around it. 10 MR. HALKET: He suggests that there 11 was a breakdown in the pumping test. Basically 12 the pumping was stopped after so many, was it 13 three hours? Okay, after three hours and 45 14 minutes, and then it was restarted. And he 15 suggests that this is not standard practice, that 16 once there is a breakdown, there should be time 17 allotted for the aquifer to recover from the 18 stresses of the pumping and then the pump test 19 should be conducted again. 20 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. As far 21 as the analysis of the breakdown? 22 MR. HALKET: Yeah. 23 MR. WIECEK: What happened is the 24 generator, a switch failed on the generator, and 25 until that was repaired, then the pump was 206 1 starting and the test was restarted, that data has 2 been analyzed by us and also by other 3 hydrogeologists. And everyone has looked at that 4 particular effect to see if it has affected the 5 results. And the general consensus is it hasn't 6 affected the results, as far as the estimates of 7 the transmissivities, storativity or boundary 8 effects. 9 MR. HALKET: That's what Mr. Render, 10 he suggests otherwise. He suggests that it has 11 affected the results. 12 MR. WIECEK: We've conferred with a 13 number of hydrogeologists. 14 MR. HALKET: You think otherwise? 15 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 16 MR. HALKET: Okay. What does the 17 province think? 18 MR. BETCHER: We have recently hired a 19 very smart young fellow, compared to me anyway, in 20 terms of age I mean, and I asked him to re-analyze 21 the pumping test on the basis of superpositions. 22 So in essence, in hydrogeology, if you have a 23 pumping cycle, it's causing a drawdown in the 24 aquifer. You then stop that pumping cycle and you 25 go to the recovery of the aquifer. So 207 1 essentially, you're pumping for a certain length 2 of time, you stop pumping for a certain length of 3 time, you've got a drawdown, you've got a 4 recovery, you start the pump up again and then you 5 pump until the end of the 72 hour period. 6 You can take the drawdown, the 7 recovery and the next drawdown. And through the 8 theory of supposition, you can essentially 9 superimpose these three effects. 10 So what I asked my colleague to do was 11 to use a computer program which would allow us, 12 instead of interpreting this as one constant 13 pumping rate, that we would in fact simulate all 14 three pumping periods or non-pumping periods. 15 We'd sum it together and we would analyze that. 16 Our analysis gave essentially the same data as 17 Pembina Valley, give or take 10 per cent. 18 So on this case, we don't feel that 19 that breakdown for two hours early in the test had 20 any significant effect on the results of the test. 21 MR. HALKET: Okay. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 23 MR. GIBBONS: Before you go, is a 24 three day test period considered standard for this 25 kind of study? And if it is, is that sufficient 208 1 to estimate long-term drawdowns on aquifers? It 2 seems to me it's a rather short period given the 3 potential for drawdowns that are going to be 4 taking place over 10, 20, 30, 50 years. 5 MR. BETCHER: Yes. 6 MR. GIBBONS: So are the measurements, 7 for example, precise enough that one can get a 8 reasonable estimate of what is likely to happen to 9 the aquifer in that longer period based on a three 10 day test? 11 MR. BETCHER: The answer to your first 12 question, which is whether 72 hours is standard in 13 the industry, and it is. A 72 hour test is 14 essentially a typical length for a pumping test 15 where withdrawals are in this order of magnitude. 16 Will that tell you 10 or 20 years down the road 17 what you're going to see? 18 MR. GIBBONS: All else being equal, in 19 other words, not assuming droughts or anything of 20 that sort, but if all else remained equal, would 21 that give us a good reading? 22 MR. BETCHER: It gives you a good 23 prediction. Over time, over years, what you will 24 find is that the drawdown cone will actually 25 expand until it comes to equilibrium. As that 209 1 cone expands beyond the area of the aquifer that 2 you influenced over the 72 hour test, so if you 3 then start the project up, after one week, the 4 cone will have expanded farther than the 72 hour 5 test. After a year and after 10 years, it will 6 have expanded farther than the 72 hour test. 7 Whether that cone will intercept either a recharge 8 boundary or a no-flow boundary and, therefore, 9 affect the results of or the amount of drawdown 10 that you would get for pumping over that long 11 period of time, we can't predict that. Although 12 because the cone becomes so broad, it affects such 13 a huge area that if you have a disturbance in one 14 part of that area, because the cone is so large, 15 it doesn't really affect the entire drawdown. In 16 other words, you would see a minor effect but not 17 a major effect. 18 So it's pretty reasonable to do this 19 and make our predictions on the basis of a 72 hour 20 test. We do want to see on any pumping at this 21 rate long-term monitoring. And the long-term 22 monitoring is because we simply can't run a test 23 for a year and see what the effect is. 24 But generally speaking, the longer the 25 amount of time that you have, the less likely you 210 1 are to start seeing individual boundary effects in 2 an aquifer like this. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: As that cone spreads 4 out, the drawdown cone spreads out, does it 5 eventually stabilize or does it just keep going 6 down on a wider area? 7 MR. BETCHER: The theory of a 8 non-equilibrium test is that it expands 9 essentially forever. In nature, that never 10 occurs. And in a situation like this, as the cone 11 expands, it allows the or causes the increase in 12 the head gradient through the overlying aquitard. 13 And as that head gradient increases, the amount of 14 seepage that you get down through the aquitard 15 into the cone tends to stabilize the cone. It 16 almost acts as a recharge boundary or does act as 17 a recharge boundary. 18 So over a certain period of time, yes, 19 the discharge will be matched by equal amount of 20 recharge coming into the cone. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That seems 22 to be it for now. 23 MR. HALKET: Bob, actually this whole 24 discussion will probably involve you, so you may 25 as well get settled there. Okay, the cone is 211 1 going out due to continuous pumping and I noticed 2 that the downstream or the cone as the cone of 3 influence for the 72 hour test or for the 50 litre 4 per second drawdown intersects some of the 5 wetlands below the Bedford Ridge area. And if I 6 was to look at the wells, the test wells that are 7 in that area, what I notice is that the wells that 8 encounter the lower sand unit show that they could 9 be flowing artificial wells in that area. The 10 piezometric surface is almost the same as the 11 marsh water level surfaces looking at the contour 12 maps. 13 Now, my question here relates to then 14 if that is the case, there may be Artesian wells 15 that are feeding from the lower sand aquifer in 16 that area that would maybe be feeding the wetlands 17 in that area. Is that a possibility do you see 18 from the province? 19 MR. BETCHER: Sure, certainly. If you 20 have water moving through an aquifer, there has to 21 be balance. The amount of recharge that you have 22 is equal to the amount of discharge that you have 23 otherwise you're trying to change the volume of 24 the water in the aquifer. So discharge is often, 25 and probably in this type of situation, a very 212 1 distributed thing. In essence, discharge is going 2 to occur because the head in an aquifer is above a 3 discharge boundary, essentially above ground. 4 MR. HALKET: So my question then is if 5 we have this large cone of influence around the 6 well that is extending into the wetland area, then 7 that cone of depression is basically saying that, 8 is pulling the water level or the piezometric 9 surface from the well or from the aquifer in that 10 area down, isn't it? 11 MR. BETCHER: Yes. If it extends that 12 distance, yeah. 13 MR. HALKET: Certainly from the test 14 wells that I have looked at in this report, they 15 seem to be intersecting or pretty close to the 16 water level surface of those marshes. 17 MR. BETCHER: Yes. Well, the other 18 thing you have to look at, depending on how that's 19 drawn, was that the zero drawdown or was that one 20 metre drawdown? 21 MR. WIECEK: The one metre drawdown. 22 MR. BETCHER: The one metre drawdown, 23 yeah. So essentially what you're looking at is a 24 change in gradient but you're at the outside edge 25 essentially of the drawdown cone. 213 1 MR. WIECEK: It was also -- 2 MR. BETCHER: I'm not quite sure 3 whether I should be answering that particular 4 question. I believe the proponent should be 5 answering that one, not that I want to get back to 6 my seat or anything. 7 MR. WIECEK: It is the drawdown within 8 the lower sand aquifer which is under Artesian 9 pressure. And so that indicates that the aquitard 10 is present and is restricting the flow upwards to 11 that upper sand unit which is what the wetlands 12 are underneath or the wetlands are on top of. 13 You've got to keep in mind is that 14 you're going from a confined aquifer to an 15 unconfined aquifer. In a confined aquifer, the 16 storativity value, the amount of water that's 17 released per unit change, is on the order of 1 per 18 cent. In an unconfined aquifer, because you can 19 drain the pours, you are into a 20 to 30 per cent. 20 So the net effect of say a one foot drawdown in 21 the confined aquifer, because that's a pressure 22 reduction, actually equates to substantially less 23 decline in the water table because there you have 24 much more water being released. Say if it's a one 25 metre -- how does this work? 214 1 MR. MAATHUIS: A one metre drawdown in 2 an unconfined aquifer times .3 and if you are 3 dealing with a confined or a semi-confined 4 aquifer, you're looking like a multiplication 5 factor on average of 10 to the minus 4. So there 6 is a huge difference in the amount of water which 7 is being released if you draw down an unconfined 8 aquifer back a unit drawdown, say one metre, 9 between an unconfined and a confined and a 10 semi-confined aquifer. Does that answer that 11 question? 12 MR. HALKET: I guess my point is 13 getting to, if I look at the piezometric head on 14 the lower sand aquifer at the wells that are 15 downstream or below the Bedford Ridge in the 16 marshlands there, it shows me that there's a high 17 piezometric surface and that a well sunk in there 18 shows quite a high rise to the level of the 19 marshlands. I'm wondering what the possibility is 20 then of that aquifer feeding those wetlands? What 21 is the connectivity there? Is there a 22 connectivity or isn't there? And do we have 23 answers to that question? 24 And I put this to the proponent but I 25 also put it out to the province because you have 215 1 wells in that area that you're looking at and you 2 also have surface water gauges and I'm just 3 wondering if -- 4 MR. BETCHER: The nearest surface 5 water gauge is actually near Ste. Anne. 6 MR. HALKET: Pardon me? 7 MR. BETCHER: The nearest surface 8 water gauge is actually near Ste. Anne. It's a 9 very long distance away. It's not anywhere near 10 the area that would be influenced by this test. 11 MR. MAATHUIS: I think this may give 12 you the answer. What we are looking at is a map 13 and then at site number 16. At that site, there 14 are three wells, one is in the upper aquifer, one 15 is in the lower aquifer and one is in the Winnipeg 16 formation, the sandstone. It's also the area 17 where, as indicated on the topographical map, a 18 kind of bumpy area. Water level data for this 19 particular site indicates here are the water 20 levels plotted as a fraction of elevation over 21 time and the time being a short time this past 22 summer. 23 We see that the water level in the 24 lower sand is the highest. It is higher than the 25 water level in the upper aquifer as well it is 216 1 higher as the water level in the Winnipeg 2 formation. What does it mean in terms of flow? 3 There's flow from the lower aquifer, flows upwards 4 towards the upper aquifer as well as downwards 5 into the Winnipeg formation. 6 I may need to switch slides again. My 7 apologies. So keep this in mind, this kind of 8 setting, and then I'll come back to that after I 9 find my next slide. 10 MR. HALKET: So what you're saying 11 here is that flow is going to move from the 12 highest piezometric surface to the lowest and that 13 therefore, that lowest sand aquifer is feeding 14 both the upper aquifer and the lower aquifer? Do 15 I understand that correctly? 16 MR. MAATHUIS: At this particular 17 location, yes, just for you to keep that in mind 18 when I come back. 19 Recharge area, whatever is coming in 20 here in part flows like that. This is the bumpy 21 area. And a significant portion flows in here 22 over here. At this particular site, as I just 23 showed in the previous slide, there is a somewhat 24 upward flow and a somewhat lower flow. Now, we 25 don't even think that the drawdown caused by the 217 1 proposed pumping will actually get here. But if 2 it gets here, what is the impact if you lowered 3 the water level in the lower sand by a small 4 amount? The small amount will change the 5 hydraulic gradient over here by a small amount. 