CRCAG has two main priorities: advocate to have sensible upstream mitigation on the Bow and Elbow rivers as soon as possible; and ensure that new government building development policy is based on revised flood mapping and adequately recognizes the upstream mitigation measures that will be installed.
We are pleased to report that the political level in the City is now engaging on these same issues.
You may have read the recent article in the Calgary Herald about the Water Resources presentation to the Standing Policy Committee on Utilities and Corporate Services. Members of the committee are Councillors Demong, Sutherland, Colley-Urquhart , Farrell, Keating, Magliocca, and Stevenson. The Mayor is also a member, but is not able to attend all meetings and was absent for this one. Councillor Carra exercised his right to attend and participate.
Here are some details on the meeting that were not mentioned in the Calgary Herald article.
Upstream mitigation really is the only practