1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION PEMBINA VALLEY WATER COOPERATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL GROUNDWATER SUPPLY PROPOSAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FRIEDENSFELD COMMUNITY HALL FRIEDENSFELD, MANITOBA NOVEMBER 9, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Volume 2 2 APPEARANCES: CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION Mr. Terry Sargeant - Chairman Ms. Gisele Funk - Member Mr. Ian Halket - Member Mr. Kenneth Gibbons - 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 PRESENTATIONS: November 9, 2006 Rick Martel - RM Rhineland, Town of Altona, Town of Plum Coulee, Town of Gretna Bill Whitehead - RM Roland 3 PRESENTATIONS: November 9, 2006 Cheryl Kennedy-Courcelles Claude Moquin - RM La Broquerie Marvin Hovorka - RM PineyClaude Moquin - RM La Broquerie Patrick Watson - Seine-Rat River Conservation District Gerry Barron - Manitoba Public Utilities Board Laura Reeves Kimberly Balance - Water Caucus Gail Whelan Enns - Water Caucus 4 INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. 34 Presentation - Bill Zacharias - City of Winkler 35-51 Glenn Koroluk's documents 52 Presentation: Partial Reponse by the Water Caucus of Manitoba Eco-Network to Manitoba Clean Environment Commission with respect to hearing on Comments and Questions posed by Pembina Valley Water Cooperative (PVWC) to our Testimony Presented on 07 November 2006: Prepared by David B. Brooks for presentation on 09 November 2006 53 Questions and Answers of PVWC by CEC 54 Kennedy and Woodbury Article 55 Table - Pembina Valley Water Co-op Distribution Area (by Rural Municipality). 56 Presentation - Role of Groundwater Management in Aquifer Management, presented by Bob Betcher, Water Stewardship 5 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 57 Presentation - Report to: Manitoba Clean Environment Commission On the Historical Understanding of Water Shortage & Flooding in Southern Manitoba, report presented by Richard Martel, November 2006 58 Water Management in the Red River Valley, A History and Policy Review, by Lawrence N. Ogrodnik 59 Presentation - Rural Municipality of Roland, presented by Bill Whitehead. 60 Presentation - Pembina Valley Water Cooperative Supplemental Groundwater Supply Proposal, CEC Hearing, November 7 & 9, presented by Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles 61 Comment by Hugh Arklie as presented by Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles 62 Presentation - Municipality of/Municipalite de La Broquerie, presented by Claude Moquin 6 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 63 Presentation - PVWC Hearing, presented by Marvin Hovorka, Reeve R.M. of Piney 64 Presentation - Presentation to the CEC panel at the Public Hearing for the Pembina Valley Water Co-op Supplemental Groundwater Supply Proposal, presented by Patrick Watson 65 Presentation - Presented by Gerry Barron, Associate Secretary of the Manitoba Public Utilities Board 66 Letters - Save Our Seine Concern About the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative Groundwater Supply Project 7 1 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2006 2 UPON COMMENCING AT 9:12 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. Could we 4 come to order, please? I would like to apologize 5 for the slight delay in getting going this 6 morning. I seem to be coming down with the latest 7 autumn bug. And I had to spend a bit of time 8 running around town finding a drugstore that was 9 open to get some medication. But we're here now 10 and we're ready to go. 11 First thing this morning, the order of 12 the day this morning will be, more or less, first 13 up the Manitoba Eco-Network will be asking some 14 questions of the proponent. Following that, 15 members of this panel will ask further questions 16 of the proponent. And then following that, we 17 will have presentations by a number of individual 18 citizens and representatives of Rural 19 Municipalities. 20 So if I could ask Mr. Schellenberg, 21 Mr. Wiecek and Mr. Maathuis to take the front 22 table, we will proceed. 23 Mr. Koroluk, as I said to you just off 24 the record before we started, any questions that 25 are repetitive or irrelevant, I'll scratch them. 8 1 So stick to new topics and we will be fine. You 2 may proceed. 3 MR. KOROLUK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 4 Before I begin, my presentation of yesterday 5 referenced a lot of materials. And I just want to 6 hand in those references for your panel. I've got 7 the City of Winnipeg Groundwater Feasibility 8 Study, Phase 2. A presentation to the LPG of 9 Hadeshville. I've got the Water Resources 10 Conservation Act, the Water Protection Act, the 11 Water Rights Act. A memo from Manitoba 12 Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade on New 13 Planning Legislation and Requirements for 14 Livestock Policies. A letter from the Red River 15 Basin Commission to the Bureau of Reclamation 16 indicating their policies and principles on 17 in-basin water supply. The RM of Piney's Bylaw 18 Number 45-06. A map of conservation districts in 19 Manitoba, and a map of sub-basins and watersheds 20 in Manitoba. 21 And also, very briefly, I would like 22 to redress some of the comments that I heard on 23 Tuesday from the proponents. The first item I 24 would like to redress is the notion that there is 25 an option in North Dakota that will redirect Red 9 1 River water back into the Fargo area and create a 2 flow on the Red of eight cubic feet per second at 3 the International Border. I mean, that is an 4 option. However, it is not the option that the 5 State Water Commission has chosen. So I have got 6 redress item number 1 that sort of tells us which 7 option they are selecting. It would involve an 8 interfacing transfer of water from the Missouri 9 River. 10 I have got another redress item here. 11 I heard on Tuesday that there isn't much work 12 being done on establishing an apportionment 13 agreement at the border, the International Border. 14 In fact, there is -- I've got minutes from the 15 Fourth Interim Meeting of the International Red 16 River Board, a body of the IJC, which indicates 17 that they do have a committee who is working on 18 trying to establish an apportionment number at the 19 border. 20 And also the IJC does have an 21 International Water Sheds Initiative. And they 22 report that the Red River is a high priority 23 basin, that's redress item number 3. 24 It was also mentioned on Tuesday that 25 small storage options on the upper parts of the 10 1 watershed is not a useful way of trying to find 2 more water. In fact, there is a -- there was or 3 there is a successful model in the area. It's 4 called a Tobacco Creek Model Watershed. And 5 projects such as that that could store more water 6 are useful for flood mitigation and also water 7 supply. So I've got two items from the Tobacco 8 Creek Model Shed for you, a redress items number 4 9 and 5. 10 I also heard on Tuesday that all of 11 the options have been explored in terms of finding 12 a new water supply. I've got selected pages 13 copied from the Stephenfield Lake Watershed 14 Management Plan. I'll term that redress item 15 number 6. And it indicates that more exploration 16 should take place in terms of looking for 17 groundwater sources. They say there is 18 possibilities that there are groundwater sources 19 on the upper parts of the Morris River Watershed. 20 And the last item here I have redress 21 item number 7, it's from the U.S. Geological 22 Services. It's a water availability report in the 23 western U.S. And it was mentioned on Tuesday that 24 artificial recharge of aquifers doesn't work. 25 Well, there are a number of programmes that are 11 1 doing that in the U.S. And I have highlighted 2 them for you, so that is another option for water 3 supply. 4 Thank you for that opportunity, and I 5 will move to my questioning now. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Koroluk, are you 7 proposing that all of these documents that you 8 have just named, those two piles in front of you, 9 be filed as evidence before this hearing? 10 MR. KOROLUK: Yes. Yes, I do. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, let me just 12 consider this for a moment. Unless there are 13 compelling arguments against accepting them, I 14 will accept them on this provision, that copies 15 will be made. They will be distributed to the 16 proponent. The proponent will be given a 17 reasonable amount of time to provide written 18 comments to us. Do you have any objections to us 19 accepting them on that basis? 20 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, Mr. Chairman, I 21 don't. These are all documents that are in the 22 public and that have been circulated, so there is 23 nothing new there. If I have a chance, I would 24 like to make a few comments related to his 25 statement. But other than that, no, to answer 12 1 your question, I don't have a problem with it. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, so we will accept 3 them, then, Mr. Koroluk. We will offer Pembina 4 Valley Water Co-operative a reasonable amount of 5 time. We will determine over the course of today 6 how long that will be. It won't be a long period, 7 but it will be reasonable. And they can provide 8 written comments. Those written comments will be 9 shared with you. 10 Now, Mr. Schellenberg, you said you 11 wanted to make some comments. Do you want to make 12 them before Pembina Valley starts their questions? 13 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yes, if I could, 14 just in response to the comments that Glen just 15 made. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 17 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The State Water 18 Commission can make the recommendation, but as 19 Glen knows, does not make the decision. The 20 decision is going to be made by the Federal 21 Government on the recommendation of others. And 22 that has yet to come down, but it is expected 23 early next year, at the last, in terms of 24 timetable. 25 The International Red River Board, in 13 1 fact, does have a committee that has been assigned 2 to look at this. I checked as recently as 3 Tuesday. It has yet to meet. And I hold out very 4 little hope that anything meaningful is going to 5 come from those meetings, given the relationship 6 between the U.S. and Canada at the present time. 7 And the IJC's Watershed Initiative is 8 hardly new. That dates back several years. And 9 to date, really, nothing has happened. 10 The Tobacco Creek example that he 11 lists is for flood mitigation. And I think even 12 he would admit it is not capable of water supply 13 that anyone would really seriously want to tap and 14 treat. 15 And in terms of the groundwater 16 sources up in the upper Boyne and what have you, 17 the quality there, and that's also I think 18 included in that same report, is very, very 19 questionable and poses some problems. And true 20 aquifer recharge, I maintain the comment that I 21 made the other day, and it is reflected in some of 22 the disasters that have occurred in other places, 23 it is very risky. You must have the right water 24 to be able to do that. And if you have the right 25 water, it is also very costly. 14 1 Those are my comments. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 Mr. Koroluk, you may proceed with questions. 4 MR. KOROLUK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I 5 wanted to start off, basically, you've mentioned 6 in your presentation the sustainable yield. It's 7 in one of your documents, and it was in your 8 presentation. Can you tell me exactly what 9 sustainable yield means and where are you applying 10 it when it comes to the region where you want to 11 bring water in? 12 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Do you have a 13 specific source that you are referring to? 14 MR. KOROLUK: It's page 7 of your 15 handout from Tuesday. 16 "All of the region's existing supplies 17 are used to their sustainable yield." 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Okay. This would 19 apply particularly to the Boyne River and 20 Stephenfield. This would also apply to the 21 Winkler Aquifer. And you have heard more comments 22 relating to the Winkler Aquifer on Tuesday evening 23 where the sustainable yield is seen as being 24 exceeded, but they are getting a lot closer to 25 having it back to that level. 15 1 This, in terms of licensing, would 2 also apply to the Red River and numbers there that 3 the province utilizes in terms of licensing. So 4 in some cases sustainable yield is, in fact, 5 determined and in many cases determined by the 6 province. 7 MR. KOROLUK: So you are taking the 8 province's definition? 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yes, we are. 10 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. A couple of weeks 11 ago we tried to get numbers from your Co-op, as 12 well as from the Province on trying to determine 13 how much water is actually used in those two areas 14 where you supply. And I'm talking mostly the 15 Morris River Watershed and the Plum Coulee 16 Watershed. And you gave us a chart that was 17 broken down by gallons. And then you gave us a 18 breakdown in that chart that said roughly 10 19 percent is used by industry, 12 percent is used by 20 the AG industry, and 8 percent is used by 21 municipalities, and 70 percent is used 22 domestically -- domestic use. And we really 23 didn't understand how you defined those terms. 24 Can you give us a more, sort of, exact definition 25 what industry, AG industries, municipality and 16 1 what domestic is and what that means? 2 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Well, industry I 3 thought was pretty much self-explanatory, and 4 certainly in my presentation on Tuesday I defined 5 that very carefully. Industry, in this particular 6 case, the larger users are also identified, 7 industry as it is understood. It's the canola 8 crushing facility in Altona which takes 40 percent 9 of Altona's water. It is Farm a Lot in St. 10 Claude, which uses 23% of St. Claude's water. And 11 in Winkler, the number was given to us by the City 12 of Winkler, which includes their two foundries, 13 and they also have a small cheese plant. Other 14 than that, industry in our area, water use 15 industry is limited and wet industry cannot be 16 supported. 17 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. And for the AG 18 industry? 19 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Well, the AG 20 industry, it is somewhat more diverse. It in some 21 case, certainly in the St. Claude area, and in the 22 presentation that Charles Scharien made on Tuesday 23 night, he specified that in their case it 24 provides, in terms of AG industry, to one chicken 25 operation and two dairy operations. 17 1 In terms of some of the other 2 municipalities, there are some barns that are on 3 it directly, hog operations, primarily weanlings, 4 in terms of first priority, but it is also used in 5 the potato industry, especially for washing. And 6 there is some small on-farm processing of meat 7 products. These are not large users at all, but 8 they would be included within that 12 percent, as 9 well. 10 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. And the reason 11 why I was confused with that definition, and why 12 it was at 12 percent, is if you go to your master 13 plan by Cochrane in 2003, it states that 14 approximately 41 litres per second is what's used 15 in the -- in the agricultural sector at that point 16 in time, which would have been a couple of years 17 ago. And specifically, I think, what it said is 18 that 41 litres per second was mostly for stock 19 watering. Now, 41 litres per second, if you look, 20 and if the master plan is correct, your total 21 consumption at that time would have been about 114 22 litres per second. So if you take 41 divided by 23 114, you get 36 percent that's used by the 24 agricultural sector, and predominantly by stock 25 watering. Now, I am wondering why 36 percent from 18 1 your master plan, it says 36 percent, and it says 2 12 percent in the handout you gave on your water 3 budget? 4 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I have addressed 5 this before. I will address it again. For the 6 record, the Board and the Co-op disagreed with 7 those numbers. That master plan was not adopted 8 by the Board, nor was it distributed to our 9 membership, I might add. It was given to the 10 Clean Environment Commission at their request. 11 And only after I realized that Cochrane 12 Engineering had advertised the success of this 13 particular project in a magazine article. In that 14 case, obviously, it had to be made public. 15 However, those numbers are not correct. And they 16 were arrived at by taking the Census Canada total 17 animal numbers and making the assumption that all 18 of these would be provided for from our supply, 19 which is definitely not the case. 20 Now, if you listen to Mr. Marten's 21 presentation, Herm Marten is the Reeve of the RM 22 of Morris, presented here on Tuesday evening, as 23 well. In his case he has both a hog operation and 24 he also has a chicken operation, and they are a 25 fair size. And neither one of them use water from 19 1 our supply. And he specified that in the barns 2 what they use the water for is for domestic 3 consumption; in other words, for showering and for 4 drinking water. But the rest of the water is 5 provided for from impoundments. 6 Now, you will probably want to make 7 other references to the Cochrane report in terms 8 of consumption. I just want to say, for the 9 record, those numbers are not accepted by us, and 10 we put that forward with that caveat. 11 MR. KOROLUK: So it's the numbers -- 12 which specific numbers, the 114 litres per second 13 of your total use or the 41 litres per second for 14 stock watering? 15 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The total use 16 numbers that we provided to you in gallons you 17 have before you, and those are absolutely and 18 utterly accurate. Those are the total numbers for 19 the last 12 months. And we can provide them for 20 previous months, if you so desire, those are the 21 accurate numbers, Glen. 22 MR. KOROLUK: That's the 23 700 million-gallons per year? 24 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Correct. 25 MR. KOROLUK: Can you tell me how much 20 1 water is used in that area in total? 2 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, I cannot. And 3 there is a reason why I cannot do that. And that 4 is because in most of these cases, we are a 5 wholesaler. And I have explained this before, as 6 well. We are a wholesaler of water. The 7 distribution is done by our municipal governments. 8 That could be the City of Winkler or it could be 9 the RM of Roland. Now, what they distribute of 10 our water, we can account for every drop of it. 11 What, in terms of those RMs, is accessible to 12 them, in terms of impoundments and what have you, 13 no, we wouldn't have those numbers, but they are 14 reasonable. And we do use and we utilize our 15 sources of water in a very effective and 16 proficient way. With the price of our water being 17 what it is, you are not about to waste it and you 18 are not going to use it unless you have to. 19 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. I want to get 20 back to the numbers that you gave us in gallons, 21 which it would have been nice to get some 22 standardized unit of measurement. But I wanted to 23 break it down in a different way and try to get an 24 understanding. If you look for, what year was it, 25 the year with 683 million-gallons that were used 21 1 totally, if you look at all of the rural use by 2 rural municipalities and don't take into account 3 the villages, cities and towns, you see that 4 44 percent, or almost 300 million-gallons, are 5 used rurally. Is that all domestic or? 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It is largely -- it 7 is largely domestic. And in order for you to 8 understand this, I probably have to give a little 9 tour of the area. If you take a look at the RM of 10 Stanley, and they made a presentation on Tuesday 11 night as well, they literally have subdivisions 12 within the municipality that are quite 13 substantial. And as he told you, they are looking 14 at 50 new houses being constructed every year 15 within the municipality. We have a lot of pent-up 16 demand. The domestic need was not being met 17 anywhere within our region. And so when a 18 pipeline comes by, we get 100 percent hookup. 19 Everybody taps into it. And they treat the water 20 very respectively, as you will see in terms of the 21 consumption of litres per person per day, but that 22 is how it is used. 23 MR. KOROLUK: And, just briefly, what 24 is sort of the breakdown, population breakdown, 25 between rural and municipality, like city, towns? 22 1 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Well, when we get 2 the new census numbers out, we will be able to do 3 this math a lot more carefully. At the moment you 4 have some estimates that are before you that are 5 estimates, so we will just leave it at that. 6 MR. KOROLUK: And those are the most 7 recent numbers? 8 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I don't know the -- 9 MR. KOROLUK: 65, 75 percent live in 10 cities and towns? I mean, you should know the 11 area. 12 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Gord, what would 13 you guess the number to be? 14 GORD: You can ask the councillors. 15 They will have a better idea how many people are 16 living in the RMs. 17 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I would have to do 18 some crunching on that. I am not going to 19 speculate. 20 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. You don't want 21 to. I guess the point is, is that a lot of, you 22 know, half of your water is used rurally, yet most 23 of your people live in towns and cities. And you 24 don't seem to accept your master plan that says 25 that there is a fair amount of water being used in 23 1 the livestock sector. 2 MR. SCHELLENBERG: What you are 3 overlooking, what you are overlooking, Glen, in 4 arriving at those numbers, is that 60 percent of 5 the City of Winkler supply still comes from their 6 aquifer. 75 percent of Carman's supply comes from 7 the Boyne. And 90 percent of Morden's supply 8 comes from Lake Minnewasta. Those numbers are not 9 included in there. If you throw those in, your 10 picture changes quite dramatically. 11 MR. KOROLUK: Well, I am aware of 12 that. But I guess another point is that we don't 13 have those numbers in front of us. We don't have 14 how much water that's really out in that region 15 for your Co-op to tap into. Did you get a copy of 16 the table from Manitoba Water Stewardship that 17 indicated what was licensed in the region for all 18 of your municipalities? 19 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I certainly got the 20 first one. I know you had a subsequent question. 21 I am not sure whether they provided more 22 information or not. 23 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. And you notice 24 that only roughly half, 50 percent, of the water 25 is used for municipal purposes, so there is a 24 1 whole lot of other water that's being used for 2 other purposes in the region. 3 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Correct. 4 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. I guess the point 5 I want to make is that as a utility or a co-op 6 that's supplying water in a region, would one want 7 to take a look at all of the other options for 8 water in your region first before tapping into an 9 outside source? 10 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Absolutely. We 11 don't exactly attend Clean Environment Commission 12 Hearings as trivial. We have repeatedly -- there 13 is going to be a presentation made later this 14 morning by Rick Martel that is going to look at 15 some of the history of what the region has been 16 through in terms of those searches. Those smaller 17 impoundments that you are talking about, what you 18 also have to realize is that two years out of ten 19 they don't have any water, and sometimes more 20 frequently. That is not -- and that's PFRA stats, 21 by the way. And PFRA did have a representative 22 here on Tuesday and do this morning. You can 23 question him if you like. That's not the basis on 24 which you can provide water for 45,000 people, 25 that is simply not the case. 25 1 MR. KOROLUK: We also heard on Tuesday 2 that some of these dugouts are basically not being 3 used, decommissioned because of water quality 4 problems; is that correct? 5 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Oh, no. The 6 reference to that was for the very small 7 communities for which we provide them water, 8 instead of doing their own treatment. Yes, in 9 some cases that was, indeed, the case. In other 10 cases, it is simply the treatment throughout which 11 was a problem. That water, however, which is 12 impounded, or which was impounded as being 13 utilized, is being utilized in the AG sector. 14 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. So currently 15 you've got a licence on the -- two licences on the 16 Red to take out 31,057 cubic dams at each of your 17 treatment plants; is that correct? 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: That should be 19 correct. 20 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. I did a bit of 21 math. And I took your 700 million-gallons per 22 year, and I discovered that you are only utilizing 23 half of what you've been given the rights to take 24 out of the Red. In other words, you are only 25 using about 32, 3300 cubic dams per year. So I'm 26 1 wondering why are you applying for another 50 2 litres per second when you have twice as much 3 available on the Red River by law? 4 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Well, first of all, 5 if you had listened to my presentation carefully, 6 I think that is sort of self-explanatory, but let 7 me go over it again. We have stated, for the 8 record, on Tuesday, that we still have 9 considerable licences to pass, especially at the 10 Morris Treatment Plant. We can triple the size of 11 that plant, given our existing licence. 12 We also stated that when we have 13 utilized this particular supply, which we are 14 presently requesting, we will, and if the Red is 15 still capable of providing, which we sincerely 16 hope it is, we will go back to the Red to meet our 17 future requirements because it is a lot cheaper, 18 take my word for it. 19 What we're looking at here is a 20 supplemental supply. We need to supplement the 21 supply that we have in the Red in order that we 22 can deal with low flows. And hopefully we don't 23 have to deal with drought, but that we can also 24 address the drought question. We require -- in 25 order to utilize either one of those plants, we 27 1 require 4.6 metres of water above the intake. And 2 yes, you can modify intakes, and just for the 3 record, it has already been done at the Letellier 4 Plant. It was done three years ago in order to 5 make sure that we could maximize the usage from 6 the Red. So we have done those - we have taken 7 those measures. And I know that was a point that 8 you were making in your written presentation. 9 But the reason that we are going to -- 10 we are looking at other alternatives is that we do 11 know that the Red becomes low. We will get to a 12 point where we won't have 4.6 litres over our 13 intake. And that is going to happen, hopefully 14 knot in the near future, but there is no 15 determining when it is going to happen. And so 16 this is a supplemental supply. 17 When we have brought this in, and we 18 have some assurance of supply that it is going to 19 have some continuity to it, we will be going back 20 to the Red River. We have no difficulty in 21 utilizing the Red River for our water supply. It 22 is an excellent source, as long as the water is 23 there. 24 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. Just one more 25 question along the water budget here. In your 28 1 original proposal, I mean, your request is 50 2 litres a second. But you do mention that it would 3 be desirable, at some time in the future, to get 4 up to 300 litres per second. 5 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, that's not -- 6 and I explained that number once earlier, as well, 7 in response to questions from the Commission. 8 That number came in response to a question which 9 said: What would it take, in a drought the like 10 of which we haven't seen yet, what would it take 11 to replace all of the water resources utilized in 12 that entire region? And let's assume we didn't 13 have a drop in it. And the answer to that is 300 14 litres per second. That is most unlikely to 15 happen. If it does, the entire province is in 16 devastation. 17 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. And that 300 18 litres per second was mentioned in your original 19 application. 20 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It may have been. 21 MR. KOROLUK: Yes, it was. I would 22 just like to tell -- to tell you that the 300 23 litres per second scenario is also in your master 24 plan. 25 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, I don't think 29 1 it is. 2 MR. KOROLUK: It is what you predict 3 you need by the year 2021. 4 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No. It is what 5 Cochrane predicts that they think we are going to 6 need by 2021. That is not our prediction. It is 7 a report, I repeat again, and I knew this report 8 was going to give us grief, but you have to 9 understand that the board did not accept that 10 report. It is not implementing that report. The 11 only thing that we can salvage from that report, 12 by the way, is a very respectable analysis of the 13 status of our water treatment plants and of the 14 distribution system, that was the value of that 15 report. 16 MR. KOROLUK: So it's coincidence, 17 then, what you stated in your Environment Act 18 Application of 300 litres per second is also in 19 your Master Plan Cochrane Report needing water of 20 300 litres per second of water by the year 2021, 21 is that a coincidence? 22 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I wasn't aware that 23 that was in there, to be honest. I will tell you 24 how we got to the 300 litres per second. We 25 simply added up everything that is being utilized 30 1 at the present time. And if you utilize all of 2 the impoundments, everything else that is going, 3 and you add a factor of safety to it, you will 4 come to 300, and that's now. We are not 5 predicting that for 2020. 6 MR. KOROLUK: And how many litres per 7 second, again, are you using right now? 8 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Right now? You 9 see, it's a question of -- and the other thing 10 that you missed in terms of the supply from the 11 Red, is that it is nice that you can average your 12 number. Unfortunately, that's not how a system 13 works. We have to meet peak demand, and the 14 demand fluctuates. So right now we have the 15 capability on the Red of producing up to 130 16 litres per second, and there are certainly many 17 times when that is exactly what we are using. 18 However, the average demand is quite possibly the 19 number that you put forward. I haven't done the 20 math on it. 21 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. I would like to 22 get into a different area of questioning here. I 23 noticed also in your handout of Tuesday that your 24 pipeline was -- from Sandilands was going to cut 25 right through the town of St. Malo. Was there any 31 1 intention of selling water to St. Malo at that 2 point? 3 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No. But let me 4 clarify this matter, and it is also a matter that 5 I am going to repeat in my conclusions here. The 6 one thing I want to clarify is that the Pembina 7 Valley Water Co-operative is not out there looking 8 for new customers. We could find those in any 9 direction: North, west, even south, by the way, 10 although we are not looking in that direction. We 11 are not looking to grow the system. We're hoping 12 to stabilize the system within our region and to 13 provide an adequate and stable supply of water. 14 What we will not do, however, is we 15 won't do what the City of Winnipeg does, which 16 basically says to their surrounding 17 municipalities: We are not going to give you any 18 water, under any circumstances. When we pass 19 through an area, Glen, with a pipeline, and if 20 that area indeed needs the water and requests the 21 water, and if they are prepared to pay the Co-op 22 price, then that is something that will certainly 23 receive serious consideration by the Board. The 24 demand en route from the Sandilands to Morris is 25 extremely limited because all of those communities 32 1 have excellent water resources. And in the case 2 of St. Malo, they just put in a new well and are 3 looking after their needs quite successfully, and 4 at a lower price than what they would have to pay 5 to our Co-op. 6 MR. KOROLUK: And the RM of Franklin 7 and farther east? 8 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The RM of Franklin 9 is already a member of the Co-op, by the way. And 10 they are receiving water up to Dominion City. 11 Further east if they have water requirements, 12 certainly we are going to look at it. 13 MR. KOROLUK: You mentioned that the 14 12 million, estimated 12 million cost for this is 15 already paid for in the $5.40 per 1,000-gallons 16 recharging; is that correct? Did I hear you 17 right? 