6 So the actual amount of flow involved will be 7 relatively minor. So there might be a very minor 8 impact. Inasmuch there will be a very minor 9 impact on the amount of flow which may go down 10 here. 11 We're talking about volumes which are 12 all relatively small so the impact, certainly in 13 this particular area. And because we're dealing 14 also with the fact that this is unconfined, it 15 will be very small. To see any significant effect 16 here in the upper aquifer in terms of water level 17 changes, they are very small because the Storsjo 18 efficient is relatively high. To see a 19 significant effect, very large volumes, you will 20 have to go up or down in order to see, you know, a 21 noticeable effect, that is just not going to 22 happen. So there will be very little change in 23 this area. Have I explained your question? 24 MR. HALKET: Yeah, you did. That was 25 great. 218 1 MR. WIECEK: One other thing is to 2 understand the effect that surface drainage will 3 have on groundwater levels. It's very pertinent 4 to this particular area here. Insofar as this 5 area down through here is that Watson Davidson 6 Wildlife Management area. That area used to be 7 hay land. It was donated as a wildlife management 8 area. It was revegetated. As part of that 9 turning that into a WMA, to improve the habitat, 10 they did install drainage in a number of places. 11 Part of it goes up through Marchand to the Seine 12 River. The bulk of it certainly goes off towards 13 the Rat River swamp and eventually into the Rat 14 River. 15 Now to understand the effect that 16 drains can have on shallow, unconfined water 17 levels which, if you look at these marshland 18 areas, the water table was very close to surface. 19 And the effect of drains is to lower that. 20 The most dramatic, and not necessarily 21 pertinent, but the most dramatic of that is the 22 Red River Floodway itself. This is a well that 23 was installed prior to the construction of the 24 floodway. This was the normal groundwater level 25 at that time. The floodway being a big ditch also 219 1 allowed groundwater to drain to it which 2 suppresses the water table. And ever since then, 3 the water does not continuously drain, the aquifer 4 is not continuously draining dry. This becomes 5 the -- this level in here is now the normal 6 condition because the condition of that ditch has 7 been changed. Any time groundwater tries to rise 8 because of flow to it, it just increases the rate 9 of flow into the ditch, the water is carried out 10 very quickly. 11 So again, what happens is the water 12 shedding off the uplands here through the upper 13 sand is being intercepted and diverted out of the 14 area. It's not allowing the water table to rise 15 back up to the surface. So the effects on the 16 wetlands, it's already been -- the desirable 17 condition based on having these ditches put in 18 there is to keep the water table suppressed in 19 there, partially for the WMA but I'm sure it's 20 having effects down gradient on the agricultural 21 areas in keeping the water that would normally 22 flow through from coming through there. It's 23 allowing it to vert out. 24 And just an example of how quickly 25 this water can move out of here. This photo was 220 1 taken in 2005. It's this culvert just outside 2 Marchand here. This culvert was washed out back 3 here and this was taken after it had been 4 replaced. So there can be a very fast flux of 5 water after major recharge events. Instead of the 6 water just slowly infiltrating through the ground, 7 it's allowed to quickly discharge the area. So 8 those are some of the major effects that this will 9 have, this kind of drainage will have and that's 10 drainage throughout the whole watershed. 11 MR. HALKET: So what you're telling me 12 from this here is that that lower sand unit at its 13 discharge point downstream is distributing its 14 water to or at least has the potential to 15 distribute its water to the surface or to the 16 sandstone aquifer below it, right? 17 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 18 MR. HALKET: Hydraulically speaking. 19 MR. MAATHUIS: Or it can go straight. 20 MR. HALKET: Yeah. But it's the 21 highest head system in the whole complex at that 22 particular point. 23 MR. WIECEK: It's the highest -- 24 MR. HALKET: It's got the highest 25 piezometric head. 221 1 MR. WIECEK: Of the aquifers in an 2 area, yes. 3 MR. MAATHUIS: It doesn't have the 4 highest head in the area. The highest head is in 5 the recharge area. 6 MR. HALKET: But I'm talking about the 7 down -- at the foot of the Bedford Ridge area. 8 MR. MAATHUIS: You can't talk in terms 9 of highest. 10 (INAUDIBLE) 11 MR. HALKET: I would like to then 12 think that we would know a little bit more about 13 what's happening to that water as it comes out of 14 that aquifer since it seems to have the 15 possibility of going so many different ways. And 16 it is discharging otherwise the aquifer would be 17 filling up and overflowing. 18 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 19 Eventually, it always discharges. 20 MR. HALKET: From my understanding of 21 this. 22 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 23 MR. HALKET: So my point is, is where 24 is it discharging? What do we know about where 25 it's discharging? 222 1 MR. WIECEK: Again, it comes down to, 2 like Bob was talking about, for how far downstream 3 does the proponent have to go to quantify the 4 discharge? 5 MR. HALKET: That's a good question. 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I think at this 7 point, we spent somewhere close to three-quarters 8 of a million dollars in terms of the research 9 we've done here. And I think we have contributed 10 very substantially to the additional knowledge 11 that both the province, the regulator and everyone 12 else has related to this. And so from a research 13 perspective and given what you've already seen in 14 terms of the monitoring program which we are 15 recommending ourselves, it should be continued if 16 this is approved, the knowledge that we gain 17 thereafter in terms of what happens here will be 18 very substantial as well. And again, the costs 19 will be borne by the proponent. 20 So as to how much of the cost the 21 proponent should bear? It is already considerable 22 and I think it is reasonable and it will continue 23 to be borne by the proponent in this particular 24 case in terms of the monitoring which should very 25 materially contribute to your knowledge base 223 1 related to some of the questions that you have. 2 MR. HALKET: So your point is then 3 that we know enough already? 4 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I guess my point is 5 that I'm not the specialist in this area. But my 6 common sense tells me that based on the research 7 that we have done, based on what the Technical 8 Advisory Committee has requested and what we have 9 provided and what we had at the discussions, that 10 there is enough information there right now to 11 proceed to a decision on this particular project. 12 However, there is a lot more information that is 13 needed and this information is going to be gained 14 over time. It will be gained over time from our 15 projects through the monitoring, will probably be 16 gained through additional research which hopefully 17 will be done by grants or in other ways, financed 18 in other ways through the university and others. 19 This is a huge area here that requires and will 20 certainly necessitate a lot of research and we 21 have done quite a bit. But it's never enough. 22 MR. HALKET: I agree. You've done 23 quite a bit of research here and I applaud you for 24 that. I think it's good. 25 One of the questions I have here is 224 1 the downstream interconnections of this aquifer 2 with the surface water systems and with the other 3 groundwater systems in the area. And I don't see 4 that we have much information on that, okay. And 5 I am asking for more. I'm asking do you know 6 what's happening down there? And I guess this 7 comes back to the idea of the drought. I know 8 that we have, and the drought periods that you are 9 referring to that you need the water for. 10 Now we can go back to the long-term 11 monitoring records here. If I look at some of 12 these surfaces, these piezometric surfaces that 13 you're talking about here, the potentiometric 14 surfaces and we look at those long-term monitoring 15 stations, I see that in the upper sand unit, we 16 have a fairly good record and I think this is what 17 Ken was talking or alluding to earlier, is that we 18 have a fairly good record and it shows the 19 response of the system over a period of years and 20 there was quite a drawdown. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: You had that chart 22 earlier, Mr. Wiecek. 23 MR. WIECEK: This is in the upper sand 24 unit, this particular well, and it's been 25 monitored since '66. 225 1 MR. HALKET: So this is from a period 2 of 1966 to -- 3 MR. WIECEK: To present. And this 4 well is located basically in the centre of the 5 uplands. 6 MR. HALKET: So this is an upland well 7 we're talking about? 8 MR. WIECEK: Yes, it is an upland 9 well. 10 MR. HALKET: Here what we have is we 11 have a drawdown over that period -- or not a 12 drawdown because nothing has been pumped, but we 13 have a fluctuation in the water level of it looks 14 to me of around five metres. 15 MR. WIECEK: Five metres at this 16 particular location, yes. 17 MR. HALKET: In this particular 18 location. Do we have an equivalent of that for 19 the lower sand unit for this period? 20 MR. WIECEK: Yes, we do. And I show 21 you in just a minute. One thing to note here, 22 because we don't have the equivalent long-term 23 record, the best record we have for the lower sand 24 starts in '95 which is basically the end of this 25 drought period when water levels start to recover. 226 1 So when we are looking at the hydrograph, this is 2 PH 002, which is in the lower sands, and this is 3 starting in 1995 when the province installed it 4 and has been monitoring it since then. 5 What we see is a general rising trend 6 much like what we saw in the upper sands. But the 7 difference in this case is about a metre and a 8 half to two metres at this particular well. There 9 is another one in the lower sands, this is station 10 OE-040. That one, they only started monitoring in 11 about '98, '99 so there was probably some rise 12 occurring prior to that. Here we see, again, it's 13 on the order of two metres of rise. 14 So in the lower sands, from the 15 available information, it's approximately plus or 16 minus two metres from wet periods to dry periods. 17 Within the upper sands, it's more in the order of 18 plus or minus five metres. 19 MR. HALKET: And that's just the, if 20 we were to go back to the upper sand because 21 that's a longer term record and we were to look at 22 that from 2000 on for the last six years, we could 23 say that that's not really a drought period, 24 that's a recharge period. It's a wetter period, 25 it seems to me, as it's rising. 227 1 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 2 MR. HALKET: I wonder if you would 3 care to comment on what would you expect that 4 level to be at say in the early nineties where it 5 shows a real depression on the upper sand? Would 6 you expect the lower sand unit to parallel that, 7 the water level drop? 8 MR. WIECEK: In the early nineties? 9 MR. MAATHUIS: Maybe I can interject 10 here. When we talk about water level records and 11 there is the fundamental concept, you have to keep 12 in mind, that it depends on where in the whole 13 aquifer system, in the three-dimensional space and 14 with respect to recharge and discharge, for water 15 level records, it's not the magnitude which is 16 significant but it's really significant in terms 17 of long-term water level records, the provincial 18 network in Saskatchewan as the networks here. And 19 not so much the degree of fluctuations, the 20 magnitude of the fluctuations, what is important 21 is the trends of what has been the trends over 22 time rather than the magnitude. I just wanted to 23 make that statement so that we don't get hung up 24 on values about magnitudes of fluctuations. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: We see here that during 228 1 a drought period, this upper sand unit aquifer has 2 gone down. Woodbury, in the one article that was 3 provided, found that for both the sandstone and 4 the carbonate aquifer in the Sandilands area 5 during a drought period, the aquifers went down. 6 That very short period of monitoring in the lower 7 sand unit would indicate that it also was down 8 during a drought period. But the whole reason 9 for, or at least as I understand it, the principle 10 reason for this project is for periods of drought. 11 Is there not a concern that in that 12 period of drought, when you want this water, the 13 water levels are going to be significantly down? 14 MR. WIECEK: As we discussed in the 15 report, there is a difference between surface 16 water droughts and groundwater droughts. There's 17 a delay effect that occurs. And, therefore, it is 18 quite often that groundwater lows do not correlate 19 to surface water droughts because of the way 20 recharge occurs. There's a time delay behind when 21 the precipitation hits the earth and it actually 22 gets into the aquifer. So that's what makes 23 groundwater less susceptible to that sort of 24 thing. 