The unsolved flood mitigation challenge and the Springbank dry dam project were on the news lately. In a couple of months (spring time) this subject will come up again. Alberta today is facing many challenges and water is the most critical of all.
A provincial election is looming. It is time we all speak up in favor of the solution that allows for managing the high spring flows, conserving water for drought conditions, fighting forest fires, and providing an opportunity to produce clean, renewable hydro-electricity.
10 FACTS regarding the proposed Springbank dry dam (SR1) and the available alternatives
1- On August 31, 2018, the Federal Environmental Review Agency (CEAA) sent to Alberta provincial government the following request: “Evaluate whether the Tri-River Joint Reservoir of Alberta (TRJR) and the Micro-Water Impounding Concept are feasible alternative means of meeting the Project’s purpose.”
Alternatives to the SR1 have never been professionally evaluated; CEAA recent directive of August 31, 2018 is a testimony to this fact.
2- It is high time for all of us, after waiting for more than five years, to unite behind the project that could actually provide the most benefit for the most people in the shortest timeframe. The TRJR option is a natural solution and its benefits include flood mitigation, storing up badly needed precious water, mitigating frequent droughts and fighting forest fires. We all need to join forces and rally around the solution that benefits the majority.
Once proven viable, after conducting the proper required studies by professional firms that are qualified for this task, one option or perhaps a combination of two could provide full protection to all of our vulnerable river communities much sooner than the constantly opposed and delayed Springbank dry dam (SR1).
3- It is wise to carry on the feasibility study on the TRJR now since there has never been a complete and sound engineering design done and presented on the proposed Springbank dry dam (SR1).
4- An expert panel of more than 50 members recommended a minimum 100 mcm (million cubic meters) reservoir size would be needed on the Elbow River: the current design for SR1 is estimated at a possible 77 mcm and MC1 an estimated 56 mcm. This puts both proposals in danger of failing.
5- We are continually told that the “experts” recommended SR1; however the report produced by the world renowned consultant Deltares, which was commissioned by the Alberta government, was only directed to compare two options: SR1 and McLean Creek (MC1). Deltares was never asked to weigh SR1 against alternative projects or concepts (other than MC1). Its scope was only to provide a comparison study between MC1 and SR1 even after the consultant AMEC report stated that neither SR1 nor MC1 could be considered “stand-alone” projects because of the limited available capacity for each option. Also, the Bow Basin Flood Mitigation and Watershed Management Report, on Page 117, advised “Dry dams are a massive and expensive undertaking with many complexities”....”There was little support among participants for dry dams, even in the Elbow River system where this type of infrastructure may play the greatest role in reducing flood flows for Calgary”... .... “The many environmental, social and economic factors and risks associated with dry dams need to be understood and assessed in a detailed and comparative cost-benefit analysis”. file:/http://Bow_Basin_Flood_Mitigation_and_Watershed_Management_Project_Final_Report_2014-03-31.pdf
6- The context in which the rushed SR1 project is being promoted puts the public safety in great jeopardy. After more than three years since the approval of the SR1, the Federal Environmental Review Agency CEAA (the highest authority in the country responsible for mega projects such as SR1) is still asking the proponent (Alberta Transportation) a fundamental question: “What if the proposed Springbank dry dam were to fail”? The answer to this question should have been provided before the government made the decision to proceed with the project, and announce to the public that they would have a project ready to go and completed by 2022.
If there is no satisfactory answer to this safety question, definitely, there is no feasible project. For any sensitive project, engineers must be able to address the question of the project safety before signing off their approval. CEAA also mentioned in its report that the province “does not describe in sufficient detail the potential environmental effects of accidents and malfunctions for worst case scenarios such as off-stream dam failure or breach, and diversion structure failure or breach.” Therefore, this is an inferior work done on a project that concerns, first and foremost, the safety of lives and the protection of property.
7- You may have heard and read in government reports, and from SR1 supporters, that SR1 is capable of handling a flood event similar to that of 2013. The expected life service of a dam could extend over one century (Glenmore dam is almost one century old). In the meantime, the officials acknowledge that there were previous floods much larger than the 2013 one; global and local trends have also shown that we should expect more extreme weather events in the future, yet the SR1 project design is based on the 2013 flood volume.
8- They justify the location of the SR1 based on a severe lack of understanding of the main source of flood water. Scientific reports and experts have attested to the fact that 80% of flood water is generated in the mountain area. Dr. John Pomeroy, a researcher who was awarded $77.8 million to study “Water Futures” has stated that the best location for a reservoir is in the most eastern valley of the mountains. This is where the Tri-River Joint Reservoir of Alberta (TRJR) would be located.
9- They are recommending berms as a part of the mitigation for towns or cities. In light of the magnitude of the 2013 flood, and previous bigger floods, berms have proven useless and a waste of taxpayers’ money. At the same time they would provide a false sense of safety. Did they listen to the suffering reported by the people who lived in communities with berms during the 2013 flood?
10- If it is the Tri-River Joint Reservoir of Alberta (TRJR) or the Micro-Water Impounding, or perhaps a combination of both, once the appropriate required feasibility study is completed, these options could provide full protection to all of our vulnerable river communities much sooner than SR1. The years of delays that SR1 has experienced (and still continue to experience) should be more than enough to begin immediately a feasibility study on the first phase of the TRJR. We could spend more precious time and taxpayer money pushing the SR1, or we could simply get the feasibility study done – and then be able to make the best decision for all residents across southern Alberta. The Federal Government has billions of dollars in the Disaster Mitigation Adaption Fund (DMAF) available to provinces on submission of a suitable project.