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Well, paid for 19 would be wishful thinking. But the carrying costs 20 are covered, yes. 21 MR. KOROLUK: The carrying costs are 22 covered. So you're going to have to borrow some 23 funds or are you going to have to find, you know, 24 additional users to pay for it? 25 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No. We actually 33 1 have a bank which is prepared to make a 10-year 2 investment, and that's the rate at which it is 3 going to be covered. 4 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. I would like to 5 ask a few questions on your conservation plan, 6 which I thought I had here. All right. Now, this 7 plan was a requirement of your last environmental 8 licence? 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It was. 10 MR. KOROLUK: And it was requested in 11 1993. And it was submitted in 1998; is that 12 correct? 13 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Well, it was 14 prepared in 1997. It was requested in '93. And 15 we went back to the Department and advised them 16 that we would not be able to act on the project 17 until we had the funds to do so. It took us four 18 years to get those funds. And so once we were 19 ready to move with the project, we also moved with 20 the Water Conservation Plan. Prior to that, it is 21 pretty tough to go out to people that don't have 22 water and get them to cooperate in terms of a 23 Water Conservation Plan. So that's why the plan 24 was submitted at that time. 25 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. And you also 34 1 mentioned that it really isn't the responsibility 2 of the Co-op to do conservation. Each 3 municipality is -- 4 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, I did not say 5 that. As a matter of fact, we have invested 6 considerable energy and dollars, I might add, in 7 terms of water conservation. And we need that. 8 There is nothing to be gained by oversizing a 9 Water Treatment Plant. And there are some within 10 this room that could tell you what the costs of 11 that are. They are very, very high. And there is 12 no value in oversizing a distribution system. So 13 you cut them right tight, if you want to run a 14 utility appropriately and if, in fact, you want to 15 be able to balance your books with reasonable 16 costs. So in those circumstances, you have to use 17 water conservation in order to make sure that you 18 stay within those numbers. 19 If you want to increase the size and 20 add to a Water Treatment Plant, for example, the 21 capital cost that's involved is only recovered 22 over a very long period of time. And so you try 23 and avoid that as long as possible. And one of 24 the methods by which you do that is to make sure 25 that that water is used as efficiently as possible 35 1 within the region, and that the conservation 2 strategy or conservation ethic which was there 3 before we came through with the pipelines remains 4 there and is reinforced. 5 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. Can you tell me, 6 then, you know, which municipalities, towns or 7 cities are using treated effluent for irrigation? 8 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Treated effluent as 9 irrigation is a -- is a risky issue. And it was 10 certainly looked at in terms of the City of 11 Winkler, where it was being -- and there was a 12 project related to it. And as you will recall, at 13 that time this was a subject under discussion. 14 Whether that is still the case or not, I cannot 15 confirm. 16 MR. KOROLUK: And can you tell me 17 which municipalities are using an increased -- 18 increased block rate for water when they charge 19 for water? 20 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Increasing rates? 21 MR. KOROLUK: Yes. 22 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, I cannot. We 23 don't -- the other thing that you must remember is 24 that although the Pembina Valley Water 25 Co-operative is not subject to PUB regulation, 36 1 each of our municipal entities are. So that is 2 where those issues are discussed and licensed and 3 approved. 4 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. Are you aware of 5 any sanctions for industries not implementing 6 water conservation programmes, any municipalities 7 doing that? 8 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The sanctions which 9 they get, and we certainly have discussions in 10 terms of it, and we get those discussions quite 11 regularly, are related to the price. And the 12 price creates a real problem for them, but the 13 price also influences their usage and certainly 14 reinforces the conservation ethic. And a good 15 example of that would be Bunge in Altona. 16 MR. KOROLUK: And you mentioned you 17 metre all of the water that you sell in bulk at 18 each municipal government point. And we've heard 19 that some municipal governments do their own 20 metering. Can you tell me which, out of the 18, 21 which municipal governments do metering themselves 22 at the customer level? 23 MR. SCHELLENBERG: All of them. 24 MR. KOROLUK: Every hook-up, every 25 municipality has a metre? 37 1 MR. SCHELLENBERG: To the best of my 2 knowledge, every hook-up. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Every residence? 4 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yes. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yes. The entire 7 system is metered, no question about it. And I 8 might add that in the rural areas, the meter is at 9 the home. The purpose and the priority of rural 10 distribution systems is to provide the water to 11 the home. 12 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. And are you, 13 again, aware of any bylaws in place to increase 14 water conservation? 15 MR. SCHELLENBERG: There are some that 16 are in place. I couldn't give you a listing off 17 the top of my head. But the RM of Stanley, as an 18 example, said they were encouraging 19 water-efficient appliances, especially in new 20 construction projects, so there are some on the 21 about books. And I think the City of Winkler has 22 some as well. There are certainly restrictions in 23 terms of lawn watering which is available in every 24 one of them, the urban communities, that is. But 25 generally speaking, the conservation ethic and the 38 1 conservation program is developed at our Board 2 level and is reinforced then from the Board down 3 to the customer. 4 MR. KOROLUK: So no bylaws have been 5 encouraged then? 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: There are bylaws. 7 But we are not in control of bylaws, nor do we 8 make bylaws. We certainly encourage them. And 9 there are bylaws in place, but I don't have a list 10 of them. 11 MR. KOROLUK: No, you don't. Okay. 12 How many front-load washers are there around in 13 the whole area? 14 MR. SCHELLENBERG: How many what? 15 MR. KOROLUK: Front-load washers, 16 washing machines. 17 MR. SCHELLENBERG: That is an 18 interesting question. If you could find that out 19 in the City of Winnipeg, I would be delighted to 20 hear. I haven't exactly gone to the appliance 21 dealers, but I understand that they are quite keen 22 on selling them and they are becoming popular, 23 that's all I can tell you, Glen. 24 MR. KOROLUK: Well, I have gone all 25 over your conservation plan that was required in 39 1 1993, and submitted in 1998, and there are about a 2 dozen points that were in that plan. And I can 3 only see maybe about three of them that have been 4 acted upon. So, I mean, I hear that, you know, 5 there is a conservation ethic in those 6 communities, but I'm not really seeing it at this 7 point in time. So I guess it is not a question, 8 but I guess an observation. 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It's an observation 10 that you could apply to the City of Winnipeg as 11 well, I would suggest. 12 MR. KOROLUK: I mean, this is not a 13 debate as to which community is the best. I mean, 14 the City of Winnipeg has an old infrastructure 15 that leaks up to 15 percent of its water. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I just interrupt? 17 We are not here to consider the City of Winnipeg 18 right now. 19 MR. KOROLUK: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. 20 Okay. Those are my questions on water 21 conservation. 22 Now, a number of questions were asked 23 by the Clean Environment Commission, I guess, 24 about a month ago, and one response was on your 10 25 to 20-year projections. And you talked about 40 1 population, you know, one percent a year for 2 humans. However, the question related to 3 livestock was kind of confusing. Do you have that 4 response in front of you or should I just read it 5 off? 6 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Read it off. 7 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. This is in 8 response to the 10 to 20-year projections for 9 livestock purposes, and this is from the CEC. 10 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yes, I remember. 11 MR. KOROLUK: And you responded: 12 "Diversification in agriculture, while 13 continuing, is projected to slow down, 14 and we project growth and livestock 15 numbers to do the same. However, 16 because not all of our rural 17 municipalities are fully served with 18 pipe water, agricultural usage will 19 grow in the next 10 years and then 20 stabilize." 21 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Correct. 22 And I gave you another document which indicated 23 exactly what percentage of our rural 24 municipalities were served. And on average, I 25 think it was coming out to somewhere around 85 41 1 percent. Some of them are 80 percent complete, 2 some of them are somewhat less, but there is a 3 couple that are entirely completed. Like, they 4 are in the Rhineland, for example. And they are 5 in Montcalm. But some still have some distance to 6 go. The RM of Morris, for example, is 80 percent 7 done. And that additional 20 percent, which they 8 are going to be completing within the realm of 9 these projections over the next ten years, there 10 may well be a barn or a potato washing facility 11 that will want to have a water hook-up. So on 12 that basis, I am allowing for some growth. 13 However, in the existing network, the 14 point that I'm making is that it's not going to 15 change. And the existing network, which rural 16 municipalities put in, is put in at the lowest 17 cost possible because I can assure you that the 18 rural residents and farmers don't want to pay any 19 more upfront than they have to. And right now 20 they are paying about, on average, very close to 21 $10,000 in cash upfront in order to get a water 22 hook-up, and that's in order to defray the costs. 23 And then they pay the -- the rural municipality 24 pays the $5.40, which is our wholesale price, plus 25 their markup to cover distribution costs and 42 1 capital costs, so it usually runs fairly close to 2 $8.50 to $10. Now, that means that the 3 distribution system that they put into place is 4 going to be fine-tuned to meet those immediate 5 demands. And they are not going to oversize it 6 because they can't afford it. 7 And so if, down the road, you want to 8 put up a cattle facility, or a potato washing 9 facility, or what have you, on an existing system, 10 it will not possible because they just do not 11 have the ability to distribute the amount of water 12 that you need. It is designed for what is there 13 now. So unless you are a Maple Leaf, or somebody 14 with very deep pockets, and you can afford to pay 15 for new infrastructure to come into that 16 particular facility, there is going to be no 17 growth. 18 MR. KOROLUK: So you're saying within 19 the next 10 to 20-year projection there is going 20 to be no growth? 21 MR. SCHELLENBERG: There is going to 22 be some growth, in terms of those additional areas 23 that have yet to be served. And we are putting in 24 those estimates for it. When I sent that out to 25 you, I also attached a press release and some 43 1 correspondence from Maple Leaf related to the hog 2 industry. Where, in fact, you are seeing that it 3 is, in fact, closing in. And, in fact, we project 4 that it is a mature industry. And it is as likely 5 to decline in terms of the number of barns in the 6 area as it is to grow. 7 MR. KOROLUK: That's correct. And I 8 was just going to -- you are ahead of me right 9 now. 10 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Fine. 11 MR. KOROLUK: You indicate that the 12 livestock industry in hogs, in particular, has 13 peaked and, in all probability, will decline. 14 Now, I mean, I have been following the hog 15 industry as of late. And, in fact, Maple Leaf is 16 going to build a second shift at their plant in 17 Brandon. And they are also going to 100 percent 18 vertical integration, so they will require another 19 2.25 million hogs. We have got the weanlings. We 20 export 3.5 million weanlings to the U.S. However, 21 what we will need to finish off is at least three 22 million hogs in this province. If you combine it 23 with the Olywest proposal, you also require 2.25 24 million hogs, so I can't understand how anyone 25 could say or -- 44 1 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The key term -- the 2 key term that you use, and you missed the 3 entrepreneurial initiative in our region, and 4 that's vertical integration. They are going to be 5 owning their own facilities. And the farmers that 6 we have in our area don't look kindly on that kind 7 of approach, I assure you. 8 MR. KOROLUK: For Maple Leaf. But we 9 still have another Olywest plant that's in its 10 proposal stage. 11 MR. SCHELLENBERG: And there is no 12 argument that we have got existing barns that are 13 going to require a market. So I come back to my 14 point that, from our perspective, we don't see the 15 market. 16 MR. KOROLUK: Your whole, again, 17 master plan, which you don't accept, is based on 18 the notion that there is going to be livestock 19 growth in the livestock sector. 20 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Huge, huge 21 expansion into the hog industry, I know. 22 MR. KOROLUK: And considering that we 23 are going to have another 4.5 to 5 million pigs 24 killed in this province, we are going to have to 25 build the barns to finish them off, am I correct 45 1 on that? 2 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I don't know. I 3 think it's speculative at this point. Olywest is 4 not a reality as yet, as I recall. And what I 5 just said earlier related to what our 6 infrastructure can support. In terms of water 7 supply, I don't see it. 8 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. Actually, I'm 9 okay for now. And I think Dr. Brooks had a few 10 comments to make. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Dr. Brooks. 12 DR. BROOKS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 13 I have submitted my points in writing, so I am 14 just going to summarize. We are already at 10:00. 15 I would just like to highlight our points. Three 16 areas to which I want to return -- there are three 17 points to which I will return, which are in order, 18 in the sense that each one builds into the next. 19 The information that we have about 20 conservation efforts in the region, that is at the 21 regional municipality level, beyond the point for 22 which you are specifically responsible, is that 23 it's a much less intensive effort than you seem to 24 imply. Glen has already gone over that, so I will 25 not repeat any of the material he has suggested. 46 1 And I will just add one point that I do bring in 2 here and challenge the notion that it is 3 dramatically too expensive to deliver water in two 4 qualities, potable quality and water that is less 5 than potable quality. In this case, I am not 6 talking about treated effluent, but about use of 7 water that is naturally contaminated with salts or 8 carbonates, or other things of this kind, that can 9 be used for washing and many on farm uses and, in 10 fact, many qualities secondary uses within the 11 home. And I give a couple of examples of where 12 that is done. 13 The second point is about the no 14 project alternative, where I think I am quoting 15 you, sir, when you said the alternative, the no 16 project alternative, is devastation. I think that 17 reflects a misunderstanding of the no project 18 alternative. It does not mean that you don't 19 build the pipeline and hope that there is never 20 another drought. Rather, it means: What do you 21 do if you don't have the pipeline? And what we 22 are suggesting is there are lots of things that 23 can be done. That the no project alternative is 24 quite a vibrant, and a rather complex alternative 25 that includes lots of activities, but they are not 47 1 construction. 2 Now, one of the things, and I am very 3 grateful for your explanation about the specific 4 problems of low flow on the Red, which I admit I 5 did not fully understand the effect of it on 6 your -- on your intake system, but the particular 7 level, I'm not worried about what your intakes 8 are. That is a technical problem that I'm sure 9 you can handle. But where the Red can get so low 10 that you can walk across it. My point here is 11 that judging from the pictures, what you provided 12 in your testimony on Tuesday, this is roughly a 13 20-year phenomenon. You are planning for a 14 20-year drought. Not that rare, but not a yearly 15 event either. 16 The general economic prescription when 17 you have a periodic, rather than a chronic 18 problem, is to look for solutions that are low 19 capital, but high expense. That is you capital 20 but high expense, that is you can afford to spend 21 a lot of money when they occur because you save a 22 lot of money that is otherwise, in effect, 23 sterilized in a system that is not being used to 24 capacity. 25 Now, following on this sort of 48 1 reasoning, we have put forward a couple of ideas 2 of the kind of strategy that one might use 3 specifically to deal with that low flow on the 4 Red, the 20-year drought. I don't know. The 5 correct figure might be 15 years or 25 years. I 6 don't have the long-term data and have time to get 7 it all, but it is certainly available. And I have 8 just put forward a couple of alternatives that 9 would be expensive when they come into operation, 10 but you only need to put them into operation for 11 one or two, possibly three-year periods, when the 12 drought occurs. Those are the three points I 13 wanted to put in. The material is available in 14 writing and it's been provided to the Commission 15 and to the proponents. 16 And I think to save time, I will stop 17 with that. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 19 Dr. Brooks. 20 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Mr. Chairman, if I 21 might response to those comments? 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 23 MR. SCHELLENBERG: In terms 24 conservation strategy, and I notice that in both 25 of your cases you are zeroing in on, in 49 1 particular, to the rural municipalities and the 2 rural distribution system. I will refer you back 3 to our litres per person day, all in, in those 4 rural municipalities. Most of them are under 200, 5 some as low as 190, and that includes everything. 6 There is a conservation ethic out there, which is 7 commendable, and which I think should be 8 commended, especially when you take a look at what 9 our urban counterparts are utilizing. In terms of 10 personal usage, it is considerably higher. Those 11 kind of numbers don't give you the same scope for 12 action that you would have, for example, in 13 Winnipeg where you are talking about 376, or some 14 such number, in terms of where you can go. 15 The other point, the no project 16 alternative, I was looking at it this from a 17 business perspective. The no project alternative, 18 and you did say you have a background in 19 economics, basically means if we do nothing, 20 what's the case? That is the no project 21 alternative from the business perspective. And we 22 certainly use it in terms of putting forward 23 business case. 24 And in terms of your alternatives, the 25 20-year drought, what year are we in, in the terms 50 1 of the 20 years? Are we in year 13 or are we in 2 year 14? How many time do we have to look at some 3 of these alternatives. If you had the 4 responsibility for providing water for 45,000 5 people, how much of a gamble would you be prepared 6 to take? And how long do you think you would 7 live? In my particular case, not that I am 8 concerned about my life expectancy directly, 9 because at my age it sort of becomes a mute point. 10 DR. BROOKS: I understand that. 11 MR. SCHELLENBERG: And the other point 12 that I just want to make is that some of the 13 alternatives that you suggest, and I'll look 14 through them very quickly, and I do appreciate the 15 effort that you are putting into this, but they 16 are third world initiatives is how I'm describing 17 that and would leave us, in terms of costs and in 18 terms of the limited supply, totally uncompetitive 19 and with a devastated economy. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Koroluk, did you 21 have another question? 22 MR. KOROLUK: Just a couple more 23 follow-ups, yes. Your "all in" per capita 24 consumption in RMs, does that include, like, you 25 know, water that residents take from their wells? 51 1 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, it does not. 2 We don't have wells, though, so it is an 3 irrelevant number. 4 MR. KOROLUK: Right. So the actual 5 number, the per capita use for an individual 6 farmstead, is higher than -- it's basically what 7 you supply, it's higher than the 200, because they 8 are utilizing well water, too? 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, it's not. I 10 just finished telling you we don't have wells that 11 you can utilize. 12 MR. KOROLUK: The meter -- 13 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The meter is in the 14 residence, so the number that you see there is a 15 real number. 16 MR. KOROLUK: Right. But they are 17 using their well water for other purposes, 18 watering the lawns? 19 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I am going to 20 repeat it one more time, sir. The number of wells 21 that you can count on in our region, they are not 22 there. You have got some perhaps in the far 23 western area. And you heard Charles Scharien talk 24 about that in terms of the area of Grey. You 25 heard about the quality of water they had in those 52 1 wells. You heard Herm Martens talk about wells 2 which they have tried to dig and the fact that the 3 water wasn't fit for man nor beast. Wells are not 4 utilized. And they are not even utilized as an 5 alternative. 6 MR. KOROLUK: Where are operations, 7 livestock operations getting water to clean their 8 barns from? 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: From impoundments, 10 from string runoff impoundments. 11 MR. KOROLUK: All of them? 12 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, not all of 13 them. But those not utilizing other supplies are 14 taken from there. 15 MR. KOROLUK: Just to close off here, 16 is it possible to ask the department some 17 questions on their water budget? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry? You wanted 19 to ask -- 20 MR. KOROLUK: Yes, Manitoba Water 21 Stewardship a couple of questions on the water 22 budget that they provided us. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we are 24 going to ask Mr. Betcher to answer some questions 25 generally later on, so if you could hold until 53 1 that time, please. 2 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. Mr. Betcher 3 actually wouldn't be the right person to address 4 these two. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if there is 6 somebody else, we will ask that that person 7 provide these answers. But let's just wait until 8 a little later in the proceedings. 9 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. That's all the 10 questions I have at this point. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We are 12 going to take a pause, and this isn't a break. We 13 are going to take a pause for about five minutes 14 just so that we can gather our questions. We have 15 a few more questions from panel members. We will 16 take a longer coffee break in about a half an 17 hour, so five minutes. 18 (Proceedings adjourned at 10:10 and reconvened at 19 10:16) 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will move on 21 now with some questions from Mr. Halket. 22 MR. HALKET: I would like to follow up 23 on some comments that were sent to the Clean 24 Environment Commission by Mr. Render. And it 25 concerns the pumping test and the lay-out of the 54 1 wells during the pumping test. Mr. Render 2 suggests that there is a standard procedure for 3 laying out the wells, the observation wells, 4 around the pumping test. And he actually -- he 5 suggests in his submission that the lay-out that 6 was used in the -- in the area did not conform to 7 standard operation. I was wondering if you could 8 comment on that? 9 MR. WIECEK: There is no standard 10 lay-out for a pumping test well. Each lay-out is 11 designed for the specific circumstances of that 12 site, and in consideration of the infrastructure 13 lay-out. The standard lay-out that was proposed 14 there involved, just for the one aquifer, 28 15 observation wells distributed in four directions 16 up to two miles, a distance of two miles. I know 17 of no pump test in this province, or elsewhere, 18 that has ever been done with that level of -- that 19 type of observational network. 20 MR. HALKET: What would be a standard 21 lay-out, like, what is the industry standard? 22 MR. WIECEK: Each lay-out -- as I 23 said, each lay-out is designed for the site in 24 question, depending on what's known about the 25 geology and the hydrogeology of the area. 55 1 Typically, you have a pumping well, or an 2 observation well, proximate to your pumping well. 3 And in this case, we had one that was three metres 4 away. And then incrementally, outwards from 5 there, you have a lay-out of wells. In this case 6 it, was 400, 800, 1600 metres, and so on. 7 MR. HALKET: Well, Mr. Render suggests 8 that you should lay-out your wells along an 9 east/west transect and also a north/south 10 transect. 11 MR. WIECEK: As I said, it's -- 12 MR. MAATHUIS: Pumping tests, as 13 referred to as standard, refers to as a certain 14 kind of geology, hydrogeological setting, the 15 ideal. It is "standard" should be read as 16 guideline, not as standard. So you modify what is 17 considered the guidelines to the local 18 hydrogeological setting, as well, and which is 19 also always an important point, which is 20 accessibility. So there is nowhere in any book 21 that says you have to go north/south or east/west. 22 There is nowhere that says that for any particular 23 pump test you need 10 wells or 20 wells. In this 24 regard wells, an observation wells network is, 25 indeed, very unique for a pump test like this. 56 1 And in most normal cases, you will see maybe one 2 or two wells, monitoring wells. So what was done 3 here goes far beyond what I would consider as a 4 normal pump test. 5 MR. GIBBONS: Just for clarification, 6 if I may, it seems to me in the earlier 7 discussion, sorry, on Tuesday, that it was 8 becoming apparent that we didn't know very much 9 about this aquifer. We don't know what the east 10 or west boundaries of the aquifer are, based on 11 your own testimony. Would you say the same -- you 12 said that this is more than what would normally be 13 done. Is that true of situations where we know, 14 apparently, so little about the aquifer in 15 question? In other words, you mentioned that 16 typically there might be one or two wells. But 17 would that not be the case for aquifers where the 18 nature of the aquifer is better understood. And 19 that in a case where an aquifer is reasonably 20 un -- not well understood, that we would need, 21 then, to do more of that testing? I'm not quite 22 sure when you say compared to normal, whether 23 you're talking about normal testing in a 24 reasonably well defined and well understood 25 aquifer or not? Could you elaborate on that, 57 1 please? 2 MR. MAATHUIS: We start talking here 3 about what is reasonable. And I assume that it is 4 always arguable what would -- you know, five more 5 wells, would it have given us any more 6 information? No. 20 more wells, no. It refines 7 a few things. And don't forget, the objective of 8 a pumping test is to get some aquifer parameters. 9 It wouldn't have yielded any more information than 10 what was coming out of the test. 11 MR. GIBBONS: I'm sorry, I just need 12 to pursue this one further moment. Could you, 13 perhaps as a way of explaining to the panel, as 14 well as the audience, then, at least draw some 15 kind of comparison as to what you might do when 16 you are dealing with tests in a well studied 17 fully, or at least a reasonably well understood 18 aquifer, compared to one that seems to be from, 19 again, based on what I heard on Tuesday, an 20 aquifer that isn't particularly well understood 21 yet? And I'm not quite sure that you've answered 22 that question. What would you normally -- what 23 would be the normal expectation? I am not going 24 to use the word "standard", but what would you 25 normally do in an aquifer where you know the 58 1 boundaries, et cetera? What would you do there, 2 as opposed to a situation where you are dealing 3 with a relatively not well understood aquifer? I 4 am not quite hearing that. 5 MR. MAATHUIS: In comparison, if you 6 already know -- the hydrogeological setting is a 7 very simple one. You, very simply, would follow 8 some guidelines. You still would put, you know, 9 wells at variable distances from the production 10 well. You probably would put -- not probably, I 11 am pretty sure you would put in much less 12 monitoring wells than what was done here. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Fewer than what you are 14 proposing for here? 15 MR. MAATHUIS: Fewer -- well, we are 16 talking about a pumping test. And the number of 17 wells used for analysis of the results of the 18 pumping tests, yes, it would be fewer. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 20 MR. HALKET: I'm wondering, in the 21 first submission that you gave, the Pembina Valley 22 Water Co-operative Supplemental Groundwater Supply 23 Hydrological Assessment Report, it shows in this 24 report the cone of depression around the pumping 25 well is defined as circular, or was it not? 59 1 And could you -- well, could you show me what the 2 cone of depression around the pumping well looks 3 like? 4 MR. WIECEK: Well, what was defined, 5 what was shown on that figure in that report was 6 the radius around the well, and that was relative 7 to the distance to the existing well users. 8 MR. HALKET: Okay. 9 MR. WIECEK: That was not the cone of 10 depression shown on that one particular report you 11 are referring to. 12 MR. HALKET: Okay, thank you. 13 MR. WIECEK: The cone of depression 14 that was shown in the supplementary report, when 15 we were asked to show additional information, was 16 that elongated figure that we showed yesterday -- 17 or on Tuesday, sorry, and that's what's in that 18 report. 19 MR. HALKET: Okay. Now, Mr. Render 20 also suggests that when you are doing a pumping 21 test that the observation well should be fully 22 penetrating for the aquifer in question, for the 23 intake, if you will, or the filter for it. So I 24 was wondering -- and he makes the comment that 25 there are corrections needed if this is not done 60 1 in the field. And it seems to me that his 2 comments suggest that your -- that your 3 observation wells weren't fully penetrating for 4 the aquifer in question. 5 MR. MAATHUIS: Okay, let me answer 6 that. Certainly when you do a pump test of this 7 kind of, like, 72 hours, the whole aquifer in the 8 area tested is part -- is being tested. And it 9 doesn't really matter whether or not your 10 observation wells are screened across the complete 11 aquifer or not. If you go into the literature, if 12 you do very short-term tests and you have a 13 production well which is not -- which is only 14 partly completed across the thickness of the 15 aquifer, yes, then you will have to do 16 corrections. In this case, there is no need for 17 any corrections. 