25 MR. GIBBONS: On that last point then, 229 1 what you're suggesting is that at the time that 2 you would be needing the water, the recharge would 3 be sufficient to handle that load because the 4 effects of the drought at that time would not be 5 felt until 10, 20 or 30 years later? 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: And by the time 7 with the normal drought period, that in fact this 8 aquifer is starting to feel it, our normal supply 9 should be back in play and we have options. 10 MR. GIBBONS: Can I follow up on one 11 other aspect relating to this particular 12 discussion? 13 One of the things that I am not clear 14 about in terms of some of the documentation, and 15 I'm not sure whether or not you have this 16 information, so perhaps you can enlighten me about 17 that as well. And this is part I think of what 18 Ian is trying to get at also. And that is do we 19 know what the interaction is between the aquifer 20 and the significant wetlands in the area of things 21 like the Popcock Lake and the Watson Davidson 22 Wildlife Management area and so forth. For 23 example, you don't need to go back to that last 24 chart, but if there is a drawdown for whatever 25 reason, whether it's this project or droughts, or 230 1 whatever, that cause a decline in the water table 2 and so forth, do we see historically significant 3 changes to those areas in terms of the wetlands, 4 the bogs, marshes, et cetera? Is that something 5 that you have information on? 6 MR. WIECEK: That is not something 7 that's been monitored, so there's no information 8 available on that. As a part of this project, 9 though, we will be monitoring that and we will be 10 implementing a long-term monitoring program in 11 those Popcock Lake area down in the wetlands. So 12 the data will be there in the future. 13 MR. GIBBONS: That takes care of a 14 future question I was going to ask. 15 MR. HALKET: Yeah. I guess that's 16 where I was going with this, is that if there is, 17 if we are talking about extracting water at 50 18 litres per second from a period that is similar to 19 the nineties there, but we don't have a long-term 20 record so we don't know what the lower sand unit 21 has done over time or maybe we do. Maybe we have 22 other wells in that area that have a long-term, 23 longer term record? No? Okay. 24 What then would be the effect of 25 withdrawing water at 50 litres per second using a 231 1 cone of depression, a long-term cone of depression 2 that's developed on a fairly low piezometric 3 surface with a piezometric surface now 4 intersecting with the water table of the wetlands? 5 Okay? Further down the road, if you were to drop 6 it, that it's not intersecting with that water 7 table, so there could be effects there on the 8 wetlands. 9 MR. WIECEK: Well, the piezometric 10 surface does not intersect the water table, the 11 piezometric surface is at the same elevation as 12 the water table. But there is no direct 13 connection between the two. 14 MR. HALKET: Well, we don't know that. 15 MR. WIECEK: The piezometric surface 16 is measuring the pressure in that aquifer. 17 MR. HALKET: Is measuring pressure in 18 a well and water can rise to that, I agree, water 19 will rise to that. What I am trying to get at is 20 that there is a possibility that those wetlands at 21 the foot of the ridge are being fed by that lower 22 sand aquifer. Is that not a possibility? 23 MR. WIECEK: Based on the analysis, is 24 the water coming from the lower sands is 25 disbursing amongst the three different aquifers 232 1 and it's only a small component or a portion of it 2 would be going upwards. That can't be quantified 3 and it would be very difficult to do that. Given 4 that the water quality in the lower sands is very 5 equivalent to the water quality in the upper 6 sands. So you can't use methods like conductivity 7 surveys of the water to try and detect springs or 8 seeps. It's almost impossible to find springs and 9 seeps. It's very rare that you actually find the 10 location of where these things occur. So to 11 actually go out there and try and quantify that, 12 it's not possible. All you can do is monitor it, 13 which is what we're doing, and try to detect those 14 changes. 15 MR. HALKET: Okay. That answers my 16 question. I was wondering what the 17 interconnections were and if we knew anything 18 about them. Thank you. 19 MR. GIBBONS: Since we are talking 20 about the monitoring and so forth now, it seems 21 perhaps appropriate to ask the question about what 22 happens if, and this is based on an assumption 23 that we can pursue for the moment, that if, in the 24 process of monitoring, PVWC discovers that there 25 are, I'm not suggesting this is what will happen, 233 1 but if it happened, that there were significant 2 impacts on the water table and so forth in the 3 Sandilands region, in the aquifer region. You 4 talk about mitigation and there were three things 5 that would be done in terms of mitigation. Some 6 of these I think are fairly straightforward in 7 that presumably, for example, if there was a 8 problem with an existing well, that PVWC could 9 enter in negotiations with the owner of that 10 particular well and either repair it or provide a 11 new well, things of that sort. I think that's 12 fairly straightforward. But the third element, 13 which is the reduction or cessation of pumping by 14 the proponent, can you outline a scenario where 15 PVWC might find itself in a situation where they 16 would either reduce or cease the use of that 17 pipeline? In other words, is there a contingency 18 plan -- when you talk about the contingency plan, 19 I guess what I'm asking for is a little bit more 20 detail as to what might be done, and in 21 particular, under that third element. In 22 particular, what, in essence, triggers or could 23 trigger that move towards reduction or cessation? 24 In other words, is that something that would only 25 be done by virtue of a decision made by the 234 1 department? Would it be something where the 2 co-operative itself would be expected to notify 3 the government on this, the department on this? 4 Could it be triggered by complaints coming from 5 citizens in the area who either noticed problems 6 with their wells or would suggest that there's 7 significant problems with the wetland regions and 8 so forth? Can you add a little more detail as to 9 what that process might look like? And in this 10 particular case, I realize that you may have to 11 call on perhaps someone from the department to 12 suggest what their own particular process might 13 be. 14 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I can give that 15 question a first shot, certainly of our 16 interpretation of what would happen. We're 17 undertaking an extensive monitoring program. 18 There's also an existing monitoring program, as 19 you've heard, that's in place that's run by the 20 province. What is being proposed is that the 21 results of this monitoring are going to obviously 22 be presented to the province and be presented on 23 whatever schedule is appropriate, we're suggesting 24 quarterly, and with quarterly, semi-annual and/or 25 annual reviews. 235 1 This monitoring should indicate fairly 2 early on whether your findings that you had when 3 you went into this are in fact confirmed or 4 whether, in fact, we're seeing things that should 5 give cause for concern. And if that is the case, 6 we're certainly going to be looking at options, at 7 other options that might be exercised. 8 We have a large number of wells that 9 we will be monitoring. It is quite possible that 10 perhaps one of these other wells might be a more 11 appropriate draw. I'm just giving you one 12 example. Again, that will be up to the judgment 13 of the department of the specialists there and 14 quite possibly might end up being another Clean 15 Environment Commission hearing for all I know. 16 However, we'd have to look at alternatives. 17 The one thing the Co-op will never do, 18 and you can ask any of the members who are 19 represented here today, we're not going to try and 20 solve our problems and our shortcomings in terms 21 of water supply by creating problems for someone 22 else or for the environment. That is not the 23 intention here. We will have substantial capital 24 investment in a pipeline. But as you already saw 25 this morning, there are other places along that 236 1 pipeline where we could have access to water. So 2 perhaps what we may have to do is draw much more 3 likely from two, three or four locations if that 4 becomes an appropriate option and one that doesn't 5 negatively impact anything. And that is the route 6 we will follow. 7 There isn't a preconceived or a 8 predetermined strategy here but there is certainly 9 a collaborative one where we will, in fact, be 10 sharing that information on a very regular basis. 11 Nobody should be taken by surprise, least of all 12 us, and certainly not the department and not the 13 regulator. And then between those three, we're 14 going to have to then determine how it is to 15 resolve the situation and make sure that there is 16 no harm done. 17 MR. GIBBONS: If I could pursue just a 18 follow-up to that. Can you conceive of a 19 situation where citizens in the Sandilands region 20 might notice effects that might not be picked up 21 through the monitoring process? I'm really 22 grasping at straws here perhaps, but in terms of 23 the confidence of the citizens in this region 24 might have with the monitoring, they might want to 25 know if, without getting into great detail, 237 1 perhaps the kind of monitoring you might be doing 2 that would give them confidence I guess? 3 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Certainly we want 4 to be kept well-informed as to any impacts that 5 there might be. And if you take a look at the 6 location of some of the new wells that we're 7 proposing if this is licensed, some of those 8 locations and those locations precisely for that 9 reason. For example, the one that is very close 10 to Marchand and others. 11 I think the one thing that you want to 12 always have is objective confirmation of any 13 problems that might be there and if, in fact, down 14 the road, it calls for some additional observation 15 wells and if that's what the province and we agree 16 upon, certainly that road can be taken. 17 We're not going to take any complaints 18 lightly. On the other hand, we're also not going 19 to be taken and held responsible for problems that 20 are not ours. So we have to work on that very 21 carefully. If the problem is ours or maybe could 22 be ours, we're going to reach a settlement or 23 reach a determination of that as quickly as 24 possible. We don't like outstanding issues. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schellenberg, I 238 1 have some fairly general questions that come out 2 of your opening presentation this morning and 3 there's not many of them I don't think. I think 4 one of them you answered in your response to Dr. 5 Brooks' presentation. I think you said that 6 you've already accounted for the paying off of 7 this project. It's already written into your 8 current fees. 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 11 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I'll add one 12 qualifier to that. Until you actually proceed 13 with a project, you don't actually know precisely 14 what the cost is. If the bank rate goes as we 15 anticipate, if petroleum prices stay where we hope 16 they do, yes, we do. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: When you talk about wet 18 industries, and I think I know, but could you give 19 us a little bit of a description what you mean by 20 a wet industry? 21 MR. SCHELLENBERG: A wet industry 22 would, first of all, the obvious first part of 23 that definition is one that uses a great deal of 24 water. But the bigger problem with wet industry 25 is in fact the discharges. The sewage, how do you 239 1 deal with the waste product? I mean it's fine for 2 Portage la Prairie, for example, location for wet 3 industry. They're sitting on the banks of the 4 Assiniboine River. They can treat it and they can 5 dispose of it. We don't have those options. And 6 so that, for starters, eliminates the larger wet 7 industries. 8 The wet industry that we have, and 9 it's only wet in terms of the volumes of water 10 which it uses, is Bunge. It's the largest one in 11 Altona. It's been there forever and ever and we 12 will support. But as you have seen from this 13 morning's presentation, it takes 40 per cent of 14 the water that Altona requires. And that is the 15 type of thing that we cannot support in any great 16 volume or to any great extent and we are well 17 aware of it. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: So a wet industry might 19 be Simplot's processing plant in Portage? 20 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yeah. The potato 21 processing, for example, which goes on there would 22 be a very good example. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So if Simplot or 24 McCain's or somebody came to the Town of Winkler 25 and said we want to put up a potato processing 240 1 plant, Winkler would just have to say no? 2 MR. SCHELLENBERG: That's right, 3 because Winkler would have to come to us and ask 4 us whether we are prepared to put out the water. 5 We would have to advise them that -- well, first 6 of all, just imagine, a 12 inch pipe is not going 7 to be sufficient for the supply. Take a look at 8 the cost not just to mention the water and it's 9 just not doable. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, you're talking 11 about the flow of water across the border in the 12 Red River. And you gave us an example of a 13 proposal in North Dakota to route water back into 14 the Sheyenne River. And I think you said that if 15 that were to happen, the rate of flow across the 16 border would be 8 litres per second? 17 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Eight cubic feet 18 per second. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: What is it right now? 20 What is the sort of normal given that the Red 21 River fluctuates year long? 22 MR. SCHELLENBERG: That's a question 23 to which I don't have an immediate answer. It's 24 an awful lot more. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: It's a lot more than 241 1 8 cubic feet per second? 2 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Oh, absolutely. 3 The lowest flow that we had to compare that in 4 1988 when Dale Hoffman walked across the river at 5 five different places, at that time it was 6 32 cubic feet per second. So just as a 7 comparison. It's huge right now compared to that. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, this is sort of a 9 big overriding question on the whole need for this 10 project. And in the initial documents that I read 11 some months ago, it was positioned as being for 12 drought relief. And my assumption reading that 13 was that this water would not be used at all until 14 sometime in the future which may be a year or two 15 or 10 or 12, there was a significant drought. 16 Now, at other times I've read this described as a 17 supplemental system, just to supplement your 18 current supply. What is it? If it's a 19 supplemental system, I assume you're going to be 20 drawing from it all the time. 21 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It is in fact both. 22 And let me try and explain that. First of all, 23 let me state that at the present time, we are 24 ready to do some expansion to the system to take 25 care of some of the growing needs that we have. 242 1 We have the ability to do that at Morris on the 2 Red River where we have an existing water rights 3 licence which would allow us to triple the size of 4 that plant and we could do that for less than a 5 third of the cost of what we're proposing to do 6 with this Sandilands supply. 7 However, when you look at the 8 insecurity of the supply on the Red, when you look 9 at the fact that we need 4.8 metres of water above 10 our intake in order to maximize the efficiency of 11 our plants and anything less than that decreases 12 the output that we can use, it would be less than 13 prudent not to look for supplemental supplies. 14 If you're going to look for 15 supplemental supplies, and you start putting water 16 into a pipe, you have to run a minimum flow 17 through that pipe in order that you can assure the 18 Canadian drinking water standards to that pipe at 19 all times, otherwise, you're going to run into 20 huge expenses in terms of cleaning, flushing and 21 trying to keep the system available to you and 22 appropriately cleansed. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: What would be a minimum 24 flow? 25 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The maximum flow 243 1 that we'd be able to use, I think is probably a 2 greater concern to some people, would be 35 litres 3 per second, and that only very seldom during the 4 year. Over time, we may develop the capability of 5 being able to utilize the full 50 litres per 6 second, but it will cut down to considerably less 7 than that, for example, during periods where we 8 have, you know, lower demand and also during 9 periods which we have good supplies from the Red. 10 But there will always be some flow through the 11 system. And it is there basically as a 12 supplemental supply but it is also there to make 13 sure that we have an available option in the event 14 that we run into problems on the Red. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: So if this pipeline and 16 well were in place, the Red would still be your 17 first choice for water? 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Oh, it is. And 19 when we need the next level of expansion, and 20 let's assume the region continues to grow and this 21 will be well beyond my retirement I sincerely 22 hope, and we have to expand the next time, that 23 next expansion will be at Morris and it will be on 24 the Red River because the Red River is a good 25 source of supply if it's there. It is a very 244 1 economic way for us in order to provide the water 2 requirements that we need. And the next phase and 3 the next step would be to triple the size of the 4 Morris water treatment plant. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: And in 1988 when the 6 mayor walked across the river, how much water was 7 that? How much water would you have been able to 8 take out of the Red at that time? 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: We had one water 10 treatment plant on the Red at that time, it was at 11 Letellier, and the size at that time was capable 12 of 32 litres per second. We had some challenges 13 related to the head waters over the intake and 14 weren't always able to produce the full 32. But 15 we were able to produce enough in combination with 16 other supplies that we were then getting from the 17 Pembina and Inichi (ph) water treatment plant 18 which the Water Services Board still owned at that 19 time to meet for the bare needs. 20 By comparison, however, right now, the 21 Letellier plant is at 100 litres per second and 22 can in fact do 110 without too much sweat. And 23 our Morris plant is at 35 and has certainly been 24 known to do 40 without any great effort. These 25 plants are normally sized conservatively. 245 1 So that's the demand that you're 2 looking at. So what we're trying to do, if you 3 want to look at it this way, is hedge a portion of 4 it, supplement a portion of it. So if I have to 5 pull back, I can pull back. It also buys us time. 6 In the event we're looking at a prolonged drought 7 scenario, which isn't going to come overnight, you 8 can now look and say all right, we've got this, 9 here are the other measures that we have to take. 10 And I can give you an example of some of the other 11 measures we're going to have to take. 12 And our friends with the Eco-Network 13 who are concerned about our price be appalled but 14 one of the first things we would do is put a 15 drought surcharge on our water. And a drought 16 surcharge would escalate the price of water and 17 would in all likelihood double the price of water 18 in our region and would make everyone extremely 19 conscious of the fact that they have to use it 20 with great caution and great care. That's the 21 only way you can deliver a message like that. 22 There are other measures we would take. 23 Coming back to your specific question, 24 there is a specific need for the supply and that 25 is it. We want to supplement the supply. Yes, we 246 1 will have some water flowing from that well on a 2 continuous basis. In the next year or two, it 3 will max out at 35. Eventually it may come as 4 high as 50. In the meantime, however, as we're 5 moving ahead, the monitoring system will be in 6 place and we're going to know what effects it has. 7 And hopefully, if there are negative effects, we 8 will know this before we actually need this well 9 at 50 litres per second. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Brooks, in his 11 presentation, mentioned a number of demand side 12 issues that you might consider including peak 13 summer rates or summer peak rates, 6/3 toilets, 14 lawn watering restrictions, I think somebody else 15 mentioned shower heads. Have you done anything as 16 far as promoting and even subsidizing? 17 MR. SCHELLENBERG: We have not, and 18 this is where you have to realize that we are a 19 wholesaler of water and it is in fact the 20 municipal entities that do the retail. And some 21 of the municipalities have done some of this. And 22 certainly a lot of them have some of these things 23 written into their by-laws and into their code. 24 Restrictions on lawn watering is 25 pretty much standard throughout the region. And 247 1 we can enhance that if we have to. And to give 2 you an example, we did that this summer with 3 Morris. We know when the Stampede comes into 4 town, they use a lot more water. And at that 5 particular time, things were pretty dry, pretty 6 warm. So I basically called their office and 7 advised them that it was either going to be grass 8 that was going to be watered or the Stampede that 9 would have water and I kind of gave them the 10 option. They had water for the stampede I might 11 add. So what they did in that case is they 12 hand-delivered bills to every home. 13 In the case Winkler, for example, it's 14 a standard system which is in place as it is for 15 several of the other communities in terms of lawn 16 watering. There are further restrictions which 17 have been taken and can be applied. And Dr. 18 Brooks is correct, maybe our vehicles don't have 19 to be washed and polished for every weekend and 20 there are restrictions there that have gone into 21 place in the past. Certainly in terms of fixtures 22 and appliances, there is a strong encouragement in 23 terms of the building codes to bring in the three 24 and six litre toilets which he referred to. And 25 as I mentioned in my response to him, if we can 248 1 get grey water reuse and recycling into place and 2 we can get the Health Department to agree to 3 something which is an extremely intelligent 4 approach, then this I think is going to become a 5 possibility not just in our region but across the 6 country and it will reduce in fact the water 7 demand very substantially. 8 And one more item, and not to sell it 9 short, because it has made a dramatic difference 10 in some areas, and that's the front-load washer. 11 It does more than you think. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I have one and when I 13 first got it, I was sure it wasn't working 14 properly because there's almost no water used in 15 it. 16 MR. GIBBONS: Getting back to the 17 question of wet industries. Just for 18 clarification, hog farms or pork processing 19 plants, would one or the other or both of those be 20 considered wet industries? Presumably there is 21 some interest at times in Manitoba in moving those 22 kinds of plants and farms into various regions, 23 and yours would be included I suppose. 24 MR. SCHELLENBERG: In terms of 25 processing, we have a number of smaller processing 249 1 plants in the region. If you enjoy pork burgers, 2 for example, on the barbecue in the summer time, 3 most of those come from our region. Those are 4 kind of mom and pop operations and the amount of 5 water which is utilized is not excessive, it's 6 quite reasonable. 7 If, on the other hand, you're talking 8 about a Maple Leaf, there isn't a chance. There 9 is no way. 10 MR. GIBBONS: The second follow-up, 11 it's actually a follow-up to my earlier question 12 because I think I inadvertently cut myself short. 13 And that is in terms of the reaction to monitoring 14 data which might well be negative, you indicated 15 that there could be changes and so forth 16 distributing the drawdown in different areas and 17 so forth and so on. But what I didn't ask at the 18 time was whether you, as an organization, would be 19 prepared, given the time invested and the money 20 invested, the capital invested in this project, be 21 willing to countenance the possibility of an 22 actual cessation altogether if it came to that? 23 I know that it was in the presentation 24 earlier and I wonder if, for example, a cynic, 25 there's always a cynic in the crowd I suppose, 250 1 might say oh, sure, they say that. But in 2 reality, if they put all that time and all that 3 money into this, I don't think it's likely that 4 they're going to actually cease operation. Can 5 you speak to that briefly? 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: There is certainly 7 a possibility in the short term, and let me 8 qualify what I mean by a short term. If in fact 9 there is a major problem at the well head which is 10 not anticipated, we will shut her down. We will 11 however invest every energy in finding alternate 12 sources and supplies within that region and 13 related regions on route and there's a number of 14 other areas which were specified that we could 15 look at to try and recover and make use of the 16 capital investment which we've got on the ground, 17 namely the pipeline, and to make sure that we can 18 still supplement our supplies which was the 19 original intention with this approach. But if we 20 need to shut it down, we'll shut it down. Thank 21 you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's just a few 23 minutes to five. I am going to propose that we 24 break now for supper. When we come back after 25 supper, we will have brief presentations by 251 1 representatives of a number of municipalities and 2 other organizations. There will also be an 3 opportunity for any members of the general public 4 who wish to make comment. So we'll be back at 5 7:00 p.m. Thank you. 6 (Proceedings recessed at 4:55 p.m. and reconvened 7 at 7:00 p.m.) 