18 MR. WIECEK: In this case, the pumping 19 well was fully penetrating and, therefore, the 20 correction, like you said, the correction is 21 applied when the pumping well is partially 22 penetrating. The correction is not applied when 23 the observation well is penetrated. It is also, 24 too, is we get into the issue of designing your 25 well network to accommodate the actual 61 1 hydrogeological conditions. In this case, it was 2 expected that we would see some vertical 3 variability or transmissivity. By putting the 4 observation wells distributed vertically, you get 5 a better picture of what is happening in different 6 parts of the aquifers. If you have a screen that 7 goes through the entire aquifer, you are getting a 8 blended average of the response over the entire 9 length of the aquifer, and you don't really see 10 the specific details of it. So, again, it comes 11 down to designing the test to accommodate the 12 conditions, or the expected conditions at the 13 site. And as far as partial penetration, that 14 applies to the pumping well. 15 MR. HALKET: So my understanding of 16 this aquifer is it's very varied. It has got very 17 many different levels of, shall we say, 18 permeability or transmissivity within it that 19 would give different values. And I'm just 20 wondering -- I am just wondering how that would 21 affect the wells in -- you know, your observation 22 wells? Would you not want to screen through the 23 whole width of the aquifer? 24 MR. WIECEK: That's why I said the 25 screen through the whole width or the whole 62 1 thickness of the aquifer gives you an average 2 response. What that doesn't tell you, if there 3 are preferential pathways in there, like there are 4 zones with coarser sands and then finer sands, a 5 screen through the entire zone would not tell you 6 exactly where the water is moving because it's an 7 average. Whereas a screen specifically in the 8 coarser area, and a screen in another part of the 9 aquifer that's in the finer area, will have -- you 10 will see the different response. One is 11 responding more than the other one is, so it gives 12 you a better picture of the vertical variation of 13 the aquifer. 14 MR. HALKET: And is that what you had 15 out there? 16 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 17 MR. HALKET: I have another -- 18 Mr. Render raises concerns about the salinity 19 front in the carbonate and sandstone aquifers. He 20 suggests that the recharge in the glaciofluvial, 21 in this glaciofluvial deposit is quite critical to 22 the recharge of the carbonate aquifer and the 23 sandstone aquifer, and that any withdrawal should 24 be considered very carefully, any withdrawal from 25 the glaciofluvial aquifer, in case that would 63 1 affect the movement of that front, the salinity 2 front eastward. He also points out that we don't 3 know very much about that front. There is some 4 speculation as to whether it's stationery or is it 5 moving eastward? And I was wondering what impact 6 that a withdrawal from the aquifer may have on the 7 movement of that front? 8 MR. WIECEK: Certainly the saltwater 9 front has been studied in extensive detail by the 10 province for many years, and the province has been 11 regularly publishing those results. And they 12 would be in the best position to comment on that 13 particular aspect. 14 MR. HALKET: So it's fair to say that 15 you haven't investigated that? 16 MR. WIECEK: By our assessment, the 17 distance from the saltwater front, we will not 18 have an effect on that saltwater front. 19 MR. HALKET: Pardon me, could you 20 repeat that? 21 MR. WIECEK: Our assessment is that 22 there will be no effect on the saltwater front. 23 MR. HALKET: Okay. Kennedy and 24 Woodbury, in an article in 2005 that was submitted 25 to us, in a modeling study of the aquifers 64 1 underlying the sand aquifer, point out that the 2 recharge for the aquifer is the Sandilands region. 3 The Sandilands is also the only recharge choice 4 for the sandstone aquifer. Kennedy and Woodbury 5 model the response of these two aquifers to a 6 three-year drought period under continuous 7 pumping. And they suggest that both aquifers, 8 especially the carbonate aquifer, are particularly 9 vulnerable to a loss of head when recharge is 10 reduced during a three-year drought condition. 11 They say, this is to quote them: 12 "As might be expected, the effects of 13 reduced recharge on the entire aquifer 14 sequence are significant." 15 Now, would you care to comment on 16 that? 17 MR. WIECEK: Well, on Tuesday we did 18 discuss the recharge mechanisms that are known 19 between the overburden materials and the carbonate 20 and the sandstone aquifers, and we also explained 21 how that varies through the region. And that is 22 within the particular area that is being proposed 23 for this project, that there is the sands and 24 gravels are underlain by lower permeability clays 25 and tills which limit the interconnection between 65 1 the aquifers. 2 And there are other places, especially 3 like we pointed out further north, where there is 4 a very clear connection between the surface, in 5 that case it was the Brokenhead River, and the 6 wetlands and the aquifers. As far as the impact 7 on the recharge to those aquifers, it's quite 8 variable. And in this case, there is a limitation 9 to how much recharge could come from the aquifer 10 being proposed to be pumped here. 11 MR. HALKET: What evidence do you have 12 that suggests that there is no connection between 13 the aquifer you are proposing to pump and the 14 carbonate and the sandstone aquifers in the area? 15 MR. WIECEK: Those are the 16 cross-sections that we have put up on Tuesday, and 17 they are included in our report, that show the 18 presence of the tills underlying there. Also that 19 has been noted that the lack of connection, or not 20 the lack of connection, but the limited connection 21 between the sands and gravels of the Sandilands 22 are Bedford Ridge area and the underlying bedrock, 23 has been noted by a number of researchers, 24 including Cherry, Ferguson and Woodbury and 25 others. 66 1 MR. HALKET: Thank you. Do you know 2 what's happening to the discharge from the aquifer 3 in question, the lower sand unit, like where is 4 the discharge going, do we know the answer to 5 that? 6 MR. WIECEK: That can't be 7 specifically quantified, no. 8 MR. HALKET: And so it is conceivable 9 that there are pathways to the carbonate and 10 the -- and that sandstone aquifer from that lower 11 sand unit? 12 MR. WIECEK: Yes, it is. There is a 13 component that is going to there. But as we 14 indicated, it is likely not the major recharge 15 area. Other portions of that area, going up to as 16 far as Highway 15 and further north, have much 17 greater connections and are, therefore, much more 18 capable of providing recharge to the aquifer. 19 MR. HALKET: On Tuesday you suggested 20 that the aquifer, the lower sand aquifer, was in 21 an equilibrium state, that the recharge was 22 equivalent to the discharge, did you suggest that? 23 MR. WIECEK: That's correct. 24 MR. HALKET: Okay. My understanding 25 of this, and maybe you can help me here, is if 67 1 that is the case, that means that if we had a 2 hydrograph that was set up in the aquifer, or a 3 well that was set up in the aquifer to monitor, 4 and a hydrograph -- or a station was set up on it, 5 and a hydrograph produced, that that hydrograph, 6 my understanding, would be would be fairly flat. 7 Now, it may show some periodic fluctuations due to 8 differences in recharge in the spring and fall, et 9 cetera. But over the years, it should be a fairly 10 flat; is that correct? 11 MR. MAATHUIS: No, that is not 12 correct. 13 MR. HALKET: Okay. 14 MR. MAATHUIS: It still will be 15 subject to natural changes. We always will have 16 natural changes. But what is meant as being flat 17 is that it will not be -- if recharge and 18 discharge were always the same, yes, it would be 19 flat. You can have a series of years that are 20 drier, which result in the water levels to 21 increase and the discharge to increase or, 22 conversely, if there are dry years the water 23 levels will increase and the discharge will 24 decrease. It is like if you take a 100-year 25 period and exclude all of those climatic 68 1 variability kind of influences, yes, it would be 2 flat. There is no continuing -- if you would -- 3 what can I say? There is no continuous either up 4 or down. It fluctuates. 5 MR. HALKET: Okay. If I could 6 understand this just a little bit, it might help 7 if we could put a graph up or a hydrograph up. 8 Could we put a hydrograph up? And maybe the one 9 that is the longest term which you have proposed 10 for this. How about the upper sand unit 11 hydrograph, that's over the last 20 years or so, I 12 think. 13 MR. WIECEK: This is the same plot we 14 were looking at on Tuesday. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Pardon me? 16 MR. WIECEK: It is the same plot that 17 we were looking at Tuesday. It may look different 18 because it is in a different file than the one on 19 Tuesday. 20 MR. HALKET: Now, that aquifer extends 21 over a period -- or that hydrograph extends over a 22 period of years. And my understanding here of 23 that curb is that there are some times the 24 downward trend, for example, at the start, would 25 indicate that the discharge exceeds the recharge 69 1 on that graph? 2 MR. WIECEK: The downward trend, 3 especially when we approach the '80s to the early 4 part of the '90s, is associated with an increase 5 in the recharge to the aquifer, associated with 6 the drought that occurred during that period of 7 time. Now, obviously, as well, this is declining 8 so it is recharge. Discharge would be declining, 9 as well, because the hydraulic gradient is 10 declining. 11 MR. HALKET: But simply put, the 12 downward trend says that there is more going out 13 than is coming in? 14 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 15 MR. HALKET: The upper trend says that 16 there is more coming in than going out. Do you 17 understand me? 18 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 19 MR. HALKET: What you stated the other 20 day was that the recharge to the lower aquifer, 21 the lower sand unit, that there was no reason for 22 a water budget, or at least this was my 23 understanding of your comment, because it was an 24 equilibrium that what was coming in was going out. 25 MR. WIECEK: It is in a state of 70 1 dynamic equilibrium. 2 MR. HALKET: Okay. 3 MR. WIECEK: It is not constantly 4 static. There is a flow through that aquifer that 5 is occurring on a daily basis. Groundwater is in 6 a state of motion, it's in a state of flux. And 7 the limiting factors to recharge to that lower 8 sand unit would be the aquitard that's above it, 9 that's what controls how much can get into that 10 lower sand unit. The changes in precipitation 11 above that zone has a lesser effect on it because 12 the changes in hydraulic gradient have lesser 13 effect on the actual flux of water moving into the 14 lower zone. And so it is a question of which one 15 is the dominant factor controlling the movement of 16 water. 17 MR. HALKET: And my question here is 18 we don't -- do we have evidence that -- do we have 19 evidence of that? Like, do we have evidence that 20 the lower sand aquifer is in equilibrium, or is 21 reacting like this, or not like this? What kind 22 of evidence do we have? 23 MR. MAATHUIS: Yes, we do, by virtue 24 of the fact that there are no external sources 25 which would either put water in or put water out 71 1 of the system. Like, there are no wells pumping 2 from that aquifer, nor are there -- for the sake 3 of other words, nor is there a recharge basin on 4 top of it. So there are no external influences 5 so, yes, it is the natural system that, you know, 6 we are seeing. 7 MR. HALKET: Okay. This is a 8 long-term record for the upper sand aquifer. My 9 question is how does the lower sand aquifer -- how 10 has it reacted during this period? Do we have any 11 evidence to show how it has reacted? Because 12 there is quite a drawdown in this aquifer. There 13 is about five metres, I think it is. 14 MR. WIECEK: In the upper sand 15 aquifer, yes, it is much more variable because it 16 is more influenced by changes in precipitation. 17 As we showed, when we looked at -- I don't have 18 the hydrographs for the lower sands right up at 19 the moment. But as you will recall from on 20 Tuesday when we showed the hydrographs for those 21 lower sands, the period of record for monitoring 22 is since the early '90s or the mid-'90s. And 23 during that time, it has basically followed the 24 same rising trend, and so it is following. And it 25 is reasonable to expect that overall it is 72 1 following the rising trend. But what we have only 2 seen is a one to two metre increase in the water 3 level. And that indicates that there is a 4 dampening effect and that the lower sand is 5 less -- subject to less rises and falls due to 6 varying precipitation because of those limiting 7 factors. 8 MR. HALKET: I am just -- I am just 9 wondering, the lower sand also for the period, 10 it's only about half of that? 11 MR. WIECEK: That's right. 12 MR. HALKET: Half of that fall. So 13 you are saying that if I was to -- if it is 14 following it in lockstep, as you say, you would 15 expect maybe a four or five metre, maybe a four or 16 five metre drawdown for the same period in the 17 lower sand unit? 18 MR. MAATHUIS: The way observation 19 wells -- the hydrographs for a particular 20 observation well is air function where it is 21 placed in the aquifer system. And as I tried to 22 explain on Tuesday, the magnitude is not of 23 significance in any analysis. It's the trends in 24 the water level which are indicative. And any 25 surficial aquifers, an aquifer let's say at the 73 1 ground surface, intuitively you will realize that 2 it will respond much quicker to any changes in 3 input. 4 MR. HALKET: Yes, I agree with that. 5 MR. MAATHUIS: And deeper aquifers, 6 like the semi-confined lower sand aquifer, will 7 follow the same kind of -- kind of trends. But 8 depending on the geological settings, it may show 9 a little delay in time. But trend-wise they will 10 also follow the same kind of trends. There, 11 again, it really depends on how accurate is the 12 system, you know, what the magnitude is. So you 13 can't compare apples and oranges. 14 MR. HALKET: So we really don't know 15 how that lower aquifer will respond over, say, 16 that whole 20-year period to the conditions at the 17 upper aquifer responded? 18 MR. MAATHUIS: Well, we know that it 19 will respond in a very similar fashion. But the 20 other details on it, no, the record is relatively 21 short. 22 MR. HALKET: Okay. I have two 23 questions about that, how it would respond. And 24 the first goes to if you are at that low, that 25 period where recharge has been reduced to the 74 1 aquifer, what do you think the effects of the cone 2 of depression from the pumping of 50 litres per 3 second would be at that low, compared to where 4 the -- where the water levels or the piezometric 5 surfaces are now? Because it looks to me like 6 there is a further three to four metre drawdown 7 there, or depression, that we could envisage for 8 the lower sand aquifer for that period. 9 MR. MAATHUIS: It very simply will be 10 a substraction. The cone of depression, at any 11 point in time, right, is in addition, if you wish, 12 to the natural water level fluctuations. So let 13 me say for argument point of -- for argument's 14 sake, we have a well here. And the drawdown in 15 this well is, let me say, one metre. But the 16 natural water level is going up by a metre, and 17 then you just -- then you just add those two 18 together. So during good recharge conditions, you 19 will see much less influence of the cone of 20 depression at that particular site. 21 Now, conversely, if we have had a 22 number of years of low recharge, then the water 23 level at that site would be, you know, by one 24 metre lower than what would have happened under 25 normal conditions, than in the non-perfect 75 1 conditions. 2 MR. HALKET: So the cone of depression 3 that we are talking about here as being 4 superimposed on the -- on sort of the annual water 5 levels is you are saying? 6 MR. MAATHUIS: Yes, that's correct, 7 that's always the case. 8 MR. HALKET: It seems to me that there 9 is quite a -- quite a drop in that upper sand 10 unit. There is about a five metre. And if we 11 were to say that the lower sand was in lockstep 12 with that, with some dampening, as you've said, 13 there is still quite a drop, a few metre drop to 14 be expected. And I'm just wondering what the 15 effects of pumping would be at 50 litres per 16 second when the aquifer, the lower sand unit, is 17 experiencing those recharge lows? What would the 18 cone of depression be? Would we expect it to 19 expand, both upstream and downstream for the 20 aquifer, and also east and west, or would we 21 expect did to be the same? Would it just be a 22 simple super position, or would it be dynamic in 23 terms of how it responds to differences in water 24 level over the long term experienced by the sand 25 aquifer? 76 1 MR. MAATHUIS: It will be a matter of 2 super position at all points in time. Any water 3 level, at any given point in time, is in a super 4 position of numerous impacts. 5 MR. HALKET: Okay. But it seems to me 6 that you are telling me that this aquifer is very 7 complex. It is very heterogenous. It has got 8 many different types of, shall we say, porosities 9 and permeabilities in terms of its materials. And 10 if you are dropping the water level within the 11 unit, then wouldn't it be -- wouldn't the cone of 12 depression be -- wouldn't the water be coming from 13 different types of material? And, therefore, 14 wouldn't you expect -- wouldn't you expect the 15 cone of depression area, and everything else, to 16 be the same? 17 MR. WIECEK: The cone of depression 18 will vary depending on the conditions at the time, 19 because the flux of groundwater is varying 20 seasonally, even daily, so there will be some 21 fluctuations to that, yes. 22 MR. HALKET: Now, my next question 23 goes to that recharge period. There was some 24 discussion about -- if we could put that back up, 25 the graph, please, there was some discussion about 77 1 the low in the lower sand unit or in the upper 2 sand unit. And there was also some discussion in 3 your report that the aquifer, the lower sand unit, 4 would be able to provide water in times of drought 5 because its response time -- its response time is 6 somewhat lengthened. 7 MR. WIECEK: Yes. 8 MR. HALKET: Am I correct in 9 understanding that? 10 MR. WIECEK: There is a delay effect 11 that occurs. 12 MR. HALKET: There is a delay effect. 13 What is the delay effect, do we know? My question 14 is the lower sand aquifer, when is it -- it's 15 waters levels or piezometric surfaces, what are 16 they responding to? The climate or the weather, 17 the recharge 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years 18 ago? What is that delay? 19 MR. WIECEK: As far as specifically 20 qualifying a specific droplet of water and when it 21 goes from the surface and when it gets to the 22 aquifer, no, that can't be done. As far as the 23 flow rate, there is, and I don't -- I can't quote 24 them right now. But there has been calculations 25 that have done, particularly in Cherry's thesis, 78 1 and also in Ferguson's paper. And it's on the 2 order of metres per year is the rate of movement 3 of groundwater. So we're talking to get -- for 4 water to get from the surface down, say, 30 metres 5 to the top of that lower sand unit is on the order 6 of years. 7 MR. HALKET: So we're talking many 8 years, then, for the down drain if we're -- 9 because what's the lower depth of the lower sand 10 unit? 11 MR. WIECEK: Well, it's -- it's not a 12 flat surface. 13 MR. HALKET: No, I understand. 14 MR. WIECEK: It goes from one end to 15 the other. And it is about 30 metres to 60 16 metres. 17 MR. HALKET: So you're saying, then, 18 about 45 years? 19 MR. WIECEK: I wouldn't put that 20 precise number to it. 21 MR. HALKET: No, I know. 22 MR. WIECEK: And it is -- 23 MR. HALKET: But there is a delay. 24 And my question is of concern here. And I think 25 because this is a supplemental water system that 79 1 we are looking at, it is 50 litres per second -- 2 and so my question -- of extracting from the 3 aquifer is 50 litres per second. And my question 4 is here, and this is to ensure or to guard against 5 drought conditions in the Pembina Valley Water 6 Co-operative. But because there is a delay in the 7 aquifer's response, what guarantees do we have 8 that you wouldn't be pumping from the aquifer 9 during a drought period when it's responding to a 10 previous drought period? What would that do to 11 your -- 12 MR. WIECEK: Well, that's why there is 13 a monitoring program in place, so that there will 14 be a long-term monitoring program throughout the 15 duration to be able to monitor for that sort of 16 effect. 17 MR. HALKET: But surely there is a 18 probability of that happening? 19 MR. WIECEK: I've never seen an 20 analysis done of multiple drought effects and 21 where you are pumping during the delay effect from 22 a previous drought effect, that's just not 23 something that -- those are -- you are getting 24 into scenarios of -- the what if scenarios. 25 MR. HALKET: But aren't you 80 1 concerned -- 2 MR. WIECEK: There is an infinite -- 3 MR. HALKET: But aren't you concerned 4 about what if scenarios? 5 MR. WIECEK: Well, to an reasonable 6 extent. There is an infinite number of what ifs 7 that you can get into. At some point in time you 8 have to say that we have covered off the bulk of 9 the -- or what are the most likely scenarios to 10 occur. 11 MR. GIBBONS: If I may follow up, and 12 I think this may require only a short answer, but 13 I'm not sure. When we look at the elevations, 14 both for the upper sand where we have a long-term 15 record from '65 to 2006, we see the variation 16 upwards or downwards, depending on the time period 17 of about five metres. Even if we take one of the 18 lower sand units, OE -- sorry, OE-040, in the 19 period of about six years, from roughly early 2000 20 to mid to late 2006, there is a variation, in this 21 case, upwards of about two and a half metres. So 22 there does seem to be some, what to me, would seem 23 to be significant shifting in the elevations that 24 we're talking about. What I would like to hear 25 from you, I guess, is what -- given your 81 1 experience in this field, what is a reasonable 2 degree of variation in terms of trying to project 3 the potential impacts on aquifers? In your view, 4 is a five metre variation well within typical 5 patterns or is this -- I guess what I'm asking is, 6 is this aquifer more active in terms of vertical 7 change than other aquifers might be or is it 8 perhaps typical? I'm not quite sure because I 9 don't see a comparative element here. So I often 10 ask these kinds of comparative questions. Is this 11 a significant -- is a five metre change there, or 12 a two and a half metre change, in the case of 13 OE-040, are these, in fact, typical kinds of 14 shifts in elevation or are they, in some way, 15 unusual? 16 MR. MAATHUIS: To be able to answer 17 that question you would have to look at all of the 18 available hydrographs for the province and see 19 what is happening in the various type or similar 20 kind of aquifers. 21 MR. GIBBONS: Sorry, let me make it 22 simpler, then, compared to the aquifer that you 23 know best, which is the Winkler Aquifer? Rather 24 than comparing it to all aquifers, let's just look 25 at what you, as an organization, are the most 82 1 familiar with. 2 MR. WIECEK: It's coming up. It will 3 just take a second for it to come up here. This 4 is the hydrograph for the Winkler Aquifer going 5 back from 1962 to 2006, basically to present. And 6 the variation on that one is from 269 to 273. So 7 that's approximately four metres, four to five 8 metres, depending on which peak you are going to 9 pick. 10 MR. GIBBONS: So it's comparable, 11 then -- 12 MR. WIECEK: Comparable. 13 MR. GIBBONS: -- to what happens at 14 Winkler. Thank you. And, sorry, is that 15 particular graph in any of the reports that we 16 have? 17 MR. WIECEK: That's not part of the 18 report. 19 MR. GIBBONS: Okay. But it is useful, 20 I think, to know what the comparable figures might 21 be on this, thank you. 22 MR. WIECEK: There is -- there is on 23 the order of -- the last count I saw, there is on 24 the order of 800 provincial groundwater monitoring 25 wells. 83 1 MR. GIBBONS: Okay. 2 MR. WIECEK: It's more than that now, 3 so there is quite a database. 4 MR. GIBBONS: Yes. But certainly, for 5 our purposes, having some comparison to the 6 Winkler Aquifer might be sufficient for this 7 panel. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have 9 any questions? 10 MS. FUNK: Yes, I have one question. 11 And with regard to recharge and discharge, okay, 12 and I like to use the term cone of depression, in 13 which that would be precipitation coming in. And 14 at this point right now, we would say if the 15 aquitard at the top is full, then we would have 16 runoff. And whether there is discharge within the 17 aquifer itself and where it's going, we're not 18 100 percent here. So my question is have any 19 studies -- and do we know how this aquifer is 20 affecting the downstream, the wetlands, the bogs, 21 any of that ecosystem there at all, so do we know 22 what its place is in that area? 23 MR. WIECEK: The hydrogeological 24 setting of this site is that the bulk of the water 25 is coming off the Bedford Ridge in the upper sand 84 1 unit. That's the zone that is most exposed to 2 precipitation. And it's also the flow -- or the 3 slope of the land, and therefore the flow, is 4 directly off and to the wetlands. So those are 5 being primarily recharged by movement in the upper 6 sands. 7 MS. FUNK: Thank you. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to propose 9 that we take a short break. I think we are 10 getting close to the end of the questions of the 11 proponents. After the break, if there are any 12 members of the general public who have questions 13 for the proponents, I am going to invite them to 14 ask those questions at that time. There may be 15 one or two more from the panel, and then I think 16 we will be able to move on. So let's come back at 17 quarter after sharp, please. 18 (Proceedings recessed at 11:04 and reconvened at 19 11:15) 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could I 21 ask you to take your seats? I think it is obvious 22 that we are not going to be finishing by 1:00 23 o'clock today, as we had originally thought. 24 That's not unusual for our processes. I think on 25 the Floodway we added three and a half days and on 85 1 Wuskwatim we added 14 days. But we absolutely 2 have to conclude these hearings today. When we 3 tried to find other dates over the next two or 4 three weeks to hold, or possibly hold these 5 hearings, it was impossible to find a date when 6 everybody was available. So we must finish today. 7 We do have a couple of questions from 8 one more panel member, and then I'm going to 9 invite questions from members of the general 10 public. 11 We will take a break at noon or 12 shortly after noon for lunch, and we will 13 reconvene after lunch. 14 Ken, you have a couple of short 15 snappers? 16 MR. GIBBONS: I am hoping the answers 17 will be short, I'm not sure about the questions 18 because I want to try to get these to be fairly 19 precise. 20 The first question is about whether we 21 can get -- and it has a couple of parts to it -- 22 can we get a clarification of how much water PVWC 23 is intending to draw on a regular basis through 24 this pipeline, if this pipeline goes forward? We 25 have heard several figures. One, of course, is 86 1 that the maximum amount is 50 litres per second. 2 There was mention at one point of 35 litres per 3 second, ultimately perhaps moving up to 50. There 4 was discussions at times in the reports about 5 using this only intermittently, as needed, in the 6 context of supplementing sources during droughts. 7 Can I get a sense of what that figure would be on 8 a regular basis, and if that amount, in your view, 9 is going to have any impacts on the groundwater 10 situation as, and here I will refer back to the 11 submission by Mr. Render, to the areas south of 12 the TransCanada, west of Sandilands? In other 13 words, do we know whether there is any 14 inter-connectivity in terms of the area that you 15 are drawing from and the areas that are to the 16 west of that? Can I leave it at that? Hopefully 17 that's clear enough. 18 MR.SCHELLENBERG: The answer, there 19 are a couple of questions there and the answer 20 isn't as straightforward as I would like it to be, 21 because of operational issues. Basically, in 22 terms of when we start to draw on this well, there 23 will always be some movement of water in that 24 pipe, and the main reason for that is to make sure 25 that the quality of that water in the pipe is 87 1 maintained at the best standard, you have got to 2 keep it moving. The request that we have is for 3 50 litres per second. 4 On day one, if we were to try and 5 withdraw the maximum that we could utilize at the 6 present time, given some other restrictions in the 7 system, the highest -- that's where the 35 litres 8 per second comes in -- we could go as 35, and we 9 wouldn't. I would suggest that our draw is going 10 to begin in a modest way because we have 11 monitoring wells. We too have concerns as to how 12 this aquifer is going to respond. As we stated 13 before, we are very conscious of the fact that we 14 do not intend to try and solve a water challenge 15 that we have by inflicting problems or creating 16 water issues for other jurisdictions. That simply 17 does not and cannot be allowed to happen. We 18 will, however, eventually work it up to 35 litres 19 per second. And I would suggest that during the 20 first -- usually these things are completed in the 21 fall -- during the first winter months, for 22 example, we are probably going to be drawing 23 somewhere in the order of 20. And those numbers 24 will be available to the province, so obviously 25 they know what the effect is as compares to the 88 1 results that you are getting from your monitoring 2 wells. If we get into a dry summer situation, it 3 will come as high as 35. And eventually, we are 4 talking some years down the road, we are going to 5 be able to get to the point where we might draw 6 50. But our reading would be that by that point 7 we would have some time to see exactly how this 8 aquifer responds and we would be in a better 9 position to make that judgment. 10 MR. GIBBONS: Thank you. The second 11 question builds on a question that was raised by 12 Dr. Brooks, and it has to do with what he has 13 called the no project alternative. I have to 14 admit that in the context of the discussion that 15 took place that I do think that there seems to be, 16 at least, at the very least a talking past each 17 other on that particular point, in that my 18 understanding of the no project alternative is not 19 that you do nothing, which I think was the 20 response, I may have been misreading that, but it 21 is not do nothing, but not doing that project 22 means conceivably doing something else. 23 Now, I've put this question on 24 Tuesday, and what I would like to do is direct it 25 a little bit more specifically towards the 89 1 following scenario, in terms of whether or not 2 potential alternatives were considered. And it is 3 raised in part because of the point made about the 4 fact that if we agree to the figures that were 5 quoted earlier, PVWC is pulling in about half of 6 its licensed amount of water from the Red River. 7 Is it possible, and in terms of alternative 8 scenarios, is it possible that Red River water 9 could be used to a greater extent than it is now, 10 given, and I understand that you are talking about 11 the fluctuations and so on in the river levels, 12 could it be used more extensively than it is now 13 if it was possible to take some of that water 14 during the times when the river flows are 15 extremely high and impound that water in some way 16 for use later? And we talked about impoundment a 17 bit earlier. I'm wondering about that specific 18 scenario, impounding Red River water in its high 19 volume stages and holding it to those times when 20 river levels are lower? 21 MR.SCHELLENBERG: Sir, there has been 22 considerable work done in looking at all of the 23 alternatives in terms of talking past each other, 24 and our document I think talked to some of them, 25 and I gave you a little more detailed information 90 1 on some of the others that we have looked at. 2 Our alternative right now, in terms of 3 dealing with the situation, would be to put a weir 4 on the Red, and the exact location of that is 5 identified and the nature of the structure is 6 identified as well. Because the river has very 7 little drop to it, the size of the weir that you 8 would have to put in -- it would be about 15 miles 9 north of Morris down the river -- would be in the 10 order of 14 to 16 feet. That would hold back 11 water in the river up to the U.S. border, but not 12 crossing the U.S. border in terms of what we are 13 withholding, so we don't get into a contravention 14 of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. 