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Could we come to 9 order, please? I hope everybody is well fed. We 10 have four presentations that have been scheduled. 11 Nobody, to my knowledge, nobody from the general 12 public has indicated that they want to make a 13 presentation. However, at the end of the four 14 presentations, I will invite anybody from the 15 general public who does wish to. If anybody out 16 there has not registered and would like to make a 17 presentation, please let either Joyce at the door, 18 or Cathy over in the corner here, know over the 19 next hour. 20 We will have the four presentations. 21 If anybody from the public wants to make a 22 presentation they will be able to. Also at the 23 end of these presentations, if anybody from the 24 general public wants to ask any questions of the 25 proponent, you will have an opportunity to do 252 1 that. 2 The first presentation is from Lindy 3 Clubb. Ms. Clubb, will you please state your name 4 for the record, and then Cathy will swear you in. 5 MS. CLUBB: I have been sworn in, 6 Mr. Sergeant. If you would like me to do it 7 again? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: No, you are correct, 9 you were there earlier. So just state your name 10 for the public and then make your presentation. 11 MS. CLUBB: Hello, my name is Lindy 12 Clubb. I'm a resource person for the North 13 American Stormwater & Erosion Control Association, 14 the assistant executive director of the Mixedwood 15 Forest Society and a member of Manitoba 16 Eco-Network's water caucus. 17 I am the orphan who sat up here at the 18 front and didn't get to make my presentation while 19 the caucus people were up, so I am back here by 20 myself now. 21 I'm considered a citizen expert in 22 water. I'm doing a presentation now because I 23 have to work on Thursday. I'm a volunteer, nobody 24 is paying me for anything. If the tone of the 25 presentation or any of my remarks seem 253 1 disrespectful to the groups that I'm representing 2 here, I'm sorry, but we have to be ourselves to 3 speak up at these things. 4 And the two groups that I'm 5 representing, NASECA and MFS, are opposed to the 6 findings of the study material that supports this 7 request for a water supply system. We believe 8 that this project with harm the aquifer that lies 9 beneath the Sandilands Provincial Forest and the 10 ecological life above it. While the proponents 11 believe the area to be unsuitable for development 12 other than logging, they believe that the 13 groundwater will accommodate additional growth for 14 the region's population. The basis for their 15 application is that not enough water may be 16 available to them during drought times. 17 The forecast for what may be able to 18 the aquifer in times of drought is not readily 19 apparent in the study material. I had a really 20 difficult time understanding the graphs, the 21 charts, the diagrams, the maps and the conclusions 22 that the proponents have come to, even though I'm 23 a citizen expert in water, and I'm a little 24 dyslexic with numbers, but I had a hard time with 25 this material. If I had a hard time with this 254 1 material, and I have been looking at stuff like 2 this for fifteen years, I would think the average 3 member of the public would have a hard time with 4 this material too. 5 We are being asked in many ways to 6 rest on faith when it comes to the assertions and 7 the promises that are being made by the 8 proponents. I would rather just see the evidence 9 and be convinced. I haven't been convinced by the 10 written material and I haven't been convinced by 11 what I have heard here today. Although, I 12 appreciate the investment that has gone into it so 13 far and the cost of the material that has come 14 forward. 15 Anyway, my main question is about what 16 I haven't seen from the proponents. They seem to 17 arrive at the same conclusion every time. There 18 is enough water under the Sandilands Forest to 19 fill the pumps and pipes so developments can 20 survive. But who sustains the aquifer? What does 21 the aquifer complex need to survive? Who will 22 replenish the recharge areas in times of drought? 23 Who has established the response times and the 24 systems for this aquifer? 25 If our Provincial departments charged 255 1 with the responsibility of unraveling the 2 mysteries of this complex hydrological system 3 couldn't come to conclusions about it, then how 4 can the proponents' consultants be so sure? If I 5 was to expand at the rate of the Pembina Valley 6 Cooperative, I wouldn't be able to fit into my 7 skirt. I would have to begin using elastic waist 8 bands to accommodate the growth, and if I grew too 9 much, the elastic would stretch to the point of no 10 return. That's why I worried about this aquifer. 11 How much and for how long can it give until the 12 system collapses? 13 Response monitoring, which is the 14 equivalent of oh, oh, the waist band is 15 tightening, may be too late. It is lacking in 16 common sense to measure the long term response of 17 the aquifer to the project if it means the 18 aquifer's demise. 19 As for the proponent's claim the 20 environment will not be affected, the U.S. 21 geological surveys contradict this. 22 I felt like a high school student 23 preparing this so-called presentation. I'm not a 24 hydrogeologist. I appreciate the questions that 25 Mr. Halek has been offering, and I think they are 256 1 very good. But if I can access USGS material like 2 I'm about to read off the internet, like a high 3 school student preparing for an essay, I'm 4 wondering why the proponents haven't done it. 5 I do have some material in here about 6 water budgets. I ask you to bear with me while I 7 read from the text. It starts with groundwater 8 and surface water interaction. 9 "Ground water pumping can affect not 10 only water supply for human 11 consumption, but also the maintenance 12 of in-stream flow requirements for 13 fish habitat and other environmental 14 needs. Long term reductions in stream 15 flow can affect vegetation along 16 streams, riparian zones, that serve 17 critical roles in maintaining wildlife 18 habitat and in enhancing the quality 19 of surface water. Pumping induced 20 changes in the flow direction to and 21 from streams may affect temperature, 22 oxygen levels and nutrient 23 concentrations in the stream, which in 24 turn affects aquatic life. Perennial 25 streams, springs and wetlands in the 257 1 U.S. are highly valued as a source of 2 water for humans and for the plant and 3 animal species they support. 4 Development of groundwater resources 5 since the late 1800s in the U.S. has 6 resulted in the elimination or 7 alteration of many perennial stream 8 leaches, wetlands and associated 9 riparian ecosystems. The chemistry of 10 groundwater and the direction and 11 magnitude of exchange with surface 12 water significantly affects the input 13 of dissolved chemicals in lakes. In 14 fact, groundwater can be the principal 15 source of dissolved chemicals to a 16 lake, even in cases where groundwater 17 discharge is a small component of a 18 lake's water budget. 19 Changes in flow patterns to lakes as a 20 result of pumping may alter the 21 natural fluxes to lakes of key 22 constituents such as nutrients and 23 dissolved oxygen, in turn altering 24 lake biota, their environment, and the 25 interaction of both. 258 1 Wetlands can be quite sensitive to the 2 effects of groundwater pumping. 3 Groundwater pumping can affect 4 wetlands, not only as a result of 5 progressive lowering of the water 6 table, but also increased seasonal 7 changes in the altitude of the water 8 table." 9 And this gets pretty technical. 10 "The altitude and frequency of water 11 level fluctuations through changing 12 seasons, commonly termed the hydro 13 period, affect wetland characteristics 14 such as the type of vegetation, 15 nutrient cycling, and type of 16 invertebrates, fish and bird species 17 that are present. The effects of 18 pumping on seasonal fluctuations in 19 groundwater levels near wetlands adds 20 a new dimension to the usual concerns 21 about the sustainable development that 22 typically focus on annual 23 withdrawal." 24 That came from a study in Bacchus in 1998. 25 "Groundwater development can lead to 259 1 reductions in spring flow, changes of 2 springs from perennial to 3 ephemeral..." 4 That means, perennial is all of the time and 5 ephemeral means every once in a while, 6 "...or elimination of springs 7 altogether. Springs typically 8 represent points on the landscape 9 where groundwater flow paths from 10 different sources converge. 11 Groundwater development may affect the 12 amount of flow from these different 13 sources to varying extents, thus 14 affecting the resultant chemical 15 composition of the spring water." 16 I was taken by a couple of calloused hand farmers 17 out to see a spring in the Interlake area. It was 18 really beautiful, you wouldn't know it was there. 19 These guys had been in the area for a long time. 20 And the spring was coming out of quite a bit of 21 spongey beautiful mosses. So it was kind of 22 hidden, it was just trickling out. I didn't even 23 know it was a spring. I thought springs were 24 something you see on TV, you know, they flash up, 25 and they are like Artesian wells, and they are 260 1 gorgeous and they create rainbows. That's not 2 what it was about. It was a little tiny trickle 3 of water. It was going into an area that supplied 4 habitat for fish in the Washout Bay drain in the 5 Bifrost municipality. And like I said, if 6 somebody hadn't taken me there and showed it to 7 me, I wouldn't have known it was there. I don't 8 know where the springs are here. And I imagine 9 not -- is there anybody in the room that knows 10 where springs are in this area? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Clubb, you are 12 making a presentation, you are not asking 13 questions. 14 MS. CLUBB: I am not allowed to ask 15 questions? I have asked many questions in the 16 presentation. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, but you also are 18 given 15 minutes and you have used half of it 19 already and you are not a quarter of the way 20 through. 21 MS. CLUBB: Oh, I might have to skip 22 over some parts. 23 Springs are important. We haven't 24 seen very much in the way of information about 25 springs. 261 1 "In summary, we have seen that changes 2 to surface water bodies in response to 3 groundwater pumping commonly are 4 subtle and may occur over long periods 5 of time. The cumulative effects of 6 pumping can cause significant and 7 unanticipated consequences when not 8 properly considered in water 9 management plans. The types of water 10 bodies that can be affected are highly 11 varied, as are the apparent potential 12 effects. A common response to 13 droughts is to drill more wells. 14 Increased use of groundwater may 15 continue after a drought because of 16 installation of wells and the 17 infrastructure for the delivery of 18 groundwater is a considerable 19 investment. Thus a drought may lead 20 to a permanent unanticipated change in 21 the level of groundwater development." 22 Then the USGS reports go on to talk about climate 23 change. They go on to talk about, 24 "Consideration of climate can be a key 25 but often under-emphasized factor in 262 1 ensuring the sustainability and proper 2 management of groundwater resources." 3 I'm afraid we haven't seen much about climate 4 change in this particular proposal. 5 Then they talk about the common 6 factor of all groundwater systems is the total 7 amount of water entering, leaving, and being 8 stored in the system, and how it must be 9 conserved. And that requires an accounting of all 10 of the inflows, outflows, and changes in storage, 11 which is called a water budget. 12 Then we talk about human activities 13 and how that affects it. And then we get into 14 what the consultants talked about, which is the 15 water budget myth. 16 Now, it seemed like they were 17 cherry-picking a little bit about the information 18 about the water budget myth. Because what I 19 looked up on the internet said this: 20 "Some hydrologists believe that a 21 pre-development water budget for 22 groundwater system, that is a water 23 budget for the natural conditions 24 before humans used the water..." 25 that would be like a known hypothesis, 263 1 "...can be used to calculate the 2 amount of water available for 3 consumption or safe yield. In this 4 case the development of a groundwater 5 system is considered to be safe if the 6 rate of groundwater withdrawal does 7 not exceed the rate of natural 8 recharge. This concept is being 9 referred to as the water budget myth." 10 Bredehoeft others, 1982, is the citation. 11 "It is a myth because it is an 12 oversimplification of the information 13 that's needed to understand the 14 effects of developing a groundwater 15 system. As human activities change 16 the system, the components of the 17 water budget, inflows, outflows and 18 changes in storage also will change 19 and must be accounted for in any 20 management decision. Understanding 21 the water budgets and how they change 22 in response to human activities is an 23 important aspect of groundwater 24 hydrology. However, as we shall see, 25 a pre-development water budget by 264 1 itself is of limited value in 2 determining the amount of groundwater 3 that can be withdrawn on a sustained 4 basis. First the use of groundwater 5 and surface water must be evaluated 6 together on a system wide basis." 