15 That kind of an impoundment, if you 16 are looking at a serious drought, would do you for 17 about a year and a half, assuming that we don't 18 have excessive heat in terms of evaporation and 19 what have you. And that's also assuming that we 20 are not getting meaningful flows from the U.S. 21 Now, there are those that take very, 22 very strong exception to this, fisheries being one 23 and there are others. I would suggest that the 24 City of Winnipeg would probably take very serious 25 exception to that proposal as well, because if you 91 1 are looking at a real serious drought scenario of 2 that kind, you are going to a similar situation on 3 the Assiniboine, and the amount of water that is 4 going to be flowing through the City of Winnipeg 5 is going to be drastically reduced. The upside of 6 that is for the first time on record we would 7 actually have residents of the City of Winnipeg 8 conscious of what a drought means and perhaps a 9 little more prepared to address it. But I don't 10 think that we want to go there, and it is for 11 those reasons that we are looking at this 12 particular alternative. 13 But, yes, we can do that, and it is a 14 short-term measure, it is a stop gap measure, it 15 will do us for a year and a half, it might do us 16 for two years if we are really careful, but that's 17 what you have to do. 18 MR. GIBBONS: Quick follow-up then, is 19 the weir the only impoundment method available, 20 given the volumes of water that you would need? 21 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The weir is -- 22 based on work which has been done over a long 23 period of time, and you are going to get some 24 history to some of the other approaches that have 25 been taken later on this afternoon, I guess -- 92 1 yes, it is, it is the only thing that will work. 2 Off-stream storage, for example, is 3 what you are basically alluding to, and the amount 4 of storage that you would require, the 5 environmental consequences of putting that into 6 place is far more serious than the weir itself and 7 the issues related to it. And there is a number 8 of reasons for that, and also the size of it would 9 be very, very considerable. But that's the -- we 10 have got -- our water treatment plants are at the 11 river, they are on the river, and that's where we 12 need to treat the water in order to distribute it, 13 that's where our distribution comes from. 14 MR. GIBBONS: Thank you. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 16 MR. HALKET: My understanding of a 17 weir is it is an overflow structure? 18 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Pardon me? 19 MR. HALKET: It is an overflow 20 structure, it will hold water back, it will hold a 21 certain amount of storage back, but once it is 22 full, it will just keep on flowing, the water will 23 keep on flowing. And the characterization that 24 you were making that the City of Winnipeg would be 25 losing water, it would still be flowing after -- 93 1 MR. SCHELLENBERG: At 14 to 16 feet 2 high, and given the 1988 scenario, no, there would 3 be no flow over. We have 32 cubic feet per second 4 that were coming into the Red at that time. We 5 are withdrawing more than that at any given time 6 during that period, so you are going to be drawing 7 down on that reservoir which you created, and 8 hence because there isn't enough recharge, if you 9 want to use that term loosely in this particular 10 case, you get that kind of scenario. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'm now 12 going to invite members of the general public who 13 may wish to ask questions to come forward at this 14 time, please? We did have an indication earlier 15 from three or four people that they wanted to ask 16 questions. 17 I would ask you to state your name, 18 please, and direct your question briefly and 19 directly? 20 MR. CHAPUT: I am Roland Chaput. I 21 could not attend on Tuesday, I don't know if this 22 was discussed. I heard today there is a lot about 23 up and down of the water in the aquifer, the 24 quantity of the water in the aquifer. Was there 25 anything done regarding the quality of the water, 94 1 what will it do to the quality of the water in the 2 aquifer? Will it affect the quality of the water? 3 MR. WIECEK: There is a data base 4 existing of the water quality that's been 5 collected by the province, by the GSC, Geologic 6 Survey of Canada, as part of the water quality 7 initiatives. Essentially, there is no effect to 8 the water quality in the area. And what has been 9 found in the area is that water quality in the 10 different aquifers is very similar. So it is 11 unlike to the west of the Red River where there is 12 potential for the salt water intrusion, we don't 13 see that in this area, so there is no effect to 14 the water quality. 15 MR. CHAPUT: Now to your plan, you say 16 you have salty water west of the Red River. Is 17 there a way to treat that water to make it good 18 water? 19 MR. SCHELLENBERG: Yes, there is. And 20 certainly it has been demonstrated in the Middle 21 East, and there is some evidence of that as well 22 in the U.S. on the coast where that is being done 23 right now. 24 There is a number of problems with it. 25 First of all is the overriding cost, but the 95 1 bigger issue -- and energy is the big issue, by 2 the way, in terms of process. But then you have 3 all of this salt that you have to dispose of. And 4 in the Middle East, basically, and in the U.S. 5 where they are doing this, it goes back into the 6 ocean, which is where they are drawing their water 7 from and it is an easy disposition of that 8 product. When you are out on the prairies, as we 9 are, it becomes a much, much bigger issue and a 10 much bigger problem to deal with. 11 MR. CHAPUT: Okay. Another question 12 that I have is, you seem to be pretty confident 13 that it will not affect the aquifer, what happens 14 if it does? The people around here depend on 15 wells for their water, they have been depending on 16 wells for their water for years. I have got a 17 private well and I'm not the only one, I don't 18 want to speak just for myself. What happens if 19 those wells go dry? Is there any guarantee 20 that -- will you cut a cheque to me if my well 21 runs dry? Will you be hauling water? Will you 22 change my system? This is very important to 23 people around here because they have been 24 depending for years on that water, and if anything 25 happens, anything, worst case scenario, anything 96 1 happens, why would it be incumbent on me or people 2 around here to absorb the costs? 3 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It shouldn't be. 4 We are -- there are large number of monitoring 5 wells which are in place already. We are 6 suggesting that a number should be added, and at 7 least two of those are going to be added in areas 8 where we can monitor more closely what happens -- 9 and I don't know where you live -- but what 10 happens to wells such as yours. 11 It is our responsibility, if it is our 12 fault, if it is a problem that we create that 13 causes a problem for you, it is our 14 responsibility, and it will be our responsibility 15 to rectify that issue. We should know about that 16 well before it happens, because the monitoring 17 that we are going to be undertaking together with 18 the province should give us those readings. And 19 if that indeed is the case, if in fact we have 20 misread this aquifer or we have misread the 21 situation, then we are going to withdraw from 22 those withdrawals and we are going to look for 23 other alternatives within the area, that won't 24 have a negative effect on someone like you, or a 25 negative effect for that matter on the aquifer. 97 1 MR. CHAPUT: The burden of proof will 2 be on who? Because I see you guys have got -- I 3 won't say an unlimited amount of money, but you 4 can tax people or raise your fee, but the people 5 around here will not have the money to hire a 6 hydrologist or an expert to prove, to make their 7 point. 8 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The monitoring is 9 taking place together with the province. In fact, 10 the province is going to be in charge of the 11 program, they are going to be reporting those 12 results. And so you do have an objective system 13 in place to look at this. This is not something 14 that -- we are going to be providing and we are 15 going to be doing a lot of the work and we are 16 going to be providing the cost in terms of putting 17 it in, but the actual control of that review and 18 the control of the monitoring falls within the 19 provincial jurisdiction. So it is not you against 20 us, it will in fact be the province that's in the 21 middle, and we will deal with things -- they will 22 deal with things very, very objectively. 23 MR. CHAPUT: Are you trying to say all 24 I have to do is make a phone call and, bingo, my 25 problem is solved? 98 1 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No. But we don't 2 run a big operation. In our office, just for your 3 information, there are two people, you can either 4 talk to Gordon Martel or myself. So it won't take 5 a lot of phone calls to zero in on your problem. 6 MR. CHAPUT: Will these monitoring 7 results be available to the public? 8 MR. SCHELLENBERG: This is something 9 that we are recommending and it is something that 10 it would be up to the province to decide. I don't 11 know if there is a decision that can be made real 12 quick on that or not. Is the monitoring open to 13 the public? 14 SPEAKER: Provincial monitoring 15 wells -- monitoring results from Provincial 16 monitoring wells are available to the public, yes. 17 The question would be which are Provincial wells 18 and which are private wells? If the monitoring is 19 reported to water rights as part of a licensing 20 condition from monitoring wells which are 21 installed by the proponent, then I'm not quite 22 sure exactly how that works. 23 MR. SCHELLENBERG: We would probably 24 ask them to be made public, and that will take the 25 heat off. 99 1 SPEAKER: We will just mark it that 2 way in our data base and they would be available. 3 MR. CHAPUT: What would be done 4 regarding the enforcements of your licence? 5 Because from the past, regarding the Water Rights 6 Act, there has been basically no enforcement. We 7 have heard from the government that the manpower 8 is not there, the money is not there, or there is 9 a lack of political will. I think this should be 10 taken out of the realm of politics and the power 11 given to the people. Like an Act is an Act, and 12 again this is -- the burden of proof is put on the 13 individual. What will be done regarding 14 enforcement of this licence if it is issued? 15 MR. SCHELLENBERG: That's a question 16 that I can't answer and it is a question that 17 should be answered by the department probably. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chaput, there are 19 provisions under statute for monitoring and 20 enforcing this. It is also something that we as a 21 panel will consider and may or may not make 22 recommendations in regard to that in our report. 23 I can't tell you right now what will be in our 24 report, but that is something that we may well 25 consider. 100 1 MR. CHAPUT: Okay. Because I knew a 2 little bit -- I am a vegetable grower, so I know a 3 little bit of irrigation. Will this water be used 4 for irrigation of fields? 5 MR.SCHELLENBERG: No, it will not. 6 The wholesale price of this water is $5.40 per 7 thousand gallons, and in the farmers' hands it is 8 averaging $8 to $10, so I don't think that you 9 will be doing any irrigating with that. 10 MR. CHAPUT: I will just raise my 11 price of beans, that's all. 12 MR. SCHELLENBERG: I hope you find a 13 market. 14 MR. CHAPUT: Will a security bond be 15 asked to be put down on the table, just in case 16 something happens that we are not aware? 17 MR.SCHELLENBERG: If you want me to 18 answer that I will tell you we are a fair-sized 19 operation in terms of a water utility, we are 20 probably the largest regional utility. We make a 21 very easy target. You will know exactly where to 22 take your problems and where your lawyers are to 23 contact us, if that happens. 24 MR. CHAPUT: Again, a phone call will 25 solve my problem? 101 1 MR. SCHELLENBERG: It won't solve mine 2 but it might solve yours. 3 MR. CHAPUT: I hope somebody is 4 putting this in writing here, and I will ask you 5 to sign it after. You are aware that in the 6 Southwest United States, the Ocalla water aquifer 7 is a real disaster. And I hope this doesn't 8 happen to this aquifer. 9 MR. SCHELLENBERG: No, it certainly 10 can't. With the monitoring that we are going to 11 be doing, there is no way that that will be 12 allowed to happen, especially with the information 13 being available to the general public and open for 14 anyone's review. 15 MR. CHAPUT: One more question, 16 without counting the cost of the hearings and 17 everything like that, how much money has been put 18 in the infrastructure of this project as of today? 19 MR. SCHELLENBERG: In terms of the -- 20 we have done a number of monitoring wells 21 throughout that whole area, and the actual well, 22 the work that's been done is somewhere in the 23 order of three quarters of a million dollars. 24 MR. CHAPUT: Thank you. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chaput. 102 1 Ms. Kennedy-Courcelles, did you have a question or 2 two? 3 MS. KENNEDY-COURCELLES: Yes. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Please state your name 5 for the record? 6 THE WITNESS: Cheryl 7 Kennedy-Courcelles of St. Adolphe, Manitoba. I 8 will be speaking later and I have 30 questions at 9 that point, which I am not necessarily looking for 10 the answers, they are just questions to be raised. 11 But today I guess, earlier you had mentioned that 12 perhaps there wasn't much activity done in the 13 Sandilands, or that we, the people, wouldn't have 14 to worry that there is possible openings or 15 intrusions. 16 Well, the local people know that for 17 two to three years drilling has been happening in 18 that area, pretty much non stop for 12 months of 19 the year. So the safety factor that there is no 20 openings, there is no holes, there is no way for 21 those aquifers to be contaminated, I guess isn't 22 really -- we are not feeling that confident that, 23 you know, things have been left how they should 24 be. So I guess that would just be a question that 25 if this proposal did go forward, what, you know, 103 1 what is going to be done for the work that's been 2 done without any licensing in the first place? So 3 that's just one point, and I don't know if an 4 answer really needs to be happening on that one. 5 Another one I guess would be, if the 6 Pembina Valley Water Co-op is in the business of 7 providing safe drinking water to the residents 8 that live in an area of the province that if you 9 move into that area, you know already that you 10 don't have a great water supply. That's part and 11 parcel of making the choice of living in that 12 area. So I guess my question would be, if you are 13 in the business of providing, being a water 14 provider, has the idea been contemplated about 15 tapping into the aqueduct from Shoal Lake, which 16 is a steady above-ground, non-aquifer provided 17 stream? So if you are dealing with 45,000 people 18 versus the unknown 4 million hogs, right, 45,000 19 people I think could handle a pipeline tapping 20 into the aqueduct and it would not be that big of 21 a deal, versus setting up infrastructure or 22 structure that could handle up to 4 million hogs. 23 And of course, you know, if we burn out the hogs, 24 well then it will be chickens and turkeys and 25 everything else. I guess my question is, have you 104 1 looked at Shoal Lake or the aqueduct at all? 2 MR. SCHELLENBERG: The answer to that 3 is yes, and we talked to the City of Winnipeg and 4 we talked to them on more than one occasion. But 5 I will give you another example; so did 6 Headingley, and the answer to Headingley was a 7 resounding no, and they had to develop their own 8 water system, in their case from Cartier. And the 9 answer to us was a resounding no as well. The 10 City of Winnipeg is of the opinion that if they 11 can hold on to their water resources, they will 12 also get all of the development that goes with it. 13 Going back to your original comment 14 related to water quality, the water quality in 15 this aquifer is absolutely excellent. And if we 16 were to withdraw water from it, we would want to 17 retain it in exactly that form, and we would have 18 a strong vested interest to make sure that it 19 stays that way. 20 MS KENNEDY-COURCELLES: So you are 21 telling us that all of the drilling that has been 22 happening in the last three years will get cleaned 23 up, fixed up, properly closed up, or whatever the 24 case needs to be? 25 MR.SCHELLENBERG: I can't comment on 105 1 the drilling that has been taking place in the 2 last three years. I can comment that on the 3 drilling that took place in regards to our 4 project, which was how many wells -- 19 wells -- 5 that those have been looked after in a very 6 responsible way. Most of those will be used for 7 monitoring, by the way, and we have taken every 8 care to make sure there is no contamination. 9 MS KENNEDY-COURCELLES: Very good. 10 Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there 12 any other members of the public? Yes. 13 MS. SCHOENBACH: I'm Alana Schoenbach 14 from the RM of Piney. Mr. Chaput brought up the 15 idea of private wells maybe being affected, and I 16 would like you to elaborate a little bit on the 17 idea. Has there been any real serious 18 consideration about a performance bond in case of 19 adverse effects on private wells? Mr. 20 Schellenberg just stated a few minutes ago that it 21 would be their problem, as in the PVWC. I don't 22 really agree with that, I think the lack of water 23 would be an immediate problem to homeowners and 24 landowners. If you are so confident that there 25 won't be any adverse effects on these wells, why 106 1 not provide some upfront guarantee? 2 MR. SCHELLENBERG: First of all, in 3 the comment that I made that it would be our 4 problem, I meant in terms of the dollars and the 5 reparations that would be required. I come from 6 an area that we lived without water, and I live in 7 a rural setting, by the way, where it only arrived 8 not that long ago. So I certainly would have 9 great sympathy. 10 By the way, when you are running a 11 utility and any pipe runs out of water, you know 12 about it and you know about it real quickly, and 13 we are familiar with that. The performance bond, 14 when you realize that this is -- what we are 15 dealing with here, the Pembina Valley Water Co-op 16 is a non-profit corporation which is owned by 18 17 municipal governments like Piney. If you develop 18 a problem, you have got basically a route to 18 19 municipal governments, if you want to look at it 20 that way. And in terms of performance bond, I 21 think I would rather have 18 municipalities be 22 responsible for my problem than rely on a 23 performance bond. I don't have a strong feeling 24 about a performance bond. By the way, it can be 25 done. It just becomes a question of how high and 107 1 who holds it and what kind of return is someone 2 getting on it hopefully. We are non-profit, but 3 we do have access to dollars if we get into a 4 problem and we are also, by the way, insured to 5 the hilt. 6 MS. SCHOENBACH: If we are talking 7 about opinions, I would just like to state for the 8 record that I would rather have the money in the 9 bank than rely on the 18 municipalities. Thank 10 you. 11 MR. SCHELLENBERG: You are welcome. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other persons who 13 wish to ask questions? 14 MR. WEINSTROM: I am Eric Weinstrom, a 15 resident from Marchand, and I would like to make a 16 statement, and then I will ask a question. Take 17 you back to 1979, the project was on highway 52 18 west of Steinbach, just short of the Kleefeld 19 turnoff, there was a major problem with heaving of 20 the highway, and they decided to drill wells there 21 to alleviate that. At that time there was a group 22 of farmers in the area that were concerned with 23 that, studies were done, and they were reassured 24 that nothing would happen. They went ahead and 25 drilled the wells, and at the time that they 108 1 opened up the wells, it was almost immediate that 2 these dairy farms ran out of water. 3 Now, they had a lawyer in place, and 4 the guarantee at that time was that the government 5 at that time would drill the new wells, which is 6 exactly what happened. In fact, the one farm, I 7 believe it happened even a year later, and it 8 happened December 22, a really good time to have 9 that happen. But, yes, they did come in and they 10 drilled them new wells at the government's 11 expense. 12 I guess my concern is the same here. 13 Being probably a community that is at the 14 forefront of a disaster that could potentially 15 happen, because our aquifer is right next to the 16 well that you are talking about. For myself, we 17 are running a third generation cattle ranch, we 18 have got two Artesian wells that are running. The 19 one Artesian well is all of 60 years old and it 20 has been running all of this time. So I think I 21 will notice when there is something happening. 22 And the same way I too would like a guarantee from 23 you guys that we will be compensated, and I would 24 like that in writing. Is that possible? 25 MR. SCHELLENBERG: That is possible. 109 1 And just for the record, December 22nd isn't too 2 bad, we have been out making reparations on 3 Christmas eve and Christmas day. But, yes, it is 4 possible. And we are very sensitive to the 5 flowing wells of Marchand. As a matter of fact, 6 they were part of the presentation on Tuesday. 7 And we recognize that we have to do some 8 additional monitoring, particularly as relates to 9 that water supply. And we also recognize the 10 importance water supply plays in your community, 11 and in your particular case in your operation. So 12 we are well aware of it and we are sensitive to 13 it, and we will be watching it. 14 MR. WEINSTROM: I appreciate it. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there 16 any others? Are there other questions of the 17 proponents from -- 18 MS. GERARDY: Good morning, ladies and 19 gentlemen, my name is Bev Gerardy, I am living in 20 the town of Ste. Anne, but born and raised in RM 21 of Piney. My husband and I have four children and 22 own land in the RM of Piney. Some day we hope to 23 retire there. Today we are here to discuss water, 24 the RM of Piney water, water that has won top 25 awards for quality. While no one here is denying 110 1 the right to have quality water, it seems a shame 2 to me then how no one here is talking about how 3 much water is being used by the hog industry. I'm 4 also talking in regards to potable water. When I 5 make this comment, I'm really referring to 6 Tuesday's meeting. Today I have seen improvement 7 in topics covered. 8 Let's look at the big picture. On one 9 hand we allow the hog industry to use such large 10 amounts of our potable water, and on the other we 11 are searching for ways to pipe water to less 12 fortunate areas of our map. This upsets me. 13 Water is such an issue, we have to purchase 14 bottled water for the lack of, or poor quality of. 15 Does this picture make any sense? I think we 16 should step back and re-evaluate. 17 The argument here is, where do we get 18 water that is so in need? We also know there are 19 systems that can clean water, but the word is, it 20 is too expensive. 21 Now, let's look at the floodway. If 22 things were done properly right off the hop, we 23 wouldn't have been in the dilemma that we were in. 24 Again, the big solution was costly, but I'm sure 25 it cost more money since we did not act 111 1 accordingly. Everything costs money. Why not 2 spend more money on a project that works rather 3 than going back to fix something that we will end 4 up paying for dearly? 5 If in the case we do carry out this 6 project and the water in the RM of Piney is not 7 recovered, the RM of Piney and others suffer the 8 consequences. This is not technology. Do we want 9 to risk draining one area to supply another? You 10 are the people with degrees and diplomas. Surely, 11 with the technology of today, you can muster up a 12 plan that is effective and safe to ensure water 13 and water quality for all. We do not want -- or 14 we do not want or need a quick bandage to remedy 15 this problem, we need a positive solution that 16 will allow us to move ahead and not cause us 17 problems down the road. This project requires 18 further studies, that is evident. 19 Apparently, the proponent shows little 20 concern or regards to this matter. I say one 21 thing, being overconfident in regards to anything 22 is not necessarily a good thing. No one here is 23 questioning the strong importance of water. 24 Questions I don't have answers to are as follows: 25 Number 1, how much water is available and how much 112 1 of that is needed? 2 What is the estimate for the number of 3 years Sandilands will remain to have water before 4 its assets are depleted? 5 Number 3, and then what, what is plan 6 B and C and D, and so forth? My guess, since we 7 really didn't receive an answer on Tuesday, is 8 there isn't much concern. Since the RM of Piney 9 is a large area with good quality water and with 10 little population to cause a dispute over, you 11 will just be able to pick a spot. 12 Number 4, what are the number of 13 domestic wells in the vicinity of your plans, and 14 how will they be affected negatively, positively? 15 The case of different scenarios, that should be 16 projected in your plans. In a nutshell, this 17 project does not leave me feeling secure. While 18 I'm not against piped water, as it is a 19 requirement to sustain our well-being, I am 20 opposed to this project. I too would like to 21 maintain the lifestyle of running water in the 22 years to come. I'm convinced generations after us 23 will carry the same concerns. There are many 24 components to consider, including respecting the 25 concerns for those who may be affected by your 113 1 actions. Thank you. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now, are 3 there any other questions for the proponents at 4 this time? 5 I think we can probably let you 6 gentlemen leave the table. Thank you very much 7 for your responses. 8 Mr. Koroluk, did you have a question 9 or two? You have to leave at noon, is that 10 correct? 11 MR. KOROLUK: Yes, I do. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: And you had a question 13 or two for one of the officials from Water 14 Stewardship? 15 MR. KOROLUK: Yes. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: And it won't take long? 17 MR. KOROLUK: No. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Which gentleman? 19 THE WITNESS: Probably Mr. Matthews. 20 MS. JOHNSON: I would like to add some 21 exhibits to the list. A left over item from 22 Tuesday evening, Mr. Zacharias presentation will 23 be exhibit 34. All of the documents that Mr. 24 Koroluk provided today will be exhibits 35 through 25 51. Number 52 will be Dr. Brooks' presentation. 114 1 Number 53 will be the questions and answers that 2 Mr. Koroluk referred to the Pembina Valley Water 3 Co-op. And number 54 will be the Kennedy and 4 Woodbury article referred to by Mr. Halek. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6 Mr. Matthews, could you state your name for the 7 record please? 8 ( MR. MATTHEWS, SWORN) 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Koroluk. 10 MR. KOROLUK: Yes, very briefly, thank 11 you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity. 12 I just wanted to ask Mr. Matthews, 13 this is a standard question that we tend to ask 14 over the years when we have these type of 15 hearings. It is related I guess to the resources 16 and staffing within the department. I wanted to 17 know what the latest figure now is for the status 18 of total backlogs in terms of licences that are 19 expired or any applications? 20 MR. MATTHEWS: I don't have that 21 information here. 22 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. Do you have any 23 status of unused allocations in the province at 24 this current time? 25 MR. MATTHEWS: What do you mean by 115 1 unused? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Used allocations of 3 what? 4 MR. KOROLUK: Of water, they have a 5 permit, but they are not using their water? 6 MR. MATTHEWS: Are you saying province 7 wide? 8 MR. KOROLUK: Yes. 9 MR. MATTHEWS: In what industry or 10 what sector? 11 MR. KOROLUK: Total figure? 12 MR. MATTHEWS: No. Under the Water 13 Rights Act you are given an allocation based on 14 your need upfront, and if over time that you are 15 not using that amount of water and there is a 16 compelling need to claw that back, we claw it back 17 either at the point of need or at the time the 18 licence is renewed. And licences are issued for a 19 specific amount of time. In the livestock 20 industry, it is ten years and they have to 21 reapply. In the case of a municipal licence, it 22 is 20 years and so on. So if the usage is out of 23 balance at that time, that's an appropriate time 24 to make an adjustment to the licence. 25 MR. KOROLUK: Are you aware of any of 116 1 those types of licences that might be in the 2 Pembina Valley water supply network area? 3 MR. MATTHEWS: No, I'm not. 4 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. It would be 5 worthwhile to check it out, though, wouldn't it? 6 MR. MATTHEWS: I took your question to 7 mean am I actually aware of it, in other words, am 8 I aware of it and doing nothing about it? My 9 answer to you is, no, I'm not aware of a situation 10 where there is an excess amount of water and we 11 are doing nothing about clawing it back. 12 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. And I guess 13 through this exercise, I mean, we were trying to 14 get an idea of a water budget of the total supply 15 area, all of the municipalities in that area, and 16 trying to figure out how much Pembina Valley Water 17 Co-op is using, and how much the irrigators are 18 using, et cetera, and how much agriculture is 19 using. And you had mentioned that there is some 20 new applications in that region that are sort of 21 on the queue; am I correct? 22 MR. MATTHEWS: You will have to flesh 23 that out a bit, I'm not sure what you are 24 referring to. 25 MR. KOROLUK: Well, there are 117 1 applications in that region, currently people are 2 applying to get a water rights licence. 3 MR. MATTHEWS: The table that I 4 provided to you, and Dr. Brooks kindly gave it to 5 me -- is it the second version, Dr. Brooks? 6 DR. BROOKS: No, that is the first 7 version. 8 MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, close enough. 9 You will notice that the irrigation use, for 10 example, and we talked about that in the days 11 leading up to this hearing via email, is that up 12 in the RM of Dufferin on the Boyne River that's 13 from the system that's been mentioned by Mr. 14 Schellenberg as being fully allocated, so there 15 really aren't any applications, therefore, that we 16 could entertain from that area. If you get down 17 around in the Stanley area, the Morden, Winkler 18 area, it is my understanding that those ephemeral 19 streams are also essentially booked out for water 20 availability. 21 MR. KOROLUK: So you are saying then 22 the outstanding applications in front of the 23 department right now are being reviewed? 24 MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, that's correct, 25 there is a number of them that are in a long 118 1 process, in the irrigation industry in particular, 2 that have been under review for a number of years. 3 And that appears, that number appears in here, 4 that's not a number that didn't appear in here. 5 Because you asked, when you asked for this table 6 you said you wanted kind of all in table one that 7 had projects for which we had already issued a 8 licence and projects that were under application. 9 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. So my question 10 then is, if you have all of these applications 11 under review within the area, and we have an 12 entity who operates and has valid licences in the 13 area, I'm hearing that they have to find water 14 from another region of the province. So how do 15 you make a decision as to who gets water in the 16 same region? 17 MR. MATTHEWS: The Water Rights Act, 18 the philosophy of the Water Rights Act which we 19 share with the rest of, much of the rest of 20 western North America is called the first in 21 right, first in time principle -- first in time, 22 first in right principle. And essentially those 23 who apply first have the senior water rights. But 24 it is not that simple, because it depends on the 25 water source that's available. So, for instance 119 1 the water source that the irrigators use in the RM 2 of Stanley, between Morden and Winkler is how I 3 think of it, those water sources are the ephemeral 4 streams. And we have been told by the proponent 5 that impounding of water from ephemeral streams 6 would not be suitable for a municipal supply, 7 given alternatives. So, in other words, very 8 often there isn't a competing use on any 9 particular water supply, water source. Also it is 10 quite true that very little of the water that has 11 been allocated in this area comes out of 12 groundwater, with the exception of the Winkler 13 aquifer and a little in the upper Boyne. There 14 just aren't the aquifers in that area. 15 MR. KOROLUK: I do notice there are 16 licences for irrigation utilizing groundwater on 17 your chart? 