7 Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I 8 did hear the proponents say that a large amount of 9 money had gone into producing the information that 10 we heard about this morning, which was a pretty 11 good start I thought, but then when it came to an 12 evaluation on a system-wide basis, Mr. 13 Schellenberg said no, we have invested in that and 14 we are not going further, we don't need to 15 evaluate the whole system, we have got information 16 from here, and that's it. 17 I can understand that, we all have 18 limits for budgets, I understand that. My concern 19 is about the system-basis. And there has been 20 nobody in the room that has spoken up on behalf of 21 the systems that are going to be affected by a 22 pipeline into this beautiful area we don't know 23 about. We are still unable, I'm still unable to 24 understand where the recharge points are, and also 25 where the water is going to go out, for instance, 265 1 to support the wetlands. Every time the 2 proponents were asked, we got a whole bunch of 3 information but I still don't understand it. But 4 what I'm reading about from the USGS models is 5 they have really hurt those systems by not putting 6 in the right information before they started and 7 not tracking it afterwards. I have not heard the 8 details of how we are going to monitor the system 9 if this project goes through. That's a concern as 10 well. 11 The computer model USGS information is 12 providing is a simplified representation of an 13 actual system, and the judgment of water 14 management professionals is required to evaluate 15 model simulation results and plan appropriate 16 actions. Okay. We all understand that. I don't 17 understand the models that are being used. I 18 didn't see an evaluation of the models that were 19 presented. Actually, I didn't see a model for 20 future monitoring of this water system. I would 21 really appreciate doing that. 22 There was a bewildering amount of 23 information, but I did not get to see an 24 evaluation of the Thornwaite method, it wasn't 25 explained, I don't know about Cherry's study. 266 1 Maybe I can get that information afterwards, but I 2 consider that an oversight on the part of the 3 presenters this morning. 4 The effects of groundwater development 5 may require many years to be evident, and there is 6 an unfortunate tendency to forego data collection 7 and analysis that's needed to support the informed 8 decision-making until well after problems 9 materialize. We call that too late. 10 So now that I have done a little bit 11 of, let's say criticism, we move to solutions. 12 And the solution is, from USGS reports from the 13 years that they have been looking at their areas 14 of aquifer supply, is that groundwater models 15 depend in large part upon the quality and extent 16 of historical data used to calibrate and test the 17 model. Okay, that makes sense. Garbage in, 18 garbage out, or if it is good, it is good. I 19 don't see a groundwater model being used that I 20 can evaluate as a citizen of the Province of 21 Manitoba in connection with this particular 22 project. 23 When we, in erosion control fields, 24 turn to our experts we are usually supplied with 25 an answer to do with how we can do things better. 267 1 The Emmons and Olivier Resources have provided a 2 very simple sheet that I also got from the 3 internet about hydrologic, hydraulic and pollutant 4 loading studies. They have mentioned exactly what 5 models they are using, it is a computer 6 evaluation. They talk about making certain issues 7 a priority and they used a water shed model. So 8 if they can do it, and I agree it might cost an 9 awful lot of money, but if they can do it, we can 10 do it. So I would like to send this to the panel 11 that's evaluating this project so that they can 12 take a look at what I found easy to understand 13 material. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: You can bring it to us 15 after you are finished your presentation, please? 16 MS. CLUBB: So one of the limitations 17 of a model, and as I said, I haven't really seen a 18 model, although this is a good example of one, is 19 the underestimating of the surface water depletion 20 and groundwater development. I'm still not sure 21 that we have the expertise that's being offered to 22 us to be able to understand how the water that's 23 going in is going to stay or go out again, and how 24 it is going to be recharged. I guess that's our 25 greatest concern right now. 268 1 For a system to replenish itself, we 2 should see or understand how it reacts in drought 3 or the kind of climatic conditions that we 4 discussed earlier. If Pembina Valley Water 5 Cooperative was to limit its growth, particularly 6 in areas of high consumption and pollution 7 potential like intensive livestock operations, it 8 would give us a chance to look at the system as it 9 sits now and thoroughly understand it, and do a 10 little more work in the 1980 study by the 11 Provincial expert, Mr. Thatcher. If the 12 proponents had been serious about safeguarding the 13 health of the aquifer that they intend to source, 14 they would have planned for recharge of the 15 system. Like putting money into our bank account, 16 making efforts to allow water to get back into the 17 ground is vital. When the proponents assert the 18 withdrawals are approximately in order of 19 magnitude less than the existing groundwater flow 20 rate, they are ignoring the dynamics of change. 21 How then will the aquifer make up for the 22 withdrawals except by lowering itself? 23 The Commission should recommend to the 24 Province that efforts to recharge the aquifer take 25 place whenever there is a withdrawal or a water 269 1 licence issue. This would constitute a balance. 2 The most efficient way to do this is to maintain 3 areas that allow water to percolate or penetrate 4 into the ground, they will seep through the 5 grounds between the stems of plants, beneath the 6 settlements of bogs, streams, lakes and ponds. We 7 must preserve and protect wetlands, keep our plant 8 shelter belts, forests, and riparian zones, 9 install water gardens and native prairie gardens 10 to compensate for the concrete and sod, and 11 compost or rebuild our depleted soils in 12 agriculture. There are so many techniques for 13 reducing wind and water erosion, preventing silt 14 from contaminating surface water, et etcetera, 15 much more than adherence to guidelines in stream 16 crossing, as the proponent has stated. 17 Where are the erosion control plans 18 for the pipeline work? Where is the basic 19 analysis of slopes, the predictions of slumping, 20 emergency plans to deal with human error, the 21 consultation with certified professionals in 22 erosion and sediment control? 23 The simple fact that this Commission 24 had to again ask for additional material for a 25 meaningful discussion of this project is telling. 270 1 The fact that the Pembina Valley Co-op has come to 2 the province for additional water supply and 3 source over and over again is telling. It is not 4 time for a generous new wardrobe in a larger size 5 for the Pembina Valley Water Co-op, it is time for 6 them to control their appetite. That's it. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 8 Mr. Schellenberg, do you or any of 9 your associates have any questions of Ms. Clubb? 10 Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clubb. 11 Next up is Mr. Scharien from the RM of 12 Grey, et cetera. 13 State your name and Ms. Johnson will 14 swear you in. 15 (Mr. Charles Scharien sworn) 16 MR. SCHARIEN: Thank you, 17 Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank 18 the Commission for allowing us to speak and give a 19 presentation, as well as I would like to introduce 20 right now the Reeve of the RM of Grey who has come 21 along with me, and also Robert McKenzie, the 22 former mayor of Carman, whose presentation is in 23 here that I'm about to read. 24 This presentation is being made on 25 behalf of the Rural Municipality of Grey, the 271 1 Village of St. Claude and the Town of Carman in 2 support of Pembina Valley Water Cooperative Inc. 3 supplemental groundwater supply project. 4 The Rural Municipality of Grey has a 5 population of 2,147, which includes the local 6 urban districts of Elm Creek, Haywood, and the 7 Hamlet of Fannystelle. 8 We have no potable water supplies such 9 as lakes, rivers, or high yielding wells within 10 the boundaries of the municipality capable of 11 supplying safe and reliable water to our 12 residents. Residents of THE eastern portion of 13 our municipality rely on surface run-off water 14 into dugouts or trucked water into cisterns, while 15 residents in the western portion rely on low 16 yielding shallow sand wells. These sources are 17 not reliable, especially during drought years, and 18 produce water of extremely poor quality. 19 It is hard to believe, but the basic 20 necessity of life such as a safe potable water 21 supply was not available to the residents of our 22 municipality until 1980 when we installed a water 23 treatment plant in Elm Creek. The water supply 24 for this plant is a deep well yielding water of 25 poor quality, requiring reverse osmosis treatment, 272 1 which is a very expensive process. It has a 2 limited capacity and is only capable of supplying 3 161 customers in Elm Creek and 28 customers in the 4 surrounding rural area with potable water. 5 In an attempt to find other water 6 sources capable of meeting the needs of the 7 residents of the municipality, Manitoba Water 8 Stewardship carried out an extensive test drilling 9 for groundwater sources but were unsuccessful. 10 A local group know as the RM of Grey 11 Water Development Committee sampled private wells 12 in the St. Claude, Haywood area during the period 13 of November 1998 and March of 1999. In response 14 to their report, a memo dated April 19, 1999 was 15 sent from Dr. Shelley Buchan, Medical Health, 16 Officer of Health to Water Public Health 17 Inspector, appendix 1 is attached, in which she 18 stated in summary, 19 "I have concerns on the vulnerability 20 of the water sources for St. Claude 21 and Haywood. These appear to be 22 longstanding, and repeated presence of 23 coliform and nitrates pose a health 24 issue. I recommend that another water 25 source and delivery system be explored 273 1 with the Water Services Board so that 2 a consistent source of reliable water 3 can be made available for those 4 communities. Good drinking water is 5 essential for health and we need to 6 support communities that recognize the 7 value of this basic service." 8 On September 20th of 2000, Dr. Buchan issued a 9 boil water advisory for the Village of Haywood, 10 appendix 2 is attached, stating, 11 "The results indicate that of the 55 12 wells sampled, 90 per cent contain 13 evidence of bacterial contamination; 14 12 per cent are further contaminated 15 with faecal coliforms." 16 Council met on December 14th, 2000 with the 17 Pembina Valley Water Cooperative, Manitoba Water 18 Services Board and PFRA to discuss a regional 19 water system that not only would address the 20 serious potable water situation in Haywood, but 21 also throughout the municipality. We subsequently 22 joined the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative with a 23 water supply line from Stephenfield water plant to 24 Haywood being installed. This was the beginning 25 of the Grey regional water utility. 274 1 Since 2001 we have installed a second 2 supply line from Stephenfield to the Village of 3 St. Claude and approximately 67 miles of water 4 pipelines into rural areas around Haywood and St. 5 Claude. Currently we serve 215 customers from the 6 Stephenfield water plant. We have also installed 7 two water supply lines from the Cartier Regional 8 Water Co-op, with approximately 91 miles of water 9 pipelines in the rural areas around Fannystelle 10 and Elm Creek, serving 146 customers including the 11 Hamlet of Fannystelle. There is approximately 12 65 miles of water pipelines and 100 customers left 13 to be served with potable water in our 14 municipality. 15 The Grey Regional Water Utility total 16 combined water sales for all three sources, PVWC, 17 Cartier and Elm Creek, was 31.7 million gallons in 18 2005, of which 16.2 million or 51 per cent was 19 supplied by Pembina Valley Water Cooperative. 20 Out of the 215 customers being 21 supplied potable water from Stephenfield, 205 or 22 95 per cent use this water mainly for domestic 23 purposes. The remaining 10 customers use their 24 water supply for both domestic and livestock, 25 dairy and poultry, and annual consumptions ranging 275 1 from 380,000 to 1,618,000 gallons for a combined 2 consumption of 9 million gallons in 2005. 3 Dairy operators have found that 4 potable water supply improved the quality and the 5 quantity produced by their cows. It must be 6 stressed that livestock operations is just as 7 viable an industry in a rural municipality as an 8 industrial business is in an urban centre. 9 All water used by these customers is 10 metered and charged at a water rate of $8.40 a 11 thousand, with no discount allowance for large 12 volume users. Water flow restrictors of four U.S. 13 gallons per minute have been installed on all 32 14 millimetre services, service connections of 10 15 U.S. gallons per minute on all 50 millimetre 16 service connections, thereby limiting the volume 17 of water that customers can draw from the system. 18 The municipality does comparisons 19 between water purchases and sales in order to 20 minimize the volume of unaccounted for water to 21 less than 5 per cent. Customers are also 22 encouraged to monitor their meter readings and are 23 provided with tips on how to detect water loss due 24 to leaks. 25 The Village of St. Claude, with a 276 1 population of 558, joined the Pembina Valley Water 2 Cooperative in 2002 to address two concerns with 3 their existing water supply. First, water being 4 piped from a well in the Rathwell area was poor in 5 quality due to high levels of hardness and 6 turbidity. This resulted in residents having to 7 use softeners in their homes, which in turn caused 8 environmental problems for their lagoon operation 9 due to high levels of salt in the discharge. 10 Secondly, the water supply pipeline was barely 11 meeting the current water needs with no room for 12 the village to expand or grow. Parmalat, a major 13 employer in the village, uses approximately 7 and 14 a half million gallons a year and were looking for 15 an expansion which the existing water system could 16 not handle. 17 The Rural Municipality of Grey and the 18 Village of St. Claude must rely on potable water 19 being piped in from outside sources. The Pembina 20 Valley Water Cooperative proposal for a 21 supplemental groundwater supply project is vital 22 to ensure that they can continue to meet not only 23 the current, but future water needs of our 24 residents, especially during drought conditions. 25 That's the RM of Grey, St. Claude part of the 277 1 presentation. 2 The Town of Carman is a community of 3 approximately 2,800 people and has been a member 4 of the Pembina Valley Water Co-op since its 5 inception. We own the water plant, water 6 treatment plant consisting of an old plant 7 capacity of 14 litres, which is no longer in use, 8 and newer plant capacity of 18 litres. The town 9 purchased 25 per cent of its water of the water 10 produced from the Co-op Stephenfield plant, 11 approximately 23 million gallons. It makes the 12 balance of water needed in our own plant. Our 13 contract to purchase water from the Co-op expires 14 in June of 2008, with an option to extend the 15 contract for another ten years. This option has 16 already been exercised. 17 We draw raw water from the Boyne River 18 which runs through Stephenfield, through Carman, 19 to the Red River. Our system is only as strong as 20 the original groundwater source. During the dry 21 period of approximately 1989/90, water levels in 22 the Stephenfield Lake dropped very sharply while 23 the flow in the Boyne River became minimal. The 24 Town of Carman expressed great concern to the 25 Province of Manitoba, and the height of the dam at 278 1 Stephenfield was increased by approximately 2 feet 2 as a result. While a positive step, this does not 3 resolve the issue of severe drought and lack of 4 rainfall. 5 Since that period, Pembina Valley 6 Water Co-op has built a large water plant which 7 draws water from the Stephenfield Lake. We 8 believe that this plant, combined with the buildup 9 of silt to dam face can greatly reduce the water 10 available in a dry period to a point no one can be 11 certain of. There is no doubt that a drop in the 12 lake levels could be severe and could probably 13 create a crisis. 14 During periods of low rainfall, the 15 quality of the water tends to fail, and the sight 16 and smell of the water becomes an issue. In 17 summer of 2006, Carman briefly shut off the 18 pipeline from the corporation because of concerns 19 over water quality. This problem, we believe, 20 would be lessened if very high demands on 21 Stephenfield Lake and the Boyne River could be 22 alleviated. 23 Carman is a growing town with a busy 24 industrial park. We purchase approximately 25 23 million gallons from the corporation and 279 1 manufacture approximately 67,292,000 gallons in 2 our town plant in 2005. 3 We are currently meeting our winter 4 needs without difficulty, but during hot summer 5 weather our plant works at near capacity. There 6 is little or no room to fit major industry 7 requiring significant water into our community at 8 the present time. 9 The Town of Carman water plant has had 10 many control improvements made in recent years, 11 including the automatic shut-off system and 12 extensive new metering. Our efficiency rate, 13 according to the recent filing with the Public 14 Utilities Board, is approximately 13 per cent. We 15 view the Pembina Valley Water Co-op proposal as a 16 visionary plan for the community and indeed for 17 all of Manitoba. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. 19 Scharien. Anybody have any questions? 20 MS. FUNK: In appendix number 2, did 21 you find out the cause of the faecal coliforms? 22 MR. SCHARIEN: Appendix number? 23 MS. FUNK: That's in appendix 2. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: The boil water 25 advisory. 280 1 MR. SCHARIEN: There was conjecture, 2 they thought because of the village having all 3 shallow wells that they drew their water from at 4 the time, and also every home had its own septic 5 field, so that the two intertwined eventually. 6 And that was rectified, we hope it has been 7 rectified. There was a low pressure sewer system 8 put into Haywood with the lagoon to try to clean 9 up the coliforms from the wells. 10 MS. FUNK: Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. 12 Scharien. What do you propose? 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would like to 14 ask a few questions, Mr. Chair. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Our procedures do not 16 allow to ask questions of the presenters. The 17 presenters make a presentation. There can be 18 questions from the proponent or from the panel for 19 clarification and that's it. 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The proponents 21 and the panel, but not the big P participants? 22 THE CHAIRMAN: No, sorry. 23 Mr. Martens. Please state your name for the 24 record? 25 (Herm Martens sworn) 281 1 MR. MARTENS: Good evening, Mr. Chair, 2 members of the CEC Commission, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Thank you for the privilege to give a 4 presentation in support of Pembina Valley Water 5 Co-op supplemental groundwater supply. 6 I'm Herm Martens, Reeve of the Rural 7 Municipality of Morris, and I will be representing 8 both the town and the RM of Morris, as well as the 9 Rural Municipality of Montcalm. Together we 10 represent an area covering the southern most 11 50 miles of the Canadian side of the Red River 12 Valley. Permit me to introduce to you Dale 13 Hoffman, Mayor of Morris and Flo Beaudette of 14 Montcalm. 15 As leaders of our respective 16 municipalities, we have a responsibility and 17 obligation to provide a healthy environment as 18 well as opportunity for growth and development for 19 our area. One very important way to do this is by 20 providing good quality water, both during a flood 21 stage as well as during a drought. This is why we 22 want to see this project carried out, to provide 23 for a supplemental supply supporting our 24 withdrawals from the Red River. 25 After the '97 flood, the province did 282 1 a lot of water quality testing of wells and found 2 that many did not meet the health standard 3 required. Unfortunately, there are no wells in 4 our municipalities. This is not for lack of 5 trying, but the groundwater in our area is 6 extremely saline, not fit for human and/or 7 livestock consumption. We have to depend on 8 surface water that was stored in ponds and 9 cisterns or taken directly from the river. This 10 water then needs to be cleaned and filtered for 11 human consumption, a detailed process that 12 requires a lot of expertise, and each individual 13 homeowner does not have the expertise or the time 14 to carry out this detailed process. This is why, 15 along with our neighboring municipalities, we 16 established the Pembina Valley Water Co-op to 17 provide top quality water. 18 Because the Provincial Public Health 19 Department in 1997 only tested wells, we, as a 20 municipality, were left to do our own water 21 testing. We tested many ponds and many cisterns. 22 The results were alarming. Only one of the tests 23 came back fit for human consumption. The rest all 24 called for a boil water order or do not use for 25 human consumption. This again illustrated the 283 1 need for a proper water treatment facility and a 2 distribution system that would deliver water 3 meeting all of the Canadian Drinking Water 4 Standards. 5 Another flood related concern came out 6 of the '97 flood and that was the need to produce 7 and deliver clean potable water to the area 8 recovering from flood. The residents of Grand 9 Forks were forced to stay in temporary 10 accommodation for an extra three weeks so that 11 their contaminated water system could be cleaned 12 out and restarted to produce clean potable water. 13 This was very disruptive to those families, very 14 expensive, and added to the huge flood mitigation 15 costs. The people hooked up with the Pembina 16 Valley water could move back as soon as their 17 homes were accessible. This again demonstrates 18 the value of leadership in providing clean water, 19 an absolute necessity in flood recovery. 20 Now, this brings me to the fact that 21 Pembina Valley water requires this type of 22 capabilities, not only during periods of high 23 water on the Red, but also during drought 24 situations. For all the same reasons that the 25 treated water service is critical during excess 284 1 water, we have to have the ability to provide this 2 water in case of drought. That is why we are 3 seeking this supplemental groundwater supply. 4 There is a great difference between 5 urban and rural areas in regards to the average 6 daily use of water. I would like to present some 7 comparison. What you have to appreciate is that 8 most of the area we represent has had a history of 9 chronic water shortages. We have melted ice, used 10 snow, and learned to value water. We are talking 11 about this generation, and it includes my 12 children. 13 This means that the average person in 14 the RM of Morris uses just over half as much water 15 as the average person in Portage la Prairie or in 16 Winnipeg. And the same holds true for the RM of 17 Montcalm. To say another way, for every two 18 litres of water per person per day in the RM of 19 Montcalm, it would take almost four litres per 20 person per day in Winnipeg. That is a huge 21 difference. We place a high value on our water, 22 and while we may use half as much, we charge twice 23 as much, a full recovery cost. 24 Both the RMs of Montcalm and Morris 25 provide water for residential and for agricultural 285 1 purposes. Water connections are made to the 2 house, or to the houses in our municipalities and 3 that is where the meter is located. Most 4 livestock operations have piped water to the 5 barns, but most are only using the water for their 6 homes and human use in the barns. The livestock 7 water is produced on site from holding ponds. 8 This is the case on my own farm. There is no 9 irrigation off the Pembina Valley Water pipelines. 10 So the big question is, in the case of 11 a drought, where will we get our water? We are 12 guaranteed nothing at the US/Canada border. There 13 are no minimum flows established. What happens if 14 the Americans cannot or will not allow any water 15 to flow north? We would be without water. And if 16 they give us a trickle at the border during the 17 hot summer months, evaporation will take most of 18 that water before it reaches the plant in 19 Letellier. 20 The drought in 1988 did cause a lot of 21 concern. The mayor of Morris, Mr. Dale Hoffman, 22 walked across the Red River at five different 23 places. This was dangerously low. The U.S. 24 released some water to help us out, but this still 25 resulted in flows of only 32 CFS, not really 286 1 enough, not nearly enough to meet our present 2 needs. Will the U.S. be willing to do this again? 3 Will they keep the water if they need if for their 4 own use? 5 There are too many uncertainties. 6 Given our responsibilities as elected officials 7 and community leaders, we must have some security 8 of supply. We have to supplement the Red River 9 water supply. It is not prudent or wise to have 10 to rely on a neighboring country to assure our 11 water supply, when we have that capability at home 12 ourselves. Therefore, it is essential that this 13 project proceed. Thank you. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 15 Mr. Martens. Art Petkau. 16 Please state your names for the 17 record? 18 MR. ZACHARIAS: And I am Bill 19 Zacharias. 20 (Art Petkau sworn) 21 (Bill Zacharis sworn) 22 MR. PETKAU: Good evening. 23 Mr. Chairman, Commission members, hearing 24 participants, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Art 25 Petkau, Reeve of the Rural Municipality of 287 1 Stanley. I'm making this presentation on behalf 2 of the RM of Stanley, the Town of Morden, the RM 3 of Thompson. A presentation for the City of 4 Winkler will be made later within this allocated 5 time slot. 6 With me are Irvin Wiebe representing 7 the Town of Morden, George Jackson representing 8 the RM of Thompson, and Peter Froese also from the 9 RM of Stanley. My presentation is in support of 10 the water rights licence application filed by the 11 Pembina Valley Water Cooperative. The three 12 jurisdictions that I'm representing are members of 13 the cooperative and all rely on the water 14 cooperative as a water source to varying degrees. 