18 MR. MATTHEWS: Where is that, Glen? 19 RM of Dufferin, surface water irrigation 20 allocation, 2,410 dams a year, ground water 10 21 dams a year. 22 MR. KOROLUK: Groundwater RM of 23 Franklin 62, groundwater RM of Rhineland 85. 24 MR. MATTHEWS: Just a minute, Glen. 25 That's 85 versus 1,702 for surface water. It is a 120 1 minor amount of water. 2 MR. KOROLUK: I'm just making the 3 point that groundwater is being used for 4 irrigation. 5 MR. MATTHEWS: And 85 cubic dams is a 6 very small amount of water compared to the 7 licenses for the proponent on the Red River. 8 MR. KOROLUK: I'm aware of that. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Koroluk, I'm just 10 trying to figure out where you are going with 11 these questions? How is that relevant to the 12 issue before us? 13 MR. KOROLUK: I guess the point that I 14 want to make, Mr. Chair, is that we have spent a 15 good time in the pre-hearings trying to assess, 16 trying to establish a water budget. And we 17 weren't able to get the exact numbers from both 18 the proponent and the regulator as to -- if you 19 look into that entire region, we don't know 20 exactly how the water is used. For one, all of 21 the units are different; for two, they define use 22 categories different. And our point is it is very 23 important, if we are going to start taking water 24 from other parts of the province, that we have to 25 at least have an understanding as to how we are 121 1 using this water in a particular region. So this 2 is some of the stuff that we would have cleared up 3 weeks ago, but it just didn't happen. But on 4 saying that, I think I will close my questions. 5 And just to make the point that it is very 6 important to have a water budget. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now the 8 document that you were referring to, has that been 9 filed with us? We will need a copy of that. 10 MR. KOROLUK: I'm not sure, but, yes, 11 you can have a copy. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you can get 13 Joyce to make photocopies for our records. Thank 14 you very much, Mr. Matthews. 15 I would propose that we take a break 16 for lunch now. Please be back and ready to go at 17 1:15. 18 (Proceedings recessed at 12:04 and 19 reconvened at 1:15 p.m.) 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come back to 21 order, please. For the first little while this 22 afternoon, we have a couple of officials from the 23 department of Water Stewardship who are going to 24 answer some questions from members of the panel, 25 largely or almost specifically in respect of 122 1 policy issues. 2 Mr. Betcher, we have heard and we have 3 read a fair bit about watershed planning and sort 4 of regional planning for water uses. What is the 5 philosophy behind that? What is it and how would 6 that play into what we are considering today? 7 MR. BETCHER: I will just wait. I can 8 give a bit of a presentation on what we are doing 9 in terms of looking at regional water supplies, 10 and how we are trying to evaluate sort of 11 groundwater systems to determine the overall 12 sustainable yield and how to manage those 13 aquifers. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: That would be helpful. 15 MR. BETCHER: Okay. I could try that 16 one. I'm only answering things that I have the 17 answer on here for. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 19 MR. BETCHER: I guess we could start 20 with this; what is the Provincial role in aquifer 21 management in the province? And from a studies 22 point of view, our role is to broadly examine all 23 of the aquifers in the province, and try and 24 develop an understanding of these aquifers. So we 25 can classify our roles as first developing a broad 123 1 understanding of the occurrence of aquifers, how 2 aquifers and aquitards interrelate, 3 groundwater/surface water interrelationships and 4 understanding groundwater quality and its 5 distribution within aquifers or aquifer systems. 6 We also carry out studies that allow 7 us to work towards an understanding of sustainable 8 withdrawals of groundwater from aquifers, 9 obviously this is a very complex area, and it 10 varies from aquifer to aquifer. Our section also 11 carries out broad scale groundwater monitoring. 12 We have somewhere in the area of 550 active 13 groundwater monitoring stations in the province, 14 and these are related to both water levels in 15 aquifers, and monitoring water quality in 16 aquifers, both in areas that are influenced by and 17 pumping effects and areas that are outside of 18 human impact in just recording natural conditions. 19 Fairly recently we have really gone 20 into a program where we feel that what we should 21 be doing to manage aquifers or aquifer systems is 22 to work to develop three dimensional and two 23 dimensional groundwater models of these systems. 24 In other words, we need some mechanism whereby all 25 of the information that we have on the 124 1 hydrogeology and the geology of aquifers, the 2 information that we have on where pumping is 3 occurring, perhaps where recharge is occurring, 4 where discharge is occurring, where wetlands 5 occur. What we want to do is integrate all of 6 that into one system, so when we come to issues 7 like this we don't sort of do a quick calculation 8 or a calculation which doesn't include a regional 9 influence. So we feel that ten years from now, 10 hopefully, we will have developed mathematical 11 models for quite a number of our aquifer systems. 12 And we have just recently hired a 13 hydrogeologist to start working on doing that type 14 of thing. 15 Our other role is from our studies to 16 provide numbers essentially to water rights. That 17 is, what is the sustainable yield of an aquifer or 18 a portion of an aquifer? We provide that to water 19 rights. Water rights uses that number and 20 allocates water essentially up to that number. 21 So the first area actually that we are 22 looking at in terms of developing a regional 23 ground water model is the area essentially from 24 the capital region to the Sandilands and perhaps a 25 little bit past the Sandilands. And the 125 1 information that we would like to put into this 2 model includes the geology, the information that 3 we have on the hydraulic properties of aquifers 4 and aquitards, so that's all of the aquifers and 5 aquitards essentially from Precambrian right up to 6 ground surface. Any information that we may have 7 on recharge and discharge, for instance, we know 8 the discharge to the floodway, and we know 9 approximately where that occurs. So that's 10 something that you could use as input into a model 11 or alternately you could prepare your model 12 results or model predictions to what we actually 13 know is occurring. We put in surface water 14 boundaries, surface water bodies, where it drains, 15 wetlands, rivers and creeks. We would also input 16 into the system groundwater withdrawals, how much 17 water is licensed for withdrawal in various 18 places. And where we know them, we would also put 19 in groundwater quality boundaries. This is not 20 really a -- I didn't quite come prepared to talk 21 about groundwater quality boundaries, but in 22 essence in the carbonate aquifer the fresh 23 water/salt water boundary runs something like 24 this. So, in other words, in these areas in the 25 carbonate aquifer we have fresh water, and in 126 1 these areas we only have saline water. In the 2 Winnipeg formation it is somewhat different, it 3 sort of runs like this and then heads out to 4 Beausejour and back, and then goes somewhere up in 5 the Interlake. So we actually have a different 6 fresh water/salt water boundary in those two 7 aquifers. And that's something that we would want 8 to include and incorporate in the model. Because 9 certainly one of the concerns and something that 10 Mr. Render raised, was can we affect the fresh 11 water/salt water boundary. And I think the 12 primary concern there is having a high capacity 13 well very near the boundary. And that's certainly 14 not something that's occurring with this, with 15 this proposal. We are not near any fresh 16 water/salt water boundary, so we don't see a 17 direct effect from this proposal on a boundary. 18 The issue that does become, and if you 19 look in the Woodbury Kennedy paper that's 20 discussed as well, is the question of how much 21 water can we develop in this entire area? What is 22 the sustainable yield of this entire area? And as 23 we approach that sustainable yield, would we start 24 seeing effects on the fresh water/salt water 25 boundary? In other words, if we pump so much 127 1 water out of this area, remove that water from the 2 ground water system, will we in fact lower the 3 heads enough that this boundary will start to 4 shift. Our current information is that the 5 boundary, at least in the carbonate aquifer, is 6 very stable. That when we have done water 7 sampling along that boundary and compared that 8 results to the '60s and '70s, we find essentially 9 the same thing. So that boundary we don't believe 10 has moved in the past 40 years or so, or there 11 hasn't been a significant move in that boundary. 12 The Winnipeg formation is kind of 13 neat, the scientist in me is coming out -- but 14 actually the Winnipeg formation boundaries is not 15 really stable. The fresh water recharge which is 16 occurring down here, and up in other areas, is 17 actually driving the fresh water/salt water 18 boundary off to the west and north, which is a 19 very interesting situation, and really dates back 20 to geological occurrences probably 10,000 or 21 11,000 years ago, which essentially developed the 22 Sandilands and imposed a higher head and started 23 driving the salt water out. 24 So essentially those are the types of 25 things that we are looking at. In terms of this 128 1 three dimensional model, when you create a model 2 you want to try and determine whether the results 3 that you are getting out of the model are correct 4 or not, so you try and calibrate it. You can 5 calibrate it against a number of things, against 6 modeling, pumping responses, that type of thing. 7 Models as well are not static. What we see is 8 developing a model, doing the best we can, and 9 then as new information, new understanding comes 10 to us, we will incorporate that into the model, or 11 if there is another pumping centre, for instance, 12 we will then incorporate that into the model. 13 Then we see that we could -- if there is a 14 proposal for a groundwater extraction, for 15 instance, and we are concerned about it, we can 16 inject that into the model and run the model for 17 20 years, and say what is the effect of this, or 18 make our best guess at what the effect is, given 19 the reliability and accuracy of the model at that 20 point. 21 So, essentially what we see is that 22 developing these models, the models will become 23 the primary tool that we can use for groundwater 24 management over large areas, or within larger 25 aquifers. As to when the model will be ready for 129 1 this particular area, it will be quite a number of 2 years before I think we feel comfortable that we 3 have developed a model that we can use in a 4 predictive sense. 5 The person who is going to do this 6 work has just moved to Manitoba, so he has a long 7 learning curve ahead of him. He is actually out 8 today, because our first drilling program that is 9 part of the study actually began this morning. I 10 haven't got a phone call yet, but I think it began 11 this morning. So he is out on the rig and will be 12 for the next couple of months. 13 So, essentially that's the Provincial 14 role that we see in terms of examining these broad 15 scale issues that are related to groundwater 16 development. And this is the approach that we 17 have adopted, and we are going to take along with 18 a lot of other things that we are doing in terms 19 of mapping groundwater and looking at 20 geochemistry. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: So that this is sort of 22 where the legislation talks about watershed 23 management, when it hits the street, this is what 24 you are talking about, doing this kind of modeling 25 and -- 130 1 MR. BETCHER: Well, groundwater 2 systems don't necessarily follow surface 3 watersheds. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: True, yes. 5 MR. BETCHER: He is asking me to think 6 on my feet, or on my seat, as the case is. I'm 7 trying to dissuade him from doing that. 8 What we have in terms of planning is 9 we've -- the initial planning that we've done has 10 basically been on an aquifer basis. So we have 11 come up with a management plan for the Winkler 12 aquifer, we have come up with a management plan 13 for the Assiniboine-Delta aquifer. The shift now 14 provincially is towards planning on a watershed 15 basis. And in many respects aquifer planning or 16 the aquifer planning that we do on an aquifer as a 17 whole is simply the same thing that we would do in 18 a watershed, although there would be a lot of 19 other interests which would come in as part of the 20 planning process. But essentially the type of 21 thing that I'm saying that we are trying to do for 22 this part of this aquifer, if we have several 23 different watersheds within that area, our 24 approach would be that when we come in each of the 25 watershed development plans, we would do 131 1 groundwater mapping and then we would essentially 2 cut out that portion of the model and use the 3 model to help predict what is going to happen, or 4 to describe the hydrologic system within the 5 watershed. 6 I think perhaps the main extension 7 that we might see by going to watershed plans and 8 moving away from aquifer plans, is we might begin 9 to see far more interest in surface 10 water/groundwater interactions than what we have 11 seen in the past, and I think that's probably what 12 we are going to see develop as sort of more of an 13 interest by going to a watershed plan, because we 14 are deliberately getting surface water people and 15 groundwater people together and discussing mutual 16 problems, which we may not have had to address if 17 we were just doing an aquifer management plan 18 itself. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: What kind of knowledge 20 or information does Water Stewardship have in 21 respect of this specific aquifer that we are 22 considering in this hearing, the lower sand unit 23 in the Sandilands complex? 24 MR. BETCHER: Probably most of the 25 understanding that we have developed from it has 132 1 come out of this program. It is certainly the 2 most intensive drilling that's been done to look 3 at the stratigraphy. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: This program being the 5 PVWC proposal? 6 MR. BETCHER: They have done a lot 7 more intensive drilling than anyone else has done 8 in terms of the scale of the drilling and the 9 number of holes that have been installed. 10 Nonetheless, there have been a number of other 11 people who have done work -- I have an answer to 12 this one too. Hang on. 13 This is a listing, and Steve has 14 probably gone over this on Tuesday, but this is 15 essentially a summary of the amount of work that's 16 been done on the Sandilands as a whole, and you 17 have to recognize that this particular proposal is 18 only a portion of the Sandilands as a whole. The 19 Provincial interest is in the whole area, and this 20 particular study is only a part of that whole 21 area. So the initial monitoring well I think went 22 in, that was the Sandilands number 1, and I think 23 that went in in 1966. There was some geological 24 work by Teller and Fenton, who looked at the 25 geology of the area. And in 1980 and 1985 there 133 1 was regional test drilling carried out in parts of 2 the area as part of the groundwater availability 3 studies by the predecessors to our department. 4 And in 1992 the Geological Survey of Canada and 5 Industry Trade and Mines carried out rotosonic 6 drilling. In rotosonic drilling you essentially 7 collect 100 per cent core. As opposed to rotary 8 drilling where you have to figure out what you are 9 drilling through, rotosonic actually gives you the 10 core and you can take a look at the core and 11 really understand what the geology is. 12 Water stewardship also did some 13 additional test drilling and monitoring well 14 installation in the 1990s. Industry Trade and 15 Mines has been doing a lot of work over the past 16 number of years to develop three dimensional 17 geological models, and they have included the 18 Sandilands area in this, and we have had quite a 19 bit of discussion with them as to the origin of 20 the Sandilands, because when you are doing 21 hydrogeology you have to understand geology, and 22 if you can understand the origin of the deposits, 23 often you can make some broad assumptions as to 24 the continuity of individual aquifers. While you 25 may only explore in a certain area, if you know 134 1 how the deposit was made, you would be able to 2 make an assumption that this is probably 3 interconnected on a very broad scale. That's part 4 of the geological input, this type of thing. 5 And other studies, and Steve has 6 mentioned these, were the study by Andrew Cherry, 7 PhD work by Grant Ferguson, and in 2000 the 8 Geological Survey of Canada has done quite a bit 9 of work in here, and that's part of the thesis 10 that were done as well, and they have left some 11 installations that are looking at recharge rates 12 and ages of groundwater. There has been some 13 seismic reflection studies done by the Geological 14 Survey of Canada. The idea of seismic reflection 15 is to try and give you an idea of the continuity 16 of geologic units from place to place. As 17 hydrogeologists we come in and drill a hole here 18 and here, but often we don't have money to drill 19 holes in between. So we will interconnect this 20 unit with this unit. And in most cases we have a 21 pretty good idea of that. One of the difficulties 22 here is that we don't really have good marker 23 beds, so extending over large distances becomes 24 difficult. So the GSC has done seismic work, 25 which is intended to help us understand the 135 1 geology of the area. So that hasn't been all that 2 extensive to date, but it is certainly a nice 3 approach. 4 That's what we have done in the 5 Sandilands. We had hoped to do additional 6 drilling this year but we ran out of money in our 7 drilling budget, but we do hope as part of the 8 three dimensional model development we will be 9 able to come in next year and do quite a bit of 10 drilling in the Sandilands area as a whole, not 11 just around this area. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there 13 anything, or what does Provincial legislation or 14 policy say, if anything, about the allocation of 15 water in the province? Like the allocation of 16 good water from an area that has an abundance to 17 an area that doesn't have enough? Is there 18 anything in legislation or policy in that respect? 19 MR. MATTHEWS: If I understand what 20 you are asking, is there a policy permitting or 21 prohibiting transfer of water from one location to 22 another? Is that the nature of your question? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Prohibiting or even 24 allowing, does it say anything about how water can 25 be moved from one area to another? 136 1 MR. MATTHEWS: Well, there is an Act, 2 about a four page Act called the Water Resources 3 Conservation Act that appears to speak to that 4 issue. But really the Act comes without any 5 regulations, and it talks about prohibiting the 6 transfer of untreated water across the Continental 7 Divide; the Continental Divide being the one 8 between the Hudson Bay drainage basin and the 9 adjacent drainage basins of the Missouri River or 10 the Mississippi River. And we are not talking 11 about that in this case and we are not talking 12 about untreated water either. I don't know if 13 that's -- 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yesterday, not 15 yesterday, but Tuesday Mr. Koroluk talked about 16 that piece of legislation, and about sub basin to 17 sub basin, and that that Act prohibits sub basin 18 to sub basin. What would be a sub basin? 19 MR. MATTHEWS: Two aspects to that; a 20 sub basin hasn't been defined under the Act, 21 neither in the Act or in regulation, as I said 22 there is no regulation on it, so essentially the 23 Act is silent on what a sub basin would be. But 24 we understand it to be, from just our working 25 knowledge of it to be, for example, the Red River 137 1 sub basin, the Assiniboine River sub basin, and 2 the Winnipeg River sub basin and in the north the 3 Seal River sub basin and so on. So the Act is not 4 helpful because of that, because we don't have the 5 sub basins defined. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Now I'm not sure that 7 this comes under your department, but I will ask 8 it anyway and if it doesn't you can say so. We 9 have heard a fair bit about a flow agreement 10 across the international border for the Red River. 11 Do you know if anything is being done to pursue 12 that, sort of actively being done to pursue a 13 minimum flow agreement? 14 MR. MATTHEWS: My supervisor, Steve 15 Topping, who I believe you know from other 16 matters, provided me with some information on 17 that. And what has essentially been presented is 18 that the International Red River Board, which is 19 an IJC board, and it is made up of Provincial, 20 state and Federal representatives, that board is 21 responsible for resolving inter-jurisdictional 22 water issues, and to provide advice to the IJC on 23 the administration of the 1909 boundary waters 24 treaty. At the present time there is no 25 apportionment agreement on the Red River. And the 138 1 IRB, the board, has established an 2 inter-jurisdictional committee with a mandate to 3 provide options for the development of an 4 apportionment or minimum flow proposal for the 5 Red. This committee will likely table its 6 findings within the next 12 months for discussion 7 at the board level. And this has come up a couple 8 of times over the last few days, and one thing 9 that I have not noticed anybody mention is no 10 matter what that agreement entails, if we do get 11 one, of course, it can not guarantee a flow. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course. But that 13 last scenario would be a natural situation, 14 wouldn't it? 15 MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, that's right, and 16 that's the purpose of the project, as I understand 17 it. 18 MR. GIBBONS: Maybe one quick one, and 19 I'm not sure who among you might answer this, but 20 we have heard it said earlier that alternative 21 water supply solutions, such as impoundment and 22 whatnot, would not seem to be feasible in dealing 23 with the kinds of issues that the PVWC is dealing 24 with. Is that also the position of the Water 25 Stewardship department in terms of whether 139 1 something could be done in those regards? Is 2 that, in your perspective, not a feasible element 3 as well? Is there agreements, in other words, 4 between the proponent and the department in this 5 matter? 6 MR. MATTHEWS: I think that question 7 would go to someone else ideally than myself or 8 Bob. It is really, it is probably a question that 9 a man like Don Rocan would be better placed to 10 answer because it is an engineering question. It 11 is a question of the engineering economics of 12 storing water in large impoundments, and also the 13 health aspects of having open water reservoirs 14 exposed to bird life and so on. So those are 15 really engineering questions that I'm not prepared 16 to answer. 17 MR. GIBBONS: But in effect then what 18 you are saying is that there is no policy position 19 now from the department on that particular matter 20 then? 21 MR. MATTHEWS: I can't answer that 22 either, it is an issue related to the office of 23 drinking water on whether or not -- in one sense 24 it is related to the office of drinking water 25 whether or not that would be a suitable way to 140 1 provide a reservoir of water that would be 2 ultimately used for potable purposes. If you 3 think about the City of Winnipeg, as I understand 4 it, they, over the years, have closed in their 5 reservoirs that they have within the city because 6 of faecal coliform impacts from the birds flying 7 over and swimming in it and so on. The same 8 problem would exist in the open reservoirs. The 9 reason that the irrigators can use it down in the 10 countryside is they don't have worry about the 11 faecal coliform count and they don't have to store 12 it over a winter. So from a practical matter, I 13 can't comment on it, but as a layperson it seems 14 there would be difficulties with that. 15 MR. GIBBONS: Thank you. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I just had a brilliant 17 question whip right through my brain and go out 18 the other side, and I'm trying to recall what it 19 was. 20 Now you said, Mr. Betcher, that I 21 think you are just starting this aquifer planning 22 or aquifer modeling, and it is going to take any 23 number of years, even just for this one region, 24 and province-wide that much longer? 25 MR. BETCHER: Yes. Certainly beyond 141 1 my career. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly beyond mine 3 then. Is there any, or what, if anything, is the 4 province doing in respect of sort of province-wide 5 strategic planning for extended periods of drought 6 in respect of supplying water? 7 MR. BETCHER: I don't know myself. 8 You know, I tend to be a somewhat insular person 9 and tend to stay within the groundwater section, 10 so there could be quite a bit of work going on in 11 that, but I wouldn't necessarily be aware of it. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. 13 MR. HALKET: What is the province 14 doing in terms of linking the water resources 15 within a watershed? And if I understand you 16 correctly here, it seems to me that you are 17 working with the aquifers? Are you linking, for 18 example, the Assiniboine-Delta aquifer, is that 19 being linked with the Assiniboine River and also 20 with atmospheric conditions within the watershed? 21 Is it a total watershed model being prepared or 22 just an aquifer model? 23 MR. MATTHEWS: The Assiniboine-Delta 24 aquifer plan, and Bob can pick up on this, the 25 water budget for the Assiniboine-Delta aquifer 142 1 assumes that a certain component of it leaks out 2 the bottom, so to speak, in the creeks and in the 3 major two rivers, and that in that sense we 4 understand it to be linked. So there is -- the 5 sustainable yield on that aquifer was set to allow 6 for a certain component of what is recharge to the 7 aquifer to sustain base flow in the Assiniboine 8 River, as well as some of the creeks and so on. I 9 don't know if that gets close to answering your 10 question or not, but that's the type of thing 11 that's done there. Bob was saying earlier that 12 really watershed management planning and aquifer 13 planning are two things that are hard to put 14 together, because in some cases, like for 15 instance, the Assiniboine-Delta aquifer which is 16 the so called surficial or unconfined aquifer, 17 really it sits over the top of the hydrology in a 18 sense, and you have got the two major water basins 19 there, so we could end up having a watershed 20 management plan for the Whitemud and one for the 21 Assiniboine River, and then maybe a third one for 22 the Souris. So those three surficial -- the 23 watersheds actually take a piece out of the 24 surficial aquifer, the Assiniboine-Delta aquifer. 25 It doesn't lend itself easily to integrate these 143 1 aquifers into specific watersheds. They either 2 drape across watersheds or they sit, as in the 3 case of the bedrock aquifers would, like the 4 carbonate aquifer or the limestone aquifer running 5 from the Interlake down through this area, it sits 6 silently underneath a lot of these watersheds. It 7 is not something that is easy to integrate in that 8 way. 9 Yes, there is a connection, water does 10 move from one to the other, but to actually say 11 that the boundary for a watershed is the same as 12 the boundary for the aquifer, it almost never 13 happens on the prairies. 14 MR. BETCHER: For the 15 Assiniboine-Delta aquifer, I think maybe a direct 16 answer to your question is that Al Woodbury at the 17 U of M is working with a post doc and a PhD 18 student and some other people to try and develop a 19 model which would integrate surface water, the 20 atmosphere and groundwater. They essentially are 21 looking at climate predictions and such, but they 22 want to integrate a climate prediction into the 23 amount of recharge that may occur and how that 24 would affect the groundwater system. I think they 25 started working on that about a year ago, and they 144 1 faced a few very difficult problems. So this is 2 long range research which they are looking into to 3 try and integrate the entire systems, the 4 atmosphere right through to the groundwater. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6 MR. HALKET: So the province -- it is 7 my understanding that the province is embarking on 8 a new watershed sort of planning strategy, water 9 management strategy. And from what I'm hearing 10 here is that the aquifer systems, they are hard to 11 integrate into that strategy; is that what you are 12 saying, in terms of looking at watersheds? 13 MR. MATTHEWS: The boundaries do not 14 coincide. 15 MR. BETCHER: What we are doing, 16 though, is that when -- I think the concept is 17 that over the next ten years a watershed 18 management plan will be developed for each of the 19 watersheds in the province. So what we are doing 20 in the groundwater section, is we've essentially 21 bought into this, and when the planning begins for 22 a watershed management plan, we become involved 23 and we take that opportunity to carry out regional 24 groundwater mapping or revise our regional, or 25 existing regional groundwater maps on watershed 145 1 basis to encompass that watershed. And then we 2 carry out other studies such as looking at age 3 dating the groundwater, the geochemistry of the 4 groundwater, and hopefully what this will lead to 5 is on a watershed basis, a better integration of 6 groundwater with surface water issues. For many 7 of our streams, for instance, we don't have a good 8 idea of what the groundwater component is, what 9 the base flow is. On some of the streams we do, 10 but on many streams we don't. 11 So this is certainly one of the issues 12 that we could start taking a look at and do that 13 on a watershed basis. That will depend on the 14 amount of surface water monitoring stations there 15 are, for instance. If there isn't a station on 16 the major river in that watershed, that's 17 something that you just couldn't do a base flow 18 analysis. But this is how we are provincially 19 trying to integrate surface water and groundwater 20 on a watershed basis and groundwater is a 21 significant component of that. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 23 Mr. Schellenberg, do you or either of your 24 associates have any questions? Thank you very 25 much, gentlemen. It has been very helpful. 146 1 Now, when they have cleared the table 2 we will have presentations from a number of 3 individuals, some representing municipalities, 4 Mr. Rick Martel, I believe, is up first. 5 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, while we have 6 a short break I would like to add a few more 7 exhibits. The table that Mr. Koroluk referred to 8 this morning will be exhibit 55, and Mr. Betcher's 9 information that he just presented will be number 10 56. 11 (RICHARD MARTEL, SWORN) 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 13 MR. MARTEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 14 Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. It gives me 15 pleasure today to make this presentation to you. 16 I'm speaking for and on behalf of the Town of 17 Altona, the RM of Rhineland, the Town of Plum 18 Coulee and the Town of Gretna. At one point or 19 another today they were all present. I'm going to 20 refrain from making introductions because I'm not 21 sure who is all still here, and that way I won't 22 miss somebody. 23 To understand water in the Red River 24 Valley you need to have a brief history of the 25 lower Red River Valley Water Commission. Acute 147 1 shortages of water west of the Red River to the 2 Pembina Hills Escarpment and damage of spring 3 flooding led to many meetings in the area in the 4 1940s and 1950s. 440 concerned citizens met at a 5 mass meeting in Winkler, Manitoba, on December 5, 6 1955 to find a solution to this problem. 7 On December 13, 1956, the Red River 8 Valley Development Association, the predecessor to 9 the Lower Red River Valley Water Commission, was 10 formed in Morris, Manitoba. In January, the board 11 met and the executive was instructed to do three 12 things. And these are interesting because they 13 have come up, all three of them, here in the last 14 two days. They were instructed to meet with the 15 Winnipeg Water District Board to discuss a 16 pipeline from Winnipeg to the main communities in 17 the valley. That was the first attempt to make an 18 agreement with Winnipeg -- that was over 50 years 19 ago -- to ask the government to do an engineering 20 study of a pipeline from Winnipeg, and to obtain 21 government support for a dam on the Pembina River 22 for flood control, water irrigation. And in 23 August 1957 a report from Arthur D. Little on the 24 Lower Red River Valley Water System was received 25 and studied by the board. 148 1 In November of 1957 the board met with 2 representatives of Manitoba government and 3 presented them with a brief that included four 4 points. 5 Number one, a water authority to be 6 set up by the government for the valley, and an 7 engineering study to begin immediately. 8 Number two, that we recommend the 9 construction of the Stephenfield dam. 10 Three, that we recommend the 11 development on the Pembina dam. 12 And number 4, that we recommend the 13 construction of a pipeline grid, connecting all of 14 the towns and villages in the valley. 15 It is interesting to note that of 16 those four, one is completed 50 years later. 17 The Water Supply Districts Act was 18 passed in April 1958, and the Lower Red River 19 Valley Water Commission was formed with 19 20 municipality members, who today are all members of 21 the Pembina Valley Water Co-op. 22 By February of 1959, the government 23 agreed to establish the public utility which would 24 sell water to the water districts constructed. 25 The Commission requested the government to start 149 1 negotiations with the City of Neche, North Dakota 2 in mid April, 1959 that lead to an agreement to 3 supply water to Gretna and Altona by pipeline. 4 In August 1959 the Manitoba Water 5 Services Board Act was passed. And in 1960 at a 6 meeting in Winkler the executive instructed the 7 Commission to take a more positive action to bring 8 water storage in the valley to the attention of 9 the government. The executive recommended the 10 following: 11 In the southern section; they consider 12 the dam on the Roseau River. Number 2, 13 consideration of the dam on the Pembina River in 14 Canada. And number 3, design and estimate a 15 pipeline to serve the towns in the southern 16 section. 17 In the northern section; consideration 18 of the dam on the Boyne River; consideration of a 19 dam on the Assiniboine River; and design and 20 estimate of a pipeline to serve the towns in the 21 northern section. 22 In December of 1960 the executive 23 dealt with the dam on the Boyne River, a water 24 pipeline to Winkler and Plum Coulee, and dams on 25 the Pembina and Roseau Rivers. By April 1961 the 150 1 Town of Morden had requested another dam on the 2 Dead Horse Creek, because they felt that any water 3 taken out of the reserve for use downstream would 4 endanger their own supply. Later in May, test 5 wells were being drilled at Winkler and an 6 engineering study of the Winkler distribution 7 system was complete, and that would be the 8 aquifer. 9 In October of the same year 10 Mr. Griffiths stated that the PFRA was now agreed 11 that they would build the Stephenfield dam. This 12 project would be under construction by the summer 13 of 1980. He also reported on the requested dams 14 in Morris, Roseau River, and Tobacco Creek, as 15 well as the status of the Morden, Winkler and Plum 16 Coulee water supply. 17 By April of 1965 St. Jean and 18 Letellier also accepted the proposal from the 19 Water Supply Board and approved construction of 20 a distribution centre. Then the mayor of Gretna, 21 Peter Loewen, also reported the construction of a 22 pipeline to Gretna and Neche had started, and that 23 the Canadian government will sell water to Neche, 24 water from Neche to the U.S. Federal governments, 25 which was rather unique at the time; shipped it to 151 1 Canada and turned around and shipped it right back 2 to customs so they would have access to water. 3 Ring dykes around Emerson, Morris and 4 St. Jean were approved by November of 1966 to an 5 elevation of the 1950 flood levels. And the 6 government agreed to contribute up to $500 of 7 protection of farm buildings, in Morris, Montcalm 8 and MacDonald municipalities. 265 applications 9 for such assistance were received. 10 At that time Mr. T.E. Weber also spoke 11 at length on the water problems throughout the 12 area, replying to a number of questions from 13 commissioners. 14 By December of 1967 the Tobacco Creek 15 project was well underway, as were the drainage 16 and dyking projects throughout the valley. 17 Discussions were held on the Aux Marais River and 18 the Gretna drain, and the problems this was 19 causing on both sides of border. Two years later 20 a report of additional ground water supplies had 21 been found in the Winkler area and additional 22 storage had to be created at Neche by raising the 23 dam, hoping these supplies would be ample until 24 the Pembina project was built. Petitions were 25 received from the farmers in the Aux Marias area 152 1 in June of 1978 in regards to perennial flooding, 2 and the R.S. McKenzie report on the Carman flood, 3 and asked the Commission to support the resolution 4 to the government for the diversion of the Boyne 5 River around Carman. Two years later T.E. Weber 6 reported that a committee had been set up to deal 7 with water problems on the U.S. border near the 8 Aux Marias, and other valley water problems were 9 discussed. 10 Representatives of the RM of Pembina, 11 the Villages of Manitou and LaRiviere attended and 12 showed much interest in the briefs the Commission 13 had made to Governments, and would support briefs 14 urging the construction of the Pembina dam, and 15 expressed concerns regarding drought in the area. 16 March 19, 1973 a brief presentation to 17 the Manitoba Water Commission was done in Morden, 18 urging construction of a dam on the Pembina River 19 near Kaleida. 20 In April of 1973 the area was 21 experiencing drought conditions and a letter was 22 forwarded to Premier Schreyer requesting 23 discussion on the Pembina River basin project as a 24 last alternative whether the Commission would 25 consider a dam on the Pembina on their own. By 153 1 January 1974, Mr. Weber also mentioned the 2 problems of the Garrison dam diversion, and a 3 presentation to the Honourable Sidney Green was 4 prepared regarding the flooding along the U.S. 5 border, and requesting the Canadian participation 6 for the construction of the Pembelier dam. 7 In February 1975 more discussion was 8 held on the Morden dam, Carman flood protection, 9 Aux Marias, Buffalo Creek and the Roseau River 10 projects. And by the fall of that year the 11 Commission went on record in expressing their 12 concerns and opposition to the Garrison Diversion 13 project as presently envisioned. 14 Other matters discussed included the 15 Pembelier dam, Dead Horse Creek, Carman flood 16 protection, and Roseau River basin project. By 17 the end of 1976 a resolution from Morden regarding 18 a weir on the Morris River and further discussion 19 and support on the Carman diversion from the 20 Commission was expressed. 21 An agreement regarding the flood plain 22 mapping was to be signed in Ottawa, and Morden 23 members brought up the desire to have another dam 24 built on Dead Horse Creek, and a Miami member 25 expressed concerns about the wells running dry. 154 1 Discussion on the two dam proposal on the Pembina 2 River was continued in April 1977. It was 3 reported that Premier Lyon made the following 4 remarks at a meeting in Miami, "When we form the 5 next government, we will take steps to reactivate 6 the Pembina project." By April of 1979 Tom Weber 7 brought the Commission up to date on various 8 projects in the commission area. These included 9 the Pembina river dams, additional water storage 10 at Dead Horse Creek, Aux Marais and Roseau River 11 projects, Carman flood protection and Gretna. 12 A lengthy discussion ensued on the 13 Carman Diversion, the Bryson project, Garrison 14 dam, the pollution from the U.S. on the Red River, 15 a study on providing water for Rosenfeld and other 16 matters. By the end of June of that year, 34 17 local briefs were presented at a meeting in 18 regards to the flooding on the Boyne River at 19 Carman. There was also reports from six 20 municipalities regarding the flooding west of 21 Carman in the Rural Municipality of Dufferin, as 22 well as flooding on both sides of the Red River 23 along with a number of other commissioners spoke 24 about flood damage in their area. 25 At a meeting in July of 1979 the 155 1 following concerns were discussed with Provincial 2 Cabinet at the legislative building in Winnipeg. 3 The request from the Town of Morden, Winkler, and 4 RM of Stanley for a second dam on Dead Horse 5 Creek; a diversion channel on the Boyne River, 6 north of Carman; the Pembina River basin project, 7 and flooding along the Red River. Briefs were 8 presented to cabinet on these various concerns and 9 lengthy discussions followed. In November of 1979 10 the executive met with members of the Provincial 11 Cabinet again to review the various concerns and 12 projects in the commission area. 13 In Carman the matter was being given 14 the active consideration and a decision was to be 15 made shortly. Mr. Ransom at that time said, "Our 16 government has recognized that cost benefits may 17 now have to have a ratio of one to one and that 18 other non monetary benefits also have to be taken 19 into consideration." 20 The Red River flooding problem on the 21 Red cannot be dealt with independently by only 22 Manitoba, as much of the water originates in the 23 U.S. Discussions were held by the Premier and the 24 Governors of North Dakota and Minnesota, and these 25 discussions are still ongoing. 156 1 The Roseau River project which had 2 been on the back burner by the U.S. government and 3 no further activity of that has been reported 4 until just the last couple of years. 5 The Pembelier dam, the Aux Marais and 6 the South Buffalo have to be considered as one 7 package and dealt between governments accordingly. 8 The government decided not to 9 construct an upstream dam on Dead Horse Creek but 10 to raise the existing dam on Lake Minnewasta, and 11 this was in April of 1980. In October the Army 12 Corp of Engineers looked at raising the height of 13 the Pembelier dam which would back up water into 14 Manitoba. Reported progress was made on the 15 Morden dam. The Aux Marais and South Branch of 16 the Buffalo Lake proposal was back on track. And 17 discussions were held on the Carman diversion, the 18 Garrison, the Emerson dykes, the 19 Altona-Gretna-Rhineland water supply as well. 20 Location of the water treatment plants for the 21 towns along the Red River was brought up for 22 discussion. 23 In the 1980's planning proceeded on 24 the regional water supply project, and over time 25 came to be the Pembina Valley Water Co-op made up 157 1 of all of the original members of the Lower Red 2 River Valley Water Commission, and we stand before 3 you today requesting badly needed new resources 4 for water for supply for south central Manitoba. 5 This is a brief historical report on 6 what has happened. I have left the Commission 7 with a written report that was done by the Lower 8 Red River Valley Water Commission that details 9 this and many more. The point to be made is we 10 have looked at many options many times, over and 11 over again. That's the end of my report. Thank 12 you. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 14 Mr. Martel. Any questions? Thank you. Next up, 15 Bill Whitehead. Please state your name for the 16 record. 17 (BILL WHITEHEAD, SWORN) 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. 19 MR. WHITEHEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chair 20 and members of the Clean Environment Commission, 21 panel, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Bill 22 Whitehead. I'm the Reeve of the Rural 23 Municipality of Roland. As council's 24 representative, I wish to go on record in support 25 of the Pembina Valley Water Co-op Sandilands 158 1 project, which will provide a supplementary source 2 of water for the Pembina Valley region. 3 The Rural Municipality of Roland is a 4 long term member of the Pembina Valley Water 5 Co-op, and I have represented the municipality on 6 the Co-op board since 1995, including the past six 7 years as an executive board member. I have seen 8 the Co-op grow from studying the feasibility of a 9 treated water pipeline to being the main supplier 10 of treated water to a growing region. I feel that 11 the Co-op has maintained an open policy, welcoming 12 new members and striving to accommodate their 13 needs for a water supply. 14 The Rural Municipality of Roland is 15 15 miles wide by 12 miles north and south and that 16 equals 5 townships. We service approximately 1000 17 people. There are a few farm yards in the 18 southwest corner of our municipality that have 19 good water wells, as they are located over top of 20 the Winkler aquifer. At present the Winkler 21 aquifer is at the highest level of the past 20 22 years. All other areas in our municipality either 23 do not support the installation of wells, or they 24 are very mineralized and not suitable for drinking 25 water. 159 1 Residents before were required 2 cisterns and had to haul their water, or have it 3 hauled in from outside of our municipality. In 4 1979 the Rural Municipality of Roland obtained a 5 Water Rights Licence on the Winkler aquifer. This 6 allowed our municipality to install a water 7 distribution system in the Village of Roland and 8 several small rural distribution systems. In 9 2003, the Manitoba government terminated that 10 licence, forcing the municipality to obtain an 11 alternate water source. Given our municipality's 12 location, at the centre of the Co-op area, water 13 supply from the Pembina Valley Water Co-op was 14 obviously the best fit for us. 15 The networking of Pembina Valley Water 16 Co-op lines throughout the municipality has 17 allowed us to service all of our ratepayers as 18 well. We have approximately 100 miles of water 19 distribution line throughout the municipality. 20 All water comsumption is metered at a charge of 21 $7.50 per thousand gallons. Our water is supplied 22 by the Morris water treatment plant, which is a 23 state of the art facility, producing the best 24 water quality technology allows. 25 Residents are happy with the water 160 1 supply and quality. The majority of our water 2 usage is household. There is no wet industry in 3 our municipality. We have a few livestock farms; 4 some of which have alternate water ponds. We have 5 very little wasteland in the municipality, the 6 majority of it is arable and is in grain 7 production. I would like to thank the Commission 8 for allowing me the opportunity it address it. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 10 Ms. Kennedy Courcelles. 11 (MS. CHERYL KENNEDY COURCELLES, SWORN) 12 MS. KENNEDY-COURCELLES: Before I 13 start, if I could just make a comment that some of 14 the Hutterite colonies, in order to keep the birds 15 out of their water supplies, what they use is 16 fishing line. So the idea of an impoundment going 17 on the Red River at Morris, and the whole idea of 18 the birds, well there is easy solutions to that. 19 And the Americans with the Canadian geese going 20 down south, they have been using just fishing line 21 across the water for years. So that one doesn't 22 really hold anything in my opinion. 23 And as far as stagnant water, well, I 24 would think it would make good sense that that 25 impoundment would have a constant, steady flow in 161 1 it, that you wouldn't leave it as stagnant water. 2 And as a citizen that gets artificially flooded by 3 the operations of the flood gate yearly -- boy, 4 those of us that are upstream, downstream, 5 depending on where you are, we sure would like the 6 idea of the Pembina Valley Water Co-op using a 7 larger impoundment area to help you out with your 8 water needs, that would be solving, you know a 9 couple of problems all at once. So there is 10 alternatives to that. But anyway, thank you. 11 Dear Commissioners and fellow 12 Manitobans and Canadians, it is with great sadness 13 that I, Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles, of St. Adolphe, 14 Manitoba, am here today on behalf of those who do 15 not have a voice, but have to bear the weight of 16 our societal choices and decisions. I'm here on 17 behalf of our future generations, our wildlife, 18 natural resources and spirit energy. The 19 intentions behind our actions are being closely 20 felt by mother earth, the animal kingdom and 21 spirit energy. Society's continual misuse and 22 lack of respect given to our natural resources, 23 specifically water and wood energies, have left 24 certain sections of Manitoba and Canada facing 25 obvious negative repercussions, reflecting on our 162 1 societal choices in the first place. We would 2 like to blame things on mother nature, but it is 3 not so. It is good old cumulative adverse effects 4 that time has run out on and it is now upon us. 5 Drought, flooding, soil erosion, severe storms, 6 water quality safety, disease control, emergency 7 measures and endangered species are the global 8 Canadian and Manitoba manifestations of our human 9 actions in unbalancing our natural resources. 10 This is exactly what we are experiencing in 11 southern Manitoba, and we need to have a good 12 honest look at why we are experiencing these 13 droughts, floods, soil and water quality issues in 14 the first place. To set up systems and pipelines, 15 et cetera, to tap into one of Canada's most 16 precious, pristine aquifer is like having the cart 17 before the horse, or it is like asking permission 18 to rob the candy store. 19 I have some questions that are perhaps 20 unanswered still and some food for thought. 21 Number one; we really don't know what we are 22 sitting on top of with this and other aquifers. 23 The past studies that have been done have been 24 vague and not specific to this case or for the 25 future urban, industrial and agricultural uses and 163 1 intentions of the co-op area. Scientific and 2 traditional research knowledge is incomplete and 3 understudied for such a precedent proposal, and 4 its possible negative repercussions. 5 Lester R. Brown in his book, "Rescuing 6 a planet under stress and a civilization in 7 trouble" states that in other countries like China 8 and India who have decided to draw upon their 9 aquifers to attempt to meet the demands of growing 10 populations, food capacity and increased standard 11 of living, after a short 50 years hit the ultimate 12 brick wall. Their aquifers have and are running 13 dry with no hope of recharging. No one thought of 14 this. They had no sustainable vision. And we ask 15 and learn today in hindsight. The countries, Mr. 16 Brown states, like South Korea, that have 17 recognized and implemented programs that have put 18 back the grasslands and forests which help aid in 19 ending droughts, soil erosion and air pollution, 20 are the countries to notice the positive changes 21 to their natural resources and for us to learn 22 from. 23 How much worse does it have to get 24 down here in southern Manitoba with floods, soil 25 erosion and decreased water tables and water 164 1 quality like Lake Winnipeg before we start 2 implementing similar restoration programs to aid 3 and restore the balance to your environment? 4 Number 4, development and implement 5 systems like Dr. David Brooks, "The Soft Path For 6 Water." These Canadian leaders have taken the 7 time and resources to help develop systems for us 8 citizens to get our water resources back into a 9 healthy, sustainable state. We, the people, the 10 mother nature, eco-systems, spirit energy and the 11 wildlife proudly endorse these ideas from The Soft 12 Path For Water, and like programs providing 13 alternative methods of restoring, providing and 14 protecting our natural resources, specifically our 15 water. We do not need to rewrite the book, the 16 knowledge is here in Canada, in this province and 17 around the globe. You know it already inside of 18 you, water is sacred. We need to reduce, re-use 19 and recycle. And we can do a better job this 20 time. 21 Number 5, if water and wood energy was 22 given a fair cost basis analysis, this hearing 23 wouldn't even be taking place today. 24 Number 6, if we tap into this virgin 25 aquifer and it starts draining rivers, streams 165 1 lakes, wetlands, wells and other aquifers and 2 recharge areas, what is our backup plan then? How 3 do we put this water back? How long will it take 4 to refill five rivers? Who pays for this and at 5 what cost to all life forms? What about the new 6 wells that provides homes, their geothermal 7 heating systems that have suddenly gone dry, who 8 is going to pay for their heating? What about all 9 of the water needed to feed and sustain all 10 existing and future water rights of those that 11 this Sandilands aquifer directly affects? Who and 12 how would we pay for this loss of water table and 13 water resources? Who would pay for the drinking 14 water losses or the testing that's going to be 15 required? What about all of the existing 16 intensified livestock operations in southern 17 Manitoba and the potential 2.5 million hogs more 18 to come, has a safe and steady water supply been 19 factored into the final dollars and cents for 20 these mega projects? As well as Manitoba Hydro's 21 future commitments, is it based on water volumes 22 too. 23 Water energy and ripple effects is not 24 new science, but we as a society are learning a 25 new respect for its power over our well-being. 166 1 What would this proposal's effects be on wildlife 2 if the water tables drop and the rivers and stream 3 dry up, what is our back up plan for them? What 4 is our emergency plan for our fish and our other 5 endangered species? 6 Number 7, who would be financially 7 responsible for any such events or combination of 8 events if they would happen? Will the Pembina 9 Valley Water Co-op pay for all or any adverse 10 effects that could stem the water quality and 11 quantity all over this province, extending into 12 the States and into Saskatchewan as this aquifer 13 is known to do? 14 Number 8, if Winnipeg and surrounding 15 areas added up to around 800,000 people, and the 16 proposed hog processing plant is planning on 17 setting up shop on the top of City of Winnipeg's 18 main water supply from Shoal Lake, and something 19 happens and there is an adverse affect now to the 20 main line of water, what would the City of 21 Winnipeg do for its water supply? And can the 22 City afford a decline or changes in their water 23 tables? And what about the Manitoba Floodway 24 Authority and all of its operations and the 25 aquifers that it sits on top of, how will it be 167 1 affected and, again, who is going to be 2 responsible? 3 Number 9, how much water is needed by 4 the Co-op for human consumption, waste management, 5 agricultural and industrial usage? 6 Number 10, should industry be set up 7 or funded in areas of the province that can not 8 locally furnish its natural resource needs? 9 Number 11, what does the International 10 Joint Commission have to state regarding the 11 Pembina Valley Water Co-op's proposal and the 12 possibility of reductions in water tables, water 13 quality and sustainability across the border? 14 Number 12, have the First Nations and 15 Aboriginal people and all of their treaties been 16 settled of which this aquifer and its ripple 17 effects apply to? Is there any money to be made 18 from this proposal? Is the First Nations part of 19 this economic gain, or are they part of the 20 natural resource burden? 21 Number 13, does the switch get turned 22 off when the water levels, erosion, flooding, 23 drought occurs in the affected areas? Who is 24 responsible for the health and well-being of the 25 Seine River, the Rat River, the Brokenhead, Cooks 168 1 Creek and the Whitemouth River? 2 Number 14, what could happen to the 3 international Red River and its tributary and 4 recharge areas that run into the Red River, who 5 will pay for the effects to the Red River, the 6 co-op, our taxes, from Emergency Measures or 7 Disaster Financial Assistance, or just who? 8 Number 15, who will pay for the stress 9 related conditions in the human bodies and the 10 infrastructure that shall immediately follow after 11 any big changes happens to our rural and urban 12 water supplies? 13 Number 16, the RM of Richot drilled 14 about 130 feet deep at the CPR tracks at Ste. 15 Agathe or around Ste. Agathe and hit water that is 16 cleaner at 78 feet than the Artesian well water 17 that they get from New Bothwell. Has the Pembina 18 Valley Water Co-op drilled along this same vein? 19 Number 17, we strongly support the 20 Manitoba Water Caucus and the Manitoba 21 Eco-networks' positions and submissions on this 22 proposal. Is any part of the proposal based on 23 fossil aquifers, as we are told once they are 24 depleted, it is gone forever. 25 Number 18, what percentage of the 169 1 co-op area has been or is designated as having 2 water storage capabilities, such as wildlands, 3 wetlands, grasslands, et cetera? 4 Number 19, what has the Pembina Valley 5 Water Co-op done to minimize water and waste 6 management and supply needs and usages? 7 20, are composing toilets and 8 recycling gray water part of the co-op's action 9 plan or current efforts to reduce consumption? 10 And what has industry done to reduce their needs? 11 21, what percentage of water usage 12 goes to intensified livestock operations in the 13 co-op area for feed and for waste management and 14 who pays for that? Has drip irrigation been 15 looked into for this area, or other forms of 16 natural irrigation? And again, who pays for the 17 irrigation water? 18 22, is the Pembina Valley Water Co-op 19 currently collecting rain water or snow? Are 20 cisterns being utilized by anybody? 21 23, is watering the grass banned in 22 the co-op area? Is the area using local 23 Provincial/Federal incentive programs, education 24 and marketing programs to reduce, re-use and 25 recycle water? 170 1 24, are the people of Manitoba and 2 Canada aware that mining of groundwater via 3 aquifers has and is undermining the future of many 4 countries around the world? And can we learn from 5 other countries actions? 6 25, if we base high grain productivity 7 or high intensive livestock productivity on 8 removing the groundwater to fulfill these needs, 9 when the groundwater drys up, which seems to be by 10 world standards in about 50 years, what shall we 11 do then and how will we feed ourselves? What is 12 the backup plan? 13 26, what about our Provincial Waters 14 Protections Act, what is it doing for us? 15 27, is urban water recycling cheaper 16 than new infrastructures? 17 28, the days of using water to dispose 18 of our waste is coming to an end all over the 19 world, as disease and water contamination go 20 hand-in-hand, and we are finally realizing the 21 adverse effects it is having on our overall health 22 and sustainability. Our own toxic blue-green Lake 23 Winnipeg is a perfect example of our core modern 24 day practices. What plans does the area have to 25 keep up with the times? 171 1 29, how many trees has the Pembina 2 Valley Water Co-op planted to help restore the 3 balance to the area? 4 Number 30, what are the other Federal 5 and Provincial departments stating about this 6 proposal, such as Ducks Unlimited, the First 7 Nations and Aboriginal people, Fisheries and 8 Oceans, Cultural and Tourism, Manitoba Hydro and 9 so on? 10 The days of dropped decisions are over 11 when it comes to Natural Resources and 12 sustainability. Our collective actions have lead 13 us to a whole new awareness in respect for water 14 and waste management systems. We will witness 15 more changes in the next 10 to 20 years than we 16 have seen for centuries before. This is the new 17 growth industry and Canadians shall discover the 18 solutions and answers to our water crisis 19 problems. We have no choice but to move forward 20 in a more green and harmonious action plan for our 21 natural resources. It is our responsibility to 22 get our eco-systems back into harmony as our 23 forefathers had passed on to us. When we restore 24 this balance, no living being shall ever have a 25 water shortage, as originally intended and 172 1 designed by mother earth. 2 We the people of the heart of the 3 continent owe it to ourselves and to this nation 4 to bring in water experts from all over Canada to 5 accurately and currently study this precious 6 Canadian water gem, Manitoba's very own acres of 7 diamonds. Our communities and eco-systems need to 8 know that water is underneath them. 9 Abundance flows freely and clearly to 10 those that are in harmony and gratitude with their 11 actions and intentions with mother nature's. But 12 if our actions remain out of balance, then 13 abundance shall be taken away from society, as we 14 are experiencing in Manitoba in all of our water 15 emergencies in this province in this last decade, 16 including this year of 2006. 17 The Pembina Valley Water Co-op hearing 18 is only the tip of the iceberg of all of the 19 exciting but challenging water protection 20 measures, rights, education, industry and 21 departments to follow. Once again Manitoba shall 22 lead in its intentions and expectations of our 23 provincial, national and global responsibilities 24 on water sustainability, education and leadership. 25 Everything is for a higher reason. 173 1 Manitoba is up for this challenge, we can do this. 2 Harmony and abundance is our Canadian heritage and 3 our responsibility. Let us protect and restore 4 all for one and one for all. 5 I thank you for your time and 6 attention to raise some questions, expectations 7 and intentions on behalf of the people, water and 8 wood energy, animal kingdom, eco-systems, First 9 Nations and treaty rights, and most importantly, 10 our future generation's sustainability. Thank 11 you. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 13 Ms. Kennedy-Courcelles. 14 MS. KENNEDY-COURCELLES: Regarding 15 Mr. Hugh Arkley? 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it a brief 17 presentation? 18 MS. KENNEDY-COURCELLES: It is about 19 two paragraphs. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, you can read it 21 in now. Just explain what it is. 22 MS. KENNEDY-COURCELLES: So Mr. Hugh 23 Arkley was here as a registered participant -- 24 person, registered person on Tuesday, and he has a 25 comment. 174 1 "Dear Clean Environment Commission: 2 As a registered participant I was 3 unable to attend the Pembina Valley 4 Water Co-op hearings during the day, I 5 was able to attend on November 7th. I 6 have also read material relating to 7 its plan to pipe water from Sandilands 8 to its members. The single most 9 striking feature of this scheme is the 10 cavalier attitude that prevails 11 regarding conservation and demand 12 management. The pursuit of these 13 inevitable goals is embodied in much 14 more than increasing the price for 15 water. This is simply a form of 16 inflation for which business, 17 professionals and individuals will 18 compensate by raising their prices, 19 fees and salary demands. 20 Real conservation and demand 21 management is much more proactive and 22 aggressive. It was clear on 23 November 7th that the Pembina Valley 24 Water Co-op will not be proactive or 25 aggressive. Further proof is in the 175 1 applicant's failure to comply with 2 your recommendation number one from 3 1994. The Pembina Valley Water Co-op 4 is trying to grow its way into 5 sustainability. This is an oxymoron. 6 It can not be done. The Clean 7 Environment Commission should dismiss 8 the application from the Pembina 9 Valley Water Co-op just as the Pembina 10 Valley Co-op dismissed your 1994 11 recommendation. Yours truly, C. Hugh 12 Arkley, Box 126R, Dugald, Manitoba." 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 14 MS. JOHNSON: Cheryl, could I have 15 that copy when you are finished? 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Claude Moquin. 17 Please, state your name for the record. 18 (CLAUDE MOQUIN: SWORN) 19 MR. MOQUIN: Mr. Chairman, members of 20 the board, ladies and gentlemen, the Rural 21 Municipality of La Broquerie herewith registers 22 several concerns on the proposal of the Pembina 23 Valley Water Co-op Inc. The RM of La Broquerie 24 recognizes that the residents of the Pembina 25 Valley should have a stable and secure water 176 1 supply. However the municipality has concerns and 2 would like answers on the following list of 3 issues. 