15 Obviously water is a necessity for all 16 of us. In a growth area such as ours, a reliable 17 source of quality water is critical. The water 18 cooperative has provided that source for us. None 19 of us, however, like to have all of our eggs in 20 one basket, and this is evident by what has 21 happened in our area. Where Winkler draws the 22 bulk of their water from the Winkler aquifer and 23 supplements that with water from the Water 24 Cooperative, where Morden draws the bulk of their 25 water from Lake Minnewasta and supplements that 288 1 with water from the Water Cooperative, the RM of 2 Thompson takes water from the Water Cooperative 3 from both the Stephenfield and Morris plants, and 4 Stanley draws water from three aquifers which are 5 basically being fully utilized, and takes some 6 water from Morden, with the bulk of the treated 7 water at present coming from the Water Cooperative 8 Letellier plant, and with some also from the 9 Morris plant. As you can see, a supplemental 10 source is very important in our present systems, 11 and it is imperative for expansion of our systems 12 and anticipated growth. 13 Stanley covers an area 18 miles by 14 18 miles. The City of Winkler and the Town of 15 Morden fall within that area. In 2002, Stanley's 16 population was 5,100. We are projecting the 17 population now to be near 6,000. This is based on 18 15 new housing starts per year over the past five 19 years. This level of growth is expected to 20 continue as there doesn't appear to be any slowing 21 of activity in the commercial and industrial 22 sectors in the area. In the 2002 census, Stanley 23 had one of the youngest populations in Canada. 24 Our residents generally are a source of labour for 25 the urban centres as well as for the agriculture 289 1 industry. Most of the growth has been in villages 2 that are in close proximity to Winkler. Water to 3 these villages is supplied by the Water 4 Cooperative. 5 Nowadays in Manitoba when a farmer 6 retires, it seems no one is interested in 7 purchasing land and yard. This, however, has not 8 lead to any abandoned farm yards in our area, as 9 such yards are in high demand as acreages, which 10 has resulted in demands for potable water. 11 In Stanley the bulk of water usage is 12 domestic. Average household usage is around 200 13 litres per day, which is comparatively low. To 14 encourage this trend, Stanley is considering an 15 incentive, an initiative to require low-flow or 16 low-volume fixtures to be installed in all new 17 homes and considering incentives for people to 18 convert existing fixtures to low-flow or 19 low-volume. 20 The Boundary Trails Health Centre is a 21 regional hospital serving most of southern 22 Manitoba. It is located in Stanley and the Health 23 Centre's water source is the Water Cooperative. 24 Water quality and assured supply are obviously 25 critical for a health care facility of this size. 290 1 The Town of Morden has a population 2 approaching 6,500. As mentioned earlier, the 3 Water Cooperative is a supplemental source at this 4 time. With Lake Minnewasta also being a 5 recreation area, we anticipate that efforts will 6 continue to ensure adequate water levels in the 7 lake. 8 In the RM of Thompson quality water 9 supplied by the Water Cooperative has provided 10 several important benefits for residents, the 11 first being confidence in a safe water supply. 12 Wells were the only alternative in the past and 13 have proven unreliable and inadequate in many 14 instances. Also the RM is experiencing situations 15 where residents are creating alternative sources 16 of income, with greenhouses and tree nurseries 17 being examples, the third being the increased 18 attraction and value of existing farm yards to 19 people wanting a rural lifestyle with a safe water 20 supply similar to the situation in Stanley. 21 Both Stanley and Thompson anticipate 22 expansion of water services as there are still 23 areas in both municipalities that remain 24 unserviced. In Stanley's case there are 25 approximately 200 households waiting for potable 291 1 water. The water source for the bulk of these 2 would be the Water Cooperative Morris plant. 3 Why a supplemental source? There is 4 growth in our areas, people bring business and 5 business brings people. Water is a necessity of 6 life. The area needs an adequate supply, a safe 7 supply, a reliable supply, and a sustainable 8 supply. Supplemental sources provide options, 9 supplemental sources provide backup, and 10 supplemental sources create a level of comfort for 11 businesses, industries and people. 12 I would now like to turn the 13 microphone over to Bill Zacharias, director of 14 planning and engineering for the City of Winkler, 15 who will make the presentation on behalf of the 16 city. Thank you. 17 MR. ZACHARIAS: Mr. Chairman, with 18 your permission? 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. 20 MR. ZACHARIAS: Mr. Chairman, members 21 of the Commission, participants and attendees, on 22 behalf of the City of Winkler, a member of the 23 Pembina Valley Water Cooperative, I would like to 24 introduce a councillor for the City of Winkler and 25 appointee to the Winkler Aquifer Management Board, 292 1 Ron Neufeld, as attending the proceedings today 2 with us. 3 As Mr. Petkau said, I'm Bill 4 Zacharias, director of planning and engineering 5 for the City of Winkler, and wish to offer a brief 6 presentation in support of the Pembina Valley 7 Water Cooperative's application for water rights 8 from the Sandilands aquifer. 9 The City of Winkler is one of 18 10 member municipalities of the Pembina Valley Water 11 Cooperative. The city is celebrating 100 years of 12 incorporation and within the past century has 13 grown from a small railroad siding to a regional 14 service centre. Its population growth at 3 per 15 cent per annum is one of the highest in Manitoba 16 communities. The water vital to this growth is 17 obtained from the Winkler aquifer and the Pembina 18 Valley Water Cooperative. 19 Water supports residential growth, 20 education and medical services, recreation and 21 cultural services, commercial and industrial 22 development. Under present agreements, Winkler 23 supplements up to 40 per cent of its water supply 24 from the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative and the 25 remainder is drawn from the Winkler aquifer. The 293 1 Winkler aquifer may be described as a water 2 bearing deposit of sand and gravel. It is 3 approximately 17 miles long and varies from one to 4 three miles wide. Current studies indicate that 5 its recharge is about 337 acre feet per annum 6 fresh water and 230 acre feet per annum salt 7 water. It is estimated to contain 170,000 acre 8 feet of fresh water and 400,000 acre feet of salt 9 water. 10 Water quality in the Winkler aquifer 11 varies with location and it has decreased somewhat 12 over the past 40 years. In general, the aquifer's 13 fresh water quality deteriorates with the depth. 14 At the present time it has been 15 determined that the sustainable yield of the 16 Winkler aquifer is 337 acre feet, as I mentioned 17 earlier, and Winkler's present demand is 900 acre 18 feet per year. 19 The City of Winkler, together with the 20 Province of Manitoba, recognized that the 21 community's growth and water demand exceeded the 22 aquifer's sustainable yield in the late 1980s. 23 Governments and city officials began round-table 24 discussions with all stakeholders to strategize a 25 long-term management plan for the aquifer and to 294 1 develop supplementary water supply sources for our 2 community. The round-table and city officials 3 determined that an aquifer use reduction plan 4 would be required. In addition to Winkler's 5 reliance on the aquifer, ten other user groups 6 were identified as dependent on the aquifer, many 7 without licences and many with licences granted 8 after the city's proprietary licence. 9 It was determined and agreed that with 10 cooperative actions of the provincial officials, 11 the city officials, and stakeholders, an aquifer 12 management board be established to develop 13 initiatives to reduce the reliance on the aquifer, 14 enhance the aquifers natural recharge, encourage 15 water conservation, implement an aquifer 16 protection plan, establish a dedicated aquifer 17 water quality monitoring program, manage pollution 18 risks, and seek public input and acceptance of an 19 aquifer management plan. 20 In 1997 a board was established which 21 continues to function to this time. The Winkler 22 Aquifer Management Board's executive committee 23 comprised of government officials, technical 24 advisors, stakeholders and citizens at large, 25 meets regularly and holds public annual general 295 1 meetings. Their mandate is and remains to be 2 proactive in accomplishing the initiatives set out 3 in the Winkler aquifer management plan. We are 4 making good progress in reducing our reliance on 5 the aquifer from 976-acre feet some years ago to 6 555 acre feet in the past eight years. Further 7 reductions to the sustainable yield will be made 8 possible with supplementary supply from the 9 Pembina Valley Water Cooperative. 10 The aquifer management board has 11 successfully negotiated the elimination and/or 12 reduction of several water use licences over the 13 past several years. Supplementary water supplies 14 were required to replace some of these reductions. 15 The enhancement of the natural 16 recharge has been made by additional snow catch 17 plantings and by restricting spring run-off flow 18 from the primary recharge area. The City of 19 Winkler has encouraged water conservation by 20 regulating lot watering and encouraging low flow 21 bath and kitchen facility installations, and most 22 effectively, increasing water rates to our 23 customer. Large volume water use industries are 24 not encouraged to locate in our community. 25 Implementation of an aquifer 296 1 protection plan has included the discontinuation 2 of asphalt production in the recharge area. It 3 monitors aggregate quarry operations and high 4 intensity livestock operations and registers the 5 installation of geothermal heat systems in the 6 aquifer area. 7 A dedicated aquifer monitoring plan is 8 now coordinated by provincial agencies and shared 9 with stakeholders. Aquifer levels and water 10 quality reports are gathered regularly for 11 judicious future management. Management of 12 pollution risks remains as a constant watch and 13 vigil of the aquifer management board. The 14 recharge and aquifer area is posted with signs 15 identifying the area as being underlain by an 16 aquifer. 17 The Winkler aquifer management plan 18 emphasized open house meetings for public input. 19 This served as an excellent forum to hear 20 suggestions, address concerns and disseminate 21 facts from fiction. In conclusion, the Province 22 of Manitoba, the City of Winkler and Pembina 23 Valley Water Cooperative have cooperatively worked 24 towards the management of water supply resources 25 and aquifer management. 297 1 It's Manitobans working together to 2 build a stronger Manitoba. Thank you for your 3 time. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 5 Thank you gentlemen. 6 Now, I had indicated earlier that at 7 this time I would invite anybody from the general 8 public who wishes to ask questions of the 9 proponent to come forward and do that. Is there 10 anybody that wishes to question the proponent? We 11 have nobody that wants to make a presentation? 12 Nobody has indicated they want to make a 13 presentation. Okay. I think we will adjourn in a 14 moment or two then. We will reconvene here 15 Thursday morning at 9:00 o'clock. 16 Initially the panel will continue with 17 some questions of the proponent, that will be 18 followed by Mr. Koroluk on behalf of the Manitoba 19 Eco-network. Once that is concluded, we will have 20 a number of other presentations by individuals and 21 organizations. 22 Thank you all for your patience and 23 your time and your attendance here today, and 24 drive safely home and we will see you all Thursday 25 morning. 298 1 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, before we 2 go, I have an administrative task. Exhibit number 3 29 will be Ms. Clubb's presentation; exhibit 30 4 will be Mr. Scharien's presentation on behalf of 5 the RM of Grey, Dufferin and the Village of St. 6 Claude. Number 31 will be Mr. Scharien's 7 presentation on behalf of Town of Carman. Number 8 32 is Mr. Martens presentation; and 33 is Mr. 9 Petkau's presentation. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 11 (Adjourned at 8:05 p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 299 1 2 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 4 5 6 CECELIA REID, LISA REID and DEBRA KOT, duly 7 appointed Official Examiners in the Province of 8 Manitoba, do hereby certify the foregoing pages 9 are a true and correct transcript of our Stenotype 10 notes as taken by us at the time and place 11 hereinbefore stated. 12 13 14 15 ---------------------------- 16 Cecelia Reid 17 COURT REPORTER 18 19 ---------------------------- 20 Lisa Reid 21 COURT REPORTER 22 23 ---------------------------- 24 Debra Kot 25 COURT REPORTER