4 Number 1; the proposal is entitled 5 Supplemental Groundwater Supply. Is it -- is the 6 pipeline going to be an open tap and potentially 7 turn into a prime source of water for the PVWC? 8 We feel strongly that certain limits need to be 9 discussed prior to the issuance of licence. What 10 limits will be placed on the environmental 11 licence, number of days of operation per year or 12 maximum volumes per year? 13 Number 2; what is the current volume 14 used by the residents supplied by the PVWC, and 15 what are the calculations of future demand? 16 Number 3; PVWC has indicated that 17 approximately 50 per cent of the water they 18 require is for agricultural purposes. What 19 significant effort has been made within their 20 watersheds to create retention areas where that 21 water is then used for agricultural production 22 when required? 23 Number 4; if the groundwater staff 24 from Manitoba Water Stewardship don't actually 25 know how much water is within the aquifer and what 177 1 effects pumping more water out under drought 2 conditions may have on all residents, farm 3 operations, and businesses in the Steinbach area, 4 is the province adhering to its principles of 5 sustainable development and considering this 6 development within the definition of sustainable? 7 Number 5; is it possible that the 8 extraction of water from the aquifer would affect 9 the volume usage of the current users? In other 10 words, what we have taken for granted as an 11 adequate supply of water for Steinbach and 12 surrounding areas could become limited and affect 13 our way of life. If the licence is issued, it 14 will essentially set precedents for allowing other 15 large users to extract water from this aquifer. 16 What does the province have in place to protect 17 the aquifer from becoming over-allocated and 18 potentially resulting in serious long-term 19 consequences? 20 Number 7; does Manitoba Conservation 21 of Water Stewardship have any plans to charge a 22 levy to groundwater users within the province? 23 Could a groundwater protection fund be set up to 24 be used by water management organizations like 25 conservation districts to assist with groundwater 178 1 protection initiatives, such as sealing abandoned 2 wells, creating water storage retention areas, and 3 protecting groundwater recharge areas? 4 Number 8; considering that the 5 province has announced a committee to developing 6 source water protection plans for Southeast 7 Manitoba, would it be too much to request that 8 people hooked up to the PVWC network contribute in 9 some way towards the implementation of the plan? 10 In closing, the RM of La Broquerie 11 would like to object to the project until answers 12 are given and guarantees or assurances that the 13 aquifer will not be depleted for Southeast 14 Manitoba. I thank you for the opportunity to make 15 a presentation today. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Moquin. 17 Marvin Hovorka. 18 (MARVIN HOVORKA: SWORN) 19 MR. HOVORKA: Good afternoon, 20 Commission members, proponents, ladies and 21 gentlemen. I'm Marvin Hovorka, Reeve of the RM of 22 Piney. We have two members I believe here today; 23 Earl Sawaka and Alana Schoenback, colleagues and 24 council members. 25 One of the presenters in favour of 179 1 this proposal has stated, 2 "As leaders of our municipalities, we 3 have a responsibility and obligation 4 to our ratepayers to provide them with 5 clean drinking water." 6 We too have the same responsibilities. 7 The RM of Piney is in the extreme 8 southeastern portion of the Province of Manitoba. 9 It is made up of 912 square miles of forest and 10 Crown land, agricultural land, wetlands, Sundown, 11 Carrick, Piney, Sprague, and St. Labre bogs, 12 Spurwoods Wildlife Management area, Cathills 13 Provincial Forest, Wampum Provincial Forest, 14 Northwest Angle Provincial Forest, Sandilands 15 Provincial Forest, the Whitemouth Lake Island 16 Ecological Reserve, Watson P. Davidson Wildlife 17 Management Area. And out of the 912 square miles 18 in the RM of Piney, only 24 per cent is privately 19 owned, 6 per cent is municipal, and the balance of 20 70 per cent is Provincial Crown lands. 21 The municipality is an area of forest, 22 small lakes and ponds, streams, springs, pockets 23 of agricultural lands, and is part of the boreal 24 forest. The historical significance of the area 25 is built around forest, agricultural and wildlife. 180 1 The RM of Piney is in the process of 2 creating a development plan and subsequent zoning. 3 The development of the municipal plan includes the 4 designation of water quality management zones. 5 The municipality has concerns due to the diverse 6 eco-system of our area. 7 We have expressed our concerns to the 8 Water Stewardship Department since its creation 9 with Mr. Ashton as Minister. Our request for a 10 comprehensive study, including the mapping and 11 designation of the sensitivity zones, aquifers and 12 their capabilities was received with enthusiasm 13 and a promise to complete within three to six 14 months. Three years have past since that time to 15 no avail. 16 The RM of Piney, being a major source 17 of water resources, has two water plants operating 18 successfully and a third pending. The 1,700 19 residents of RM of Piney are concerned about the 20 domestic water quality, supply, and the possible 21 impact due to intensive livestock development, the 22 sale and processing of water, and increased demand 23 for water by other communities and organizations 24 such as Pembina Valley Co-op. 25 Our residents presently enjoy some of 181 1 the best drinking water in the world. There are 2 no water treatment plants or other water related 3 infrastructure present. In fact, the only source 4 of the potable water for our residents comes from 5 landowners and from the landowners' private wells. 6 There are no other alternatives, and up until now 7 there has been no need to consider alternative 8 sources. The population certainly could not 9 financially afford the infrastructure costs of a 10 complicated alternative freshwater system. 11 Because the recharge capacity of the 12 Sandilands aquifer is unknown by the proponents or 13 by the Province of Manitoba, we believe that the 14 Pembina Valley proposal threatens the water 15 quality and thus the way of life of our residents. 16 We know that the province has already granted at 17 least three water rights licences to the three 18 bottling plants located in the RM. We also know 19 of numerous licences granted to a number of 20 livestock operations located within our 21 boundaries, yet no one seems to know how much 22 water is available for the taking. With all of 23 the scientific studies and research that has 24 supposedly been conducted, no one from Pembina 25 Valley or the Province of Manitoba is willing to 182 1 guarantee that local wells in the RM of Piney will 2 not be adversely affected by this project. 3 Other concerns have come up regarding 4 natural wetlands and eco-systems. Who is willing 5 to guarantee that these won't be negatively 6 affected? And it is not acceptable to push this 7 proposal through and worry about the implications 8 later on. Self monitoring is not acceptable. 9 It was also mentioned by another 10 presenter that, 11 "If this project goes forward, it sets 12 a precedent that water is available 13 for the taking." 14 I asked the question, who is, who will 15 be asking for water next, and how much will they 16 want? And it will be another guess as to how much 17 the aquifer can sustain. 18 Dr. Brooks mentioned water management 19 needs to be a public policy decision, not a 20 political decision. And water has a value, it 21 belongs to the public and not to the person that 22 pumps it out. 23 Conservation practices are not in the 24 best financial interest of Pembina Valley, 25 especially with a substantial return on the 183 1 investment. We would like to ask who stands to 2 gain the most from this proposal, the public or 3 the Cooperative? 4 Pembina Valley states that an 5 interrupted three day testing period is sufficient 6 to predict the drawdown in the water in the area. 7 We are also told that the cone extended to the 8 wetlands of the Bedford Ridge. What will happen 9 if the extraction goes at 50 litres per second, 24 10 hours a day, seven days a week, et cetera? 11 Pembina Valley says there is, 12 "...enough information now to make a 13 decision and that the research will be 14 done later, hopefully with others 15 contributing." 16 Does this sound adequate to you? In our opinion 17 it seems to be putting the cart before the horse. 18 The RM of Piney bylaw which prohibits 19 the bulk removal of water by tanker trucks or 20 pipelines is not a new idea. According to a news 21 release from the Government of Canada on 22 February 10, 1999, concerning the strategy 23 launched to prohibit the bulk removal of Canadian 24 water, including water for export, they strongly 25 cautioned that, 184 1 "Water is vital to eco-systems, human 2 health, agriculture and industry. 3 Bulk water removals may have 4 cumulative effects on watersheds. 5 Inter-basin transfers result in the 6 introduction of non-native 7 microorganisms and exotic species and 8 the alteration of natural eco-systems 9 and changes in water flows and tables. 10 Climate change implications have 11 heighten concerns about water 12 removal." 13 We have simply followed their lead. The RM of 14 Piney and our legal counsel believe that we have 15 the right and responsibility, through the 16 Municipal Act as determined by the Supreme Court 17 of Canada, Canada's decision in Spraytech versus 18 Hudson to protect our citizens. 19 We recognize the importance of water 20 as a resource that we are richly endowed with and 21 envied by our municipal and city neighbors. Water 22 is both a key to environmental health, as well as 23 being a scarce commodity having intrinsic value 24 that must be managed in a sustainable way. 25 Some of the questions or concerns we 185 1 as council have: 2 1: How can the Clean Environment 3 Commission make a valid recommendation to the 4 Minister of Conservation without having a complete 5 understanding of groundwater sensitivity areas 6 adjacent to aquifers, and the impact of removing 7 water in undetermined volumes? 8 2: Should this project take place, 9 what reason would there be to deny additional 10 volumes to be licensed? It is our understanding 11 that a proposal has never been rejected by the 12 Province of Manitoba since the Environment Act was 13 enacted in 1988. 14 3: Who will guarantee, A, that the 15 residents of Sandilands and surrounding areas do 16 not experience a shortage of water in their water 17 systems? And who will guarantee, B, that the 18 municipality and other resource users will not 19 experience an adverse effect in the surrounding 20 eco-systems such as wetlands, forest and fauna? 21 This specific aquifer is at the 22 confluence of five watersheds, each with unique 23 characteristics. However, the proponent's 24 proposal understandably isolates their requests 25 and concerns to the aquifer and the well site. We 186 1 have to deal with the responsibility with the 2 bigger picture and the long-term effect on the 3 municipality. 4 How much information does the Water 5 Stewardship and the Conservation departments have 6 on this most sensitive water recharge area? Has 7 there been a study extensive enough to justify a 8 decision? The province has a responsibility to 9 the general public, the Clean Environment 10 Commission, the proponent here, Pembina Valley, 11 and the RM of Piney to undertake a comprehensive 12 study of the Sandilands/Bedford aquifer and 13 related areas prior to issuing any licence. The 14 RM of Piney insists that the mapping of water 15 sensitivity zones and aquifers be included in this 16 study. 17 We respectfully request the support of 18 the Clean Environment Commission, Pembina Valley 19 Water Cooperative, and all of the participants in 20 this hearing today to accomplish this task. It 21 would be irresponsible for the Province of 22 Manitoba to allow this project to proceed without 23 these proper studies being completed. Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hovorka. 25 Did you have a question or two of clarification, 187 1 Mr. Schellenberg? 2 MR. SHELLENBERG: Thank you, 3 Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that presentation, 4 and certainly a lot of your concerns are duly 5 noted. 6 The question about monitoring, where 7 you state self-monitoring is not acceptable, we 8 agree. And self-monitoring would not be what 9 would be taking place here. There has been a 10 fairly extensive monitoring plan that has been 11 recommended here and it will be looked at. 12 The other point that I wanted to make 13 was that you state that conservation practices are 14 not in the best financial interests of the PVWC, 15 especially with a substantial return on 16 investment. You are dealing with a non-profit 17 corporation. We don't have a return on 18 investment, nor do we have profits at the end of 19 day. In our office we have got less staff than 20 you have in yours, we actually have two people 21 working there. If and when we have any money 22 left, it goes back to the municipal members. So 23 the Co-op has nothing to gain. As a matter of 24 fact, we have a great deal to gain from 25 conservation because it keeps our costs down. 188 1 Those were some of the comments I was 2 going to quickly make, and just to add that we 3 agree with you that water is both a key to 4 environmental health, as well as being a scarce 5 commodity having intrinsic value that must be 6 managed in a sustainable way. And we agree. 7 MR. HOVORKA: Thank you, I appreciate 8 your comments. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Patrick Watson. 10 (PATRICK WATSON: SWORN) 11 MR. WATSON: Good afternoon, 12 Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, hearing 13 participants and ladies and gentlemen. My name is 14 Patrick Watson, I'm the manager of the Seine/Rat 15 River Conservation District. I would like to 16 thank you for this opportunity to present on 17 behalf of the Seine/Rat River Conservation 18 districts and the residents of Steinbach and 19 surrounding areas, some concerns with the project 20 under discussion and some suggestions for the CEC 21 panel to consider prior to making their final 22 recommendations to the Conservation and Manitoba 23 Water Stewardship. 24 So what is actually under review? In 25 the letter sent to the Director of Environmental 189 1 Approvals at Manitoba Conservation dated 2 December 12, 2005 from UMA Engineering, it states, 3 "The Pembina Valley Water Co-op's 4 current water supply may not be able 5 to provide the required volumes of 6 water during period of drought, and in 7 order to address this concern, the 8 Water Co-op is proposing to construct 9 a groundwater supply system within the 10 Sandilands Provincial Forest." 11 Somehow between this time, the time this 12 application letter was submitted, and Tuesday, 13 November 7, the water co-op has changed their 14 request. They now seem to want the additional 15 water to supplement their existing supplies 16 irregardless of what is occurring within their 17 area and to better prepare themselves for 18 anticipated population growth and development. 19 We have some serious concerns about 20 the Water Co-op's long term plan, also known by 21 many as the hidden agenda. During the very 22 limited and relatively ineffective public 23 consultations that Mr. Schellenberg undertook in 24 March of 2005, he verbally promised the RM of 25 Stuartburn, the RM of Hanover, RM of De Salaberry 190 1 and the RM of Franklin that the Water Co-op would 2 make some of their pipeline water available, of 3 course, at the wholesale price paid by the 4 municipal members. 5 The point here is that while the 6 existing Pembina Valley Water Co-op distribution 7 members claimed to be concerned about securing new 8 sources of potable water, Mr. Schellenberg was 9 already trying to drum up some new business and 10 expand the Co-op's distribution network. 11 If what is really under review here is 12 the question of should the Pembina Valley Water 13 Co-op be allowed, licensed to take water from the 14 proposed Sandilands well in order to reduce the 15 local area risks of water shortage during times of 16 serious drought and emergency, I think most people 17 would probably say yes. There are likely many 18 people in this room, or other people who have 19 heard about the project in the media that have 20 friends, relatives, or business associates living 21 in the Pembina Valley region and, of course, want 22 to see them thrive and prosper. In general, it is 23 fine and dandy to respect the desire of people to 24 build a community, but surely not if it comes at a 25 cost to others. 191 1 With all due respect to Mr. 2 Schellenberg, one has to be completely naive to 3 believe his statement that he will agree to 4 turning off the tap if there is some issues that 5 arise or negative impacts that occur as a result 6 of this water extraction project. We are talking 7 about the Water Rights Act here. If a rural 8 landowner dug a new drainage ditch without a water 9 rights licence, and was told to fill it back in or 10 block it because it was causing flooding and 11 erosion problems downstream, and he apologized and 12 promptly did what he was told, I'm quite sure it 13 would be a first in Manitoba. 14 I will now list some suggestions for 15 the CEC panel to consider in making their 16 recommendations, with the assumption that the 17 licences may actually be issued. 18 Number 1: In order to address the 19 real issue of adding security to the Pembina 20 Valley Water Co-op's existing water distribution 21 system, pumping from the well should be limited to 22 a maximum of 4 months per year, have a maximum 23 allowable volume per year, and be operated only 24 under drought or emergency situations as clearly 25 defined by Manitoba Water Stewardship and agreed 192 1 upon by the RM of Piney, RM of Stuartburn, RM of 2 La Broquerie and the RM of Hanover. 3 Relating to Mr. Schellenberg's 4 comments that the pipeline should have a constant 5 flow of water is interesting. It is, of course, 6 possible to have no water in the pipeline at 7 certain times. The argument that there must be a 8 constant flow of water within the pipelines so 9 that the water doesn't become stagnant and that it 10 will meet the Canadian Drinking Water Quality 11 Standards doesn't make sense. The water is all 12 going to the Morris water treatment plant, and any 13 quality or improvements are done there and can be 14 done there as required, prior to further pipeline 15 distribution. 16 Number 2: Pumps should be approved by 17 Manitoba Water Stewardship and the Manitoba Water 18 Services Board and only have the ability to pump 19 the groundwater, once at ground level, at just 20 slightly above the rate of 50 litres per second, 21 not a much larger 150 litres plus per second pump 22 initially set on the lower 50 litres per second 23 flow rate. 24 For some additional information for 25 the CEC panel relating to the actual pipeline, I 193 1 had a recent conversation with a water pump and 2 pipeline installation professional, and he 3 reported that the maximum flow rate a 12-inch PVC 4 pipe similar to the one that Pembina Valley Water 5 Co-op has mentioned they would install, should 6 experience in the neighborhood of 2,200 U.S. 7 gallons per minute or 140 litres per second. 8 Since this pipeline has the actual potential to 9 flow 140 litres per second, there should be some 10 other restriction such as a 50 litres per second 11 pump, in order to ensure that, if licensed, the 12 project extraction rate adheres to the actual 13 licensed limit. 14 Number 3: The Water Rights Licence 15 should expire after ten years, after which time 16 the water co-op would be required to participate 17 in a full public review of the extraction 18 activities and groundwater monitoring results. If 19 the review proves to be entirely successful with 20 no negative impacts, a ten year extension to the 21 licence including any modifications could be 22 issued. It seems to us that this is more in line 23 with the guidelines provided in the Sustainable 24 Developments Act. A life time licence should not 25 be considered or issued. 194 1 Number 4: We understand that the 2 Provincial groundwater management section has 3 reviewed this proposal and obviously has no 4 objections to the project. We have to trust that 5 these professionals are capable of collecting and 6 interpreting the information required to make a 7 responsible decision in the best interests of all 8 Manitobans. With that we have certain 9 expectations that need to be addressed. Firstly, 10 a scientifically approved number of continuous 11 groundwater level monitoring stations should be 12 monitored over the life span of the withdrawals. 13 The technical aspects and design of the monitoring 14 program should remain the responsibility of our 15 groundwater branch at Manitoba Water Stewardship, 16 while the long term monitoring expenses should be 17 the responsibility of the Pembina Valley Water 18 Co-op -- yes, a user pay system. We are not 19 indicating that all water users in the province 20 should be fee based, but because of the uniqueness 21 of this project, new money for monitoring will be 22 required. 23 We have already heard from Bob Betcher 24 that there are issues when it comes to work that 25 they have planned to do, that the budget just 195 1 isn't there. 2 The groundwater monitoring network 3 needs to be fully established prior to the pumping 4 and Manitoba Water Stewardship should not be 5 simply expected to have the additional money 6 available within their budget. 7 Secondly, all of the groundwater 8 monitoring stations should be installed, including 9 the collection of relevant baseline levels prior 10 to the initial operation of the well. 11 And last but not least, that the 12 Pembina Valley Water Co-op is required to create 13 and distribute a progress report on all of the 14 activities related to and details of the long term 15 monitoring program prior to the initial operation 16 of the well. The progress report should be 17 approved by Manitoba Water Stewardship and 18 subsequently distributed to all of the rural 19 municipalities that were contacted during the 20 initial public consultation process, the Seine/Rat 21 River Conservation district, and be available 22 on-line at the Manitoba Conservation website. 23 Number 5: The collection of the long 24 term monitoring data should directly involve the 25 Seine/Rat River Conservation District and be paid 196 1 for from an annual grant or fee from the Pembina 2 Valley Water Co-op towards all of the related 3 monitoring expenses. Manitoba Water Stewardship 4 would provide technical support, related training 5 and orientation, and would remain the primary 6 owner of the data. 7 The Seine/Rat River Conservation 8 District has a genuine interest in the impacts 9 this project may have on existing users, and in 10 the long-term protection and sustainability of the 11 water resources within our watersheds. We feel 12 that due to our location, operational structure, 13 and resource management responsibilities to our 14 district residents, it makes us the best suited 15 organization to involve. 16 Number 6, who may actually be put at 17 risk? Well, the City of Steinbach, they obtain 18 all of their water from the ground. Population 19 and development is increasing each year, water 20 requirements are increasing each year, and 21 Steinbach may eventually need to supplement their 22 existing water source. If they do, it will likely 23 be with groundwater. 24 Secondly, the livestock industry, we 25 can't overlook the fact that there are currently 197 1 hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the 2 livestock industry, hogs, dairies and poultry in 3 Southeast Manitoba. They are all significant 4 water users and play a huge role in the 5 socioeconomic prosperity of Southeast Manitoba. 6 Thirdly, rural residential water 7 users, there is not one rural resident that will 8 be okay with having to spend a few thousand 9 dollars to have a new well drilled or a new pump 10 installed because their water source has changed 11 to the point it is no longer usable. Even though 12 the Pembina Valley Water Co-op says that the 13 existing users are protected, there is no money 14 available for this. You can bet that the Pembina 15 Valley Water Co-op will argue for proof that their 16 activities are the cause. 17 What guarantees do the local residents 18 and existing water users have to ensure that the 19 water co-op will provide mitigation if and when 20 their existing groundwater sources or other things 21 are negatively impacted? The Water Rights Act is 22 not effective at protecting downstream residents. 23 There are very, very few instances where drainage 24 officers have enforced the Act. Once again, we 25 will be supremely naive if we think that we are 198 1 okay simply because the situation may be a 2 violation of the Water Rights Act. We are 3 wondering who will make the decision as to a 4 negative impact that has occurred. If the 5 resident calls the Water Co-op and explains that 6 they have had a strong and flowing well for the 7 last 10, 20 or 60 years, which has now stopped 8 flowing and requires a new pump, will the Water 9 Co-op send a truck out the next day to mitigate 10 the situation? No one here should feel any 11 comfort thinking that they are protected by the 12 Water Rights Act. 13 I would just like to reiterate to the 14 panel that in no way is the Seine/Rat River 15 Conservation District in favour of this Water 16 Co-op project. The no pipeline option is still an 17 option. We do believe in the sharing of the 18 natural resources within our great province, but 19 not if there are many unknowns, potentially 20 unmanageable risks, or no opportunities for 21 mitigation. If our senior Provincial 22 representatives from Manitoba Conservation and 23 Manitoba Water Stewardship do decide to approve 24 these applications, are they adhering to the 25 guidelines within the Sustainable Development Act 199 1 and the recently proclaimed Water Protection Act? 2 The purpose of the Water Protection 3 Act is to provide for the protection and 4 stewardship of Manitoba's water resources and 5 aquatic eco-systems, recognizing the importance of 6 applying scientific information in decision making 7 processes about water. If we all agree that more 8 information regarding the potential impacts of 9 this groundwater extraction project can be 10 obtained, albeit at time and expense, is there not 11 a loss of trust that they have violated what is 12 stated within their own Act? 13 In regards to the issue of providing 14 potable water to areas within the Pembina Valley 15 that do not have sufficient long-term and stable 16 water supplies, as previously mentioned, if there 17 are serious water shortage issues that exist, the 18 province should assist with locating and providing 19 potable water. But what about in low population 20 and chronic water deficient areas? Is it worth 21 the investment and worth the potential negative 22 impacts on other areas? I can only hope that the 23 people in charge of land use and planning 24 understand that development should not be allowed 25 everywhere and anywhere, especially if the cost of 200 1 providing potable water is outrageous. 2 I hope we all realize that if the 3 Pembina Valley Water Co-op receives the licences 4 that they are asking for and starts pumping the 50 5 litres per second, their appetite will absolutely 6 continue to increase. What is essentially being 7 licensed is a land use and population development 8 plan, with water being the essential and most 9 important ingredient. 10 Due to population growth and 11 development statistics -- do the population growth 12 and development statistics in the Pembina Valley 13 region equate to allowing the pipeline project to 14 proceed? Yes, they have good growth within their 15 area, but what about Steinbach and surrounding 16 communities? The population growth and 17 development that members of the Water Co-op board 18 have mentioned can be equally compared to the 19 growth and development statistics for the City of 20 Steinbach and surrounding communities. 21 At the Chamber of Commerce meeting 22 yesterday in Steinbach, our mayor, Chris 23 Goertzen's main focus during his presentation was 24 on the tremendous growth and development presently 25 occurring in Steinbach. There was no mention of 201 1 ensuring a long-term sustainable supply of potable 2 water, no, because we tend to take it for granted. 3 We are what some people say blessed with an 4 abundant supply of fresh water. The thing that 5 bothers a lot of people is the fact that just 6 because we have water now doesn't mean that we 7 will have it forever. If this project is 8 licensed, it will then be very clear to everyone 9 that the Steinbach and surrounding communities 10 have more than enough water to go around. 11 When will the next application for 12 groundwater be submitted? Probably a lot sooner 13 than you think. I obtained some current 14 information from the Census Canada website which 15 stated the following: The City of Steinbach 1996 16 to 2001 population increase was plus 8.8 per cent. 17 The current population of Steinbach is just under 18 16,000 people. The growth rate has continued at a 19 steady increase since 2001 and is expected to 20 continue with influx of immigrants and increasing 21 business opportunities. 22 To the east, the RM of La Broquerie, 23 1996 to 2001 population change was a plus 16.1 per 24 cent. The growth rate has remained relatively 25 constant since 2001 and is expected to continue to 202 1 current growth level. Housing developments in the 2 Marchand area are the highest they have ever been. 3 Population in the 1996 was 2,493 and today, 2006, 4 more than 3,300 people. The RM of Hanover, 1996 5 to 2001 population increase was plus 9.7. The 6 growth rate has remained constant and is expected 7 to continue at the current growth level. 8 Population in 1996 was 9,833, and in 2006 is more 9 than 12,500. So in comparison to some areas in 10 the Pembina Valley region, you can see that the 11 City of Steinbach and surrounding communities are 12 generally both experiencing the same kind of 13 growth and development. 14 I'm also curious to know why there are 15 no Provincial or Federal funds being sought after 16 in the development of this project related to 17 addressing public health and environmental health 18 issues? The mandate of Manitoba Water Services 19 Board is to assist rural residents in developing 20 safe and sustainable water supplies and ensure 21 that public health and/or environmental concerns 22 are alleviated. They also provide technical and 23 financial assistance in this regard. It is 24 surprising to us that the Manitoba Water Services 25 Board, as far as we know, did not provide any 203 1 input or comments on this project and is not in 2 attendance here today. 3 In summary, if these licences are 4 issued for the project to proceed, it will be a 5 great day for some Manitobans and a sad day for 6 others. What we really are dealing with here is a 7 "hope for the best" or "let's see if it will work" 8 guessing game. And as far as I'm concerned, it 9 just, it shouldn't be just "passed along." Thank 10 you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 12 Gerry Barron. State your name for the record, 13 please. 14 (Gerry BARRON: SWORN) 15 MR. BARRON: Good afternoon, 16 Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, ladies 17 and gentlemen. My name is Gerry Barron and I'm 18 the associate secretary of the Public Utilities 19 Board. The intent of this presentation is to 20 provide the Commission with information with 21 respect to the boards' interest in the matter 22 before you and to highlight issues which may be of 23 interest to the Commission. 24 I was able to sit through most of the 25 evidence the Commission heard on Tuesday and most 204 1 of it today as well, and accordingly will stray 2 from the pre-filed paper only to the extent 3 necessary to assist the Commission. 4 While the board has no specific 5 comments regarding the Pembina Valley Water 6 Co-op's proposal, other than to indicate general 7 support for regional utilities, the board wants 8 the Clean Environment Commission to be aware of 9 three things; the role of the board with respect 10 to municipal utilities, the potential for the 11 Board to review future rate proposals of the 12 Pembina Valley Water Co-op, and thirdly, the 13 actions of the Board in the area of pursuing 14 sustainability at the time of considering 15 municipal rate applications. 16 There are several themes that I will 17 touch upon, the first one being the Board's 18 oversight role. The Board has limited oversight 19 responsibilities for Manitoba water and sewer 20 utilities, excepting for the City of Winnipeg 21 where it has no jurisdiction. In this capacity, 22 and among other related matters, the Board 23 receives applications for revised water and sewer 24 rates. In assessing and deciding upon these 25 applications, the Board monitors utility's 205 1 financial results considering the broader context. 2 As the Board understands it, the 3 Pembina Valley Water Co-op's mandate is to build 4 and operate in a sustainable manner a wholesale 5 regional water supply system meeting the 6 requirements of its members. The members are 7 customers of the Pembina Valley Water Co-op or 8 municipal water and sewer utilities, all regulated 9 by the Board. 10 To date the Board has not involved 11 itself in the affairs of the Pembina Valley Water 12 Co-op. Going forward it is considering limited 13 involvement as the rates set by the Pembina Valley 14 Water Cooperative have and are becoming important 15 factors in the rate applications to the Board 16 filed by its members. 17 The next theme is how the application 18 before the Commission affects the Board. The 19 application before you involves a development of 20 the supplemental water supply to member 21 municipalities by means of transporting water a 22 significant distance. The Board defers to the 23 Commission the consideration of the effect, if 24 any, on the availability of a water supply now or 25 in the future for other municipal water utilities. 206 1 If this is a possibility, the potential impact 2 needs to be carefully considered. 3 Now, I heard from the Pembina Valley 4 Water Cooperative Tuesday and again today that 5 this is a concern and has been considered. 6 Project costs will likely be 7 significant and could result in higher rates for 8 the municipal utility customers served by the 9 Pembina Valley Water Cooperative. The Pembina 10 Valley Water Cooperative charges its member 11 utilities a wholesale rate for water with the cost 12 reflected in the rates of the member utilities, 13 rates which are subject to the applications to the 14 Board. 15 Here again the Commission heard from 16 the Cooperative on this matter as well, and the 17 Pembina Valley Water Cooperative advised that the 18 per cubic metre charge will not change as a direct 19 result of this proposal before the Commission. 20 The decision to seek approval to pass 21 on Pembina Valley Water Cooperative cost increases 22 through an application to the Board is made by the 23 municipality. To date the Board has treated these 24 cost increases as being the control of the 25 individual municipality and has allowed the 207 1 increase to be reflected in rates. The Board has 2 adopted a formulated approach in considering 3 pass-through rate applications and has not 4 required rate studies or looked through the 5 operations and the costs of the Pembina Valley 6 Water Cooperative. That said, the Board requires 7 municipal utilities to provide notice to the 8 ratepayers as to the rate changes and their 9 causes. 10 On page 4 and 5 of the proposal before 11 you, there is reference to potentially building a 12 water treatment facility and supplying "water to 13 communities and rural municipalities along the 14 way." 15 Now, again I have heard Mr. 16 Schellenberg today say that will be looked at on a 17 case by case basis. These are new utilities, this 18 action will require applications to the Public 19 Utilities Board. 20 On another theme, the jurisdiction 21 over the municipal water and sewer utilities, the 22 Board has jurisdiction. The Board's jurisdiction 23 is limited to the rates charged and the approval 24 of operating deficits, though in the review 25 process qualitative matters are taken into 208 1 account. That said, the management of water and 2 sewer utilities falls exclusively to the 3 municipalities. Issues of water supply and safe 4 sewer discharge are reviewed by other government 5 agencies and are not matters that the Board 6 directly oversees, though it takes an interest in 7 them as rates, without the context of the service, 8 lacks substance. 9 Capital requirements, requiring large 10 capital outlays of debentures falls within the 11 jurisdiction of the Municipal Board, though rate 12 increases approved by our Board often are required 13 to support such actions. 14 Another theme, Mr. Chairman, is the 15 Sustainable Development Act. Having said all of 16 this, there is another dimension to the Board's 17 involvement with municipal utilities. In carrying 18 out its mandate concerning rates and service, the 19 Board is mindful of its own and the utilities' 20 responsibilities under the Sustainable Development 21 Act. Accordingly, the Board has taken a 22 significant interest in matters of water quality, 23 sewage treatment, and the sustainability of 24 operation. 25 The Board shares the desire to ensure 209 1 the citizens of Manitoba are well served and 2 provided with a safe and adequate supply of water 3 to meet the health and economic needs of all 4 communities. 5 The Board regularly notes the 6 activities of municipalities and of other 7 provincial departments of Water Stewardship and 8 Conservation towards that and consults with these 9 departments from time to time. The board is aware 10 that to meet its obligations, the utility must 11 have financial resources. In addition, the Board 12 holds that utilities have an obligation to ensure 13 that water is used prudently. Water is a precious 14 commodity, as everybody in this proceeding has 15 agreed, and its importance is increasingly being 16 appreciated. 17 In section 2.10 of the application it 18 states in part, 19 "Water conservation measures to be 20 used in the system include system 21 metering to monitor unaccounted for 22 water, customer metering and pricing, 23 public awareness and education." 24 These are all matters that the Board regularly 25 deals with. At every opportunity the Board asks 210 1 municipalities coming before it with rate 2 applications questions related to demand side 3 management. Municipalities are asked as to 4 whether leaks in the system are being attended to 5 promptly, what the municipality is doing to 6 promote water conservation, either with respect to 7 funding low-flow shower heads or other water 8 saving devices, and as to the distribution of 9 educational promotional material. 10 On Tuesday there was some difference 11 of opinion as to whether the members of the 12 Pembina Valley Water Cooperative are fully or 13 partially metered. We have checked our records, 14 Mr. Chairman, and can confirm that all member 15 utilities are metered. 16 With respect to the utility's 17 sustainability, municipalities are asked about 18 their current and future needs, how these needs 19 will be met, about their long-term capital plans 20 and financing, whether the current rate structure 21 is appropriate in light of the current capacity of 22 the system. 23 Economic growth is good for everyone, 24 and with growth comes higher demands for an 25 adequate supply of water. The Board is aware of 211 1 increasing economic activity in the service area 2 of the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative, and this 3 is placing demands for new reliable water supply 4 sources. 5 Again, although the Board takes no 6 position as to the application before you, it does 7 want the Clean Environment Commission to know of 8 its ongoing actions to ensuring the prudent use of 9 water. 10 Finally, while the Board recognizes 11 that the Commission's role may not extend to the 12 consideration of those factors, the Board believes 13 that the Commission should be aware of them, as 14 they are factors in the decision making process of 15 utilities and the Board that regulates their 16 rates. 17 Thank you for your attention and for 18 the opportunity to address the Commission on 19 behalf of the Board. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, 21 Mr. Barron. Laura Reeves. 22 (LAURA REEVES: SWORN) 23 MS. REEVES: I would just like to say 24 that most of my concerns reflect those that are 25 already brought up, so I'm not going to repeat 212 1 them all. 2 I just wanted to say that I was at the 3 RM of Stuartburn council meeting on March 15 when 4 the co-op was proposing this project and offering 5 to build subsidiary communities along the way, 6 including Vita. When one councillor asked how 7 much water the Sandilands aquifer could supply, 8 the reply from the Co-op was that this site should 9 last indefinitely as it is a huge aquifer. It was 10 said that that aquifer could allow for irrigation 11 of Southern Manitoba. Such statements are made 12 with much confidence. 13 Based on what I have heard so far, it 14 seems that we still have a poor understanding of 15 this aquifer and the complexity of its functions. 16 I can probably cite a dozen local examples where 17 things we initially considered to be of limitless 18 abundance have either disappeared or are in 19 serious and continuing decline, passenger pigeons, 20 the prairie wolf, soil fertility, the tall grass 21 prairie, the ecosystem as a whole, Interlake fish 22 stocks, the list goes on. We have made a long 23 history of abusing or exploiting things that we 24 deem to be abundant. 25 Only recently another 4,000 head hog 213 1 operation was approved in the RM of Stuartburn. 2 This operation is expected to use 3 2.4 million gallons of water per year. The Co-op 4 stated at the RM of Stuartburn council meeting 5 that the hog barns could hook up to the pipeline 6 system, although they would need an on-site 7 reservoir to ensure 24 hour supply. Surely, we 8 can promote wiser use of our groundwater. 9 As a regular visitor to the springs 10 located just north of the town of Sandilands, the 11 thought of seeing these magical areas dry up is 12 more than I can bear. When I hear statements like 13 this site should last indefinitely or limitless 14 supply, I see red flags waving. Thank you very 15 much. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We have had 17 no other persons registered to make presentations, 18 so that concludes this part of the hearings. We 19 will take a break for about ten minutes. We will 20 come back and have closing comments from the 21 Manitoba Eco-network, and finally from the 22 proponent. So back in about ten minutes. 23 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, we have an 24 administrative matter to deal with again. As far 25 as exhibits, number 57 and 58 are the material 214 1 provided by Mr. Martel; 59 is the RM of Roland 2 presentation; 60 is that of 3 Ms. Kennedy-Courcelles; 61 is Mr. Arkley's 4 statement; 62 is from La Broquerie; 63 is the RM 5 of Piney; and 64 is the Seine River/Rat River CD; 6 65 is Mr. Barron's presentation, and we also have 7 letters from Save our Seine that will be number 8 66. 9 10 (Proceedings recessed at 3:30 11 and reconvened at 3:45 p.m.) 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Ms. 13 Whelan-Enns. Would you please state your name for 14 the record. 15 (MS. WHELAN ENNS, SWORN) 16 MS. BALANCE: These are the closing 17 remarks for the Manitoba Eco-network, speaking for 18 Glenn Koroluk. 19 We wish to thank the Clean Environment 20 Commission for the opportunity for allowing us to 21 make our case. Environmental hearings are an 22 important mechanism that introduces additional 23 information into the overall environmental 24 assessment process. Once a report is completed, 25 we are confident it will serve as valuable advice 215 1 for the final decision maker, and that is the 2 Minister of Conservation. We are impressed with 3 the high level of interest and knowledge expressed 4 by the panel, but note that some of the process 5 difficulties leading up to this hearing, which 6 have been inherent in hearings in the past. We 7 also thank Mr. Schellenberg and the Pembina Valley 8 Water Co-op for their commitment to this 9 environmental assessment process, and acknowledge 10 the good work that they do for their municipal 11 partners. 12 We are living in difficult times. 13 With global warming, water scarcity is an issue 14 that we must address. However, the solution that 15 is offered by the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative 16 is not the answer. We also do not support the 17 notion that devastation will occur in the Pembina 18 Valley Water Cooperative region if this project 19 does not proceed as proposed. We are going to 20 rely on three main concepts to close our 21 presentation. 22 First, I would like to reiterate the 23 ecological importance and significance of the 24 region. The Sandilands and Uplands, including the 25 Bedford Ridge consists of a rich array of 216 1 wetlands, bogs, marshes, peat lands and forest. 2 Wetlands are said to be one of the most biological 3 diverse eco-systems on the planet. The region is 4 the foci of three sub basins of the Hudson Bay 5 basin, and the head waters of five water sheds. 6 The glaciofluvial aquifer complex, which sits 7 under the region, also supplies the sandstone and 8 carbonate aquifers, two major bedrock aquifers in 9 south central Manitoba. 10 The area truly is an ecological gem. 11 Both the underlying aquifer and the above ground 12 landscape should be protected for its beauty and 13 ecological importance, today and for future 14 generations. This region of Manitoba must be 15 given a special designation. Tapping into this 16 aquifer will only set a dangerous precedent which 17 will open the door for others to come. 18 Our second contention is that the 19 Pembina Valley Water Co-op service region must get 20 their own region in order before they even think 21 of looking for additional supply. We have heard 22 through these hearings different reasons why more 23 water is required. We have also heard that the 24 water in their area has become polluted. We have 25 found it difficult to ascertain how much water is 217 1 actually used in the region as a whole and for 2 what purpose. Without a proper accounting system, 3 it would be difficult to gain efficiencies and 4 savings. It is also important that this 5 accounting exercise occurs on a water shed basis, 6 focusing on the Morris River and Plum Coulee water 7 sheds. 8 Thirdly, the no-project alternative as 9 we define it, is the immediate proof that 10 municipal governments in partnership with the 11 province must follow. It means that the 12 conservation options that we have highlighted over 13 the course of two days are the only path to take, 14 if we as a society are to move towards 15 sustainability. Thank you. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 17 MS. WHELAN ENNS: First, thank you to 18 the chair to have two of us up here for short 19 closing statements today. I'm the director of 20 Manitoba Wildlands, and one of our staff, an 21 associate and I have been working on research and 22 language to assist the Water Caucus to get ready 23 for these hearings. In those discussions a 24 decision was taken that there were two main areas 25 for some closing statements from myself today. 218 1 The first one is obvious in terms of 2 our mandate and that is as director of Manitoba 3 Wildlands in the province. The observation about 4 this being an ecological decision is very, very 5 strongly known right through the conservation and 6 scientific community in Canada because of the 7 remaining tall grass prairie in the reserve in 8 this part of the province. 9 So it is worth also saying, and you 10 will have seen some of the maps yesterday, and I 11 have put out more copies today, it is worth saying 12 there is very little land above this aquifer 13 that's currently protected from development, so 14 there is lots to do and that can be done in that 15 regard that would potentially help all parties, 16 and the future of the landscape and the aquifer. 17 The second reason that I'm here is to 18 say that I am among those in organizations active 19 in the Water Caucus in the province, also a 20 resident of this region, and I use PVWC water. 21 Having lived halfway between Ste. Agathe and 22 Morris in the Morris municipality for over 30 23 years, it is very nice to have what we refer to as 24 running water for the first time in 30 years, and 25 that happened as of last fall as a result of the 219 1 Morris municipality's arrangements and contracts 2 with the Pembina Valley Water Co-op. The hitch, 3 though, is that I asked a whole range of questions 4 at the time the municipality was running the first 5 water line in our ward ever. And there was a 6 fairly thorough amount of discussion in the ward 7 and in the neighborhood the summer before in terms 8 of what it would take, what it would cost, what 9 the arrangements were. Those questions included, 10 and I was not the only one asking them, whether 11 the water supply was going to be stable and 12 whether the water supply was sufficient, because 13 most of us have been trucking water for a very 14 long time from any of about three different 15 directions and sources. 16 We also asked whether there was in the 17 plan, in terms of running these lines and 18 providing us with water in the municipality and 19 the wards, any future capital needs or 20 infrastructure needs. Whether, for instance, and 21 you probably heard this today or yesterday in the 22 room, whether there was still discussion about the 23 possible need for a dam on the Red. We also were 24 asking and talking among ourselves and talking to 25 our councillors about what the concerns were and 220 1 what the plan was if we were suddenly, for 2 instance, at a drought level like we had in the 3 early 80's on the Red. So I wanted to basically 4 say we asked all of those questions. We talked 5 about it. I was not just the resident 6 environmentalist in the ward. These things were 7 on everybody's minds because we were essentially 8 agreeing to what we were going to pay for over 9 time at about $10,000 per household. 10 The answers to the questions were, 11 yes, the water supply is going to be available. 12 No, there isn't an assumption or a future surprise 13 down the road in terms of building a dam or a 14 whole lot more infrastructure. And, no, don't 15 worry about it, we have planned for the 16 possibility of water levels as low as they were in 17 the early 80's. The only other thing that I would 18 like to say as a ratepayer, if I may, and a 19 property owner, and it is good to see a full room, 20 my schedule was really frustrating this week and I 21 wish I was here yesterday, and that is that it is 22 fine from the point of view of this property 23 owner, this ratepayer sitting here today, if our 24 water costs and water rates go up in order to 25 avoid this interbasin transfer and this pipeline 221 1 idea. That's obviously just one person speaking, 2 but there is all kinds of alternatives, and I have 3 been very pleased to assist in the research and 4 writing in terms of the conservation work and the 5 approach that the Water Caucus has taken in its 6 presentation in these hearings. Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 8 MR. SHELLENBERG: Mr. Chairman and 9 Commission members. I role into my closing 10 comments and they will be brief. I wanted to 11 comment on the last two presentations. 12 Unfortunately I didn't have an agenda, and I don't 13 know the name of the young lady who spoke last, 14 bus she was correct about her recall, the 15 reference to irrigation at that meeting, I believe 16 it was Stuartburn, was related to work which was 17 done in the 1960s when in fact the Sandilands area 18 was being looked at as a possibility for 19 irrigation. It was in that context that that 20 statement was made. And that, by the way is a 21 matter of record. 22 And I wanted to briefly comment on 23 Mr. Watson's presentation, and certainly I accept 24 his concerns. I won't be able to use you for a 25 letter of reference, however, I'm afraid, because 222 1 you feel that I won't carry through with what I 2 have committed to. I want to assure you, that if 3 there are problems that are developing with this 4 aquifer as indicated by the monitoring which we 5 are going to be doing and, yes, for the record we 6 are probably going to be paying for in its 7 entirety, I will turn off the pumps. Anybody who 8 knows me knows that that's the case. On top of 9 which, if you don't accept that, I have 18 10 municipalities that will be down my back if I 11 don't. 12 The other point is related to your 13 12-inch pipe. Just to set that straight, if that 14 length of that 12-inch pipe was two to three feet, 15 you are correct. We are looking at 90 kilometres 16 with an awful lot of friction, and our engineers, 17 and there are engineers in the room here that will 18 confirm that the gravity flow, the best you can 19 get is 50 litres per second and that indeed is the 20 restriction on the system. 21 Fee base, and you raised fees as it 22 relates to several issues and volunteered to help 23 with the monitoring, again for a fee structure. 24 The Water Co-op is on record, you might be 25 interested to know this, as suggesting there 223 1 should be a fee charged for all water, by 2 everyone, I might add. However, we don't want to 3 see this go into the black hole called general 4 coffers, and that in fact there should be an 5 agency established which could handle this money 6 and handle the appropriate way to address some of 7 the issues which you identified by the way, and 8 other issues that need to be taken care of by the 9 department of which there are not resources at the 10 present time. If we are going to be looking at 11 something like that, it needs to be looked at from 12 a Provincial basis, and we don't disagree. 13 And the 50 litres, you make the point 14 is what is essentially being licensed or requested 15 to be licensed is land use and population 16 development, and it is not. We are, in fact, as I 17 have stated before, if and when we need additional 18 water supplies, you are quite correct, that the 19 potable water crisis in your opinion is 20 outrageous, and probably there are some of our 21 customers that might even agree with you, we will 22 be going back to the Red where the price would be 23 less than a third. So there are some economic 24 controls related to this, and I just thought I 25 would reinforce that. 224 1 And as to why we are not going for 2 Provincial/Federal funds, I'm afraid you are 3 wrong. We have pursued those very agressively. 4 But when you get to be a certain size, both the 5 Federal and Provincial governments decide you can 6 now do this on your own and it is expected of you. 7 That's where we are at. We have been turned down 8 for funding not just once, but repeatedly. But it 9 would be nice. Individual municipalities still 10 from time to time qualify, but we as a co-op do 11 not. 12 So I hope that takes care of some of 13 the issues that you raised, and again I thank you 14 for the presentation, it was good. 15 To my closing comments. First, I too 16 want to thank you as a chair and to the 17 commissioners, for what is a very fair hearing. 18 And you also are to be commended for pretty much 19 keeping us on time, more so than I think many of 20 us expected, given the nature of the discussions, 21 and we are pleased with that. 22 We have between ourselves and the 23 consultants and the other resource people here, we 24 have provided much information and we have 25 provided a great deal of research. And in a 225 1 complex hydrogeological setting like the 2 Sandilands, it is never enough. But as Bob 3 Betcher said, it will take years to obtain the 4 detail we would like to have. And one of the 5 things that's going to assist in doing that is 6 drawing from this resource, but having it very, 7 very carefully monitored. If approval is granted 8 for this project, we are committed to undertaking 9 that additional monitoring and research in 10 cooperation with the Province, with Manitoba 11 Conservation, with Water Stewardship. We have 12 already transferred several observation wells to 13 them last fall. The reporting system will be 14 their call as to whether they want to have reports 15 quarterly, semi-annually or annually, or all of 16 the above, and from our perspective should be open 17 to public review. 18 And as I said earlier, and I repeat, 19 Mr. Watson, we will turn off the pump if in fact 20 the observation wells indicate that we are 21 creating a problem. Regardless of the arguments, 22 and I put that in commas, the discussions and 23 differences of opinions, and that's all they 24 really at this point, I think it is important to 25 remember what we are dealing with here is a very 226 1 small request for water; 50 litres per second. 2 That is what you can pull out of two fire hydrants 3 if you open them at the same time. And given the 4 size of the request, the amount of research we put 5 into it up to this point is not inconsiderable, 6 and we are prepared to do more. And just for the 7 record, I think it is the smallest water project 8 ever reviewed by the Clean Environment Commission. 9 And it is from an area which we know is rich in 10 water resources and several alluded to it, and I 11 think that has to be borne in mind. 12 We discussed mitigation plans and 13 remain committed to the principle that we will not 14 solve our water challenges by inflicting water 15 problems on others. And we stand committed to 16 that, as do the board members who are in this room 17 and others that had to leave earlier. And by 18 going east there is no intention to grow our 19 customer base. I repeat that. However, we will 20 make water available from that pipeline if there 21 are municipalities and people along that route 22 that don't have another supply, and they need it. 23 Unlike the City of Winnipeg, we will allow that. 24 The intervenors have targeted water 25 conservation as an area of weakness. Frankly, we 227 1 see it as a strength in terms of our overall 2 strategy, and we suggest you take a closer look at 3 our usage numbers. 4 It is particularly difficult to accept 5 such observations from those who benefit from 6 Winnipeg's rather generous supply, which is a 7 result of the city father's sense of vision, and a 8 source which calls for a transfer of water 9 surpassing any distances that we are looking at. 10 Sometimes when you sit through hearings like this, 11 and we have been at Clean Environment Commission 12 hearing before, it is hard to remember that first 13 and foremost we are all Manitobans. And secondly, 14 that presumably we all have the same rights and 15 privileges. Thirdly, that we all share the 16 province's resources, and especially when it comes 17 to water there shouldn't be a us and a them, there 18 shouldn't be a rural versus urban, those who have 19 and those who are not. 20 Just to remind you again that we serve 21 a growing entrepreneurial vibrant region of the 22 province. It provides for a significant tax base 23 as the second largest industrial centre in the 24 province. It provides a very significant 25 employment base, the benefits of which extend well 228 1 beyond the region's boundaries. 2 We need to supplement our water 3 supply, and I won't repeat the rationale for it, 4 you have it on the record. But permit me to state 5 again, that given the important role that the 6 Pembina Valley region plays provincially and given 7 its growing population base, to leave it dependent 8 on an uncertain U.S. supply of water is not 9 prudent, when this supply can be supplemented from 10 Manitoba resources. We thank you again for your 11 consideration. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. 13 Schellenberg. Just before you leave, I think 14 probably the first question that I asked on 15 Tuesday, and we will make it the last question, it 16 just relates to your closing comments and it will 17 be I think a key issue in our deliberations when 18 the four of us sit down in the next few days to 19 consider this. Are we being asked to approve a 20 well and a pipeline that will only be used in time 21 of drought, or is this to be an ongoing 22 supplemental system for your co-op? 23 MR. SHELLENBERG: This will be, and I 24 will state as I stated earlier, this will be an 25 ongoing supplemental system simply because we need 229 1 to keep some water in that pipe despite what 2 Mr. Watson was saying. One of the presenters that 3 wasn't here this afternoon, is from a First 4 Nations community off of highway 23, and his 5 reason for coming here, and he called me on this, 6 was to make sure that their request for water from 7 this particular pipeline would be accepted and 8 would be appreciated. We have agreed if we go 9 forward and get the appropriate request, we would 10 consider it. It is that kind of thing that means 11 that we have to keep at least a minimum flow in it 12 going year round. 13 However, when our water supplies are 14 sufficient within our local resources in the Red, 15 it is much less expensive for us to pull water 16 from that source than it is from this one, and 17 economics is going to play an important role, and 18 it will in fact be the controlling factor. It 19 will be the controlling factor how many times we 20 come back. We can expand our treatment facilities 21 at Morris, for example, to provide an equivalent 22 to what we could if we ran this 50 litre per 23 second pipeline at full blast for $3 million or 24 thereabouts. We are going to be spending in 25 excess of 12 million on this, and the reason for 230 1 that is we can't have all of our eggs in one 2 basket, we do have to supplement the supply, we do 3 have to know where the water is going to come from 4 in the event we run into very low levels on the 5 Red. And that's why this initiative is being 6 taken at this time. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 8 Okay. Before we close the hearings, just let me 9 make a few final comments. 10 First of all, I would like to commend 11 all of you in this room for the positive and 12 valuable contributions you have made to the 13 process. I would particularly like to thank the 14 proponent, the staff and consultants of the 15 Pembina Valley Water Cooperative, all of who were 16 forthright in answering the many queries we put to 17 them throughout the couple of days of hearings. I 18 would like to thank the one registered 19 participant, the Water Caucus of the Eco-network 20 for making a positive contribution to this process 21 as well. Finally, to the number of presenters who 22 came before us and made a pitch either for or 23 against the proposal that was before us. 24 Just let me tell you briefly what 25 happens now. Under our statutes, the Environment 231 1 Act, we have 90 days within which to conclude our 2 report. At the latest that will take us into 3 early mid February. In the report we will report 4 to the Minister on the results of these hearings, 5 and within our terms of reference we will provide 6 advice and recommendations to the Minister. We do 7 not make decisions. It is always open to the 8 Minister not to accept our recommendations. 9 Nonetheless, I can assure you that the Minister 10 will take what we recommend seriously. Under the 11 Environment Act, if the minister doesn't accept 12 our recommendations, he must inform us in writing 13 as to his reasons for not doing so. After the 14 Minister receives the report, it is up to him to 15 decide when it is released to the public. 16 Typically it is about 10 to 14 days after we have 17 delivered it to him. 18 Immediately following the close of 19 these proceedings, that is in the next few days 20 and weeks, the four members of the panel will meet 21 to consider all of the evidence presented to us 22 over the past couple of days. We will come to a 23 decision in respect of the matters before us. In 24 our deliberations we will be guided by the terms 25 of reference that we received some months ago from 232 1 the Minister. We will be guided by the Manitoba 2 Environment Act, the Manitoba Principles and 3 Guidelines on Sustainable Development, and any 4 other relevant legislation, in this case obviously 5 some water legislation. 6 It is our job to look out for the 7 interest of the environment. More specifically, 8 it is our job to ensure that the environmental 9 assessment prepared by the proponent sufficiently 10 meets those environmental interests. If we find 11 that their assessment is significantly deficient, 12 it is open to us to recommend to the Minister that 13 an environmental licence not be issued. If we 14 find deficiencies that in our view can be 15 mitigated, we can recommend that the Minister 16 attach specific conditions to the licence. And if 17 we find no deficiencies, we can recommend an 18 unconditional licence be issued. While I cannot 19 prejudge what conclusions my colleagues and I will 20 come to, I can say with certainty that our 21 recommendations will be based on the testimony and 22 evidence presented in these hearings. 23 In closing I would like to thank my 24 colleagues on this panel. I would like to thank 25 the staff and consultants to the Clean Environment 233 1 Commission and our support staff, and I also would 2 like to thank the staff of this hall who have 3 accommodated us very well for the last couple of 4 days. The hearings are now officially terminated. 5 (Concluded at 4:10 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 234 1 2 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 4 5 6 CECELIA REID and LISA REID, duly appointed 7 Official Examiners in the Province of Manitoba, do 8 hereby certify the foregoing pages are a true and 9 correct transcript of our Stenotype notes as taken 10 by us at the time and place hereinbefore stated. 11 12 13 14 ---------------------------- 15 Cecelia Reid 16 COURT REPORTER 17 18 ---------------------------- 19 Lisa Reid 20 COURT REPORTER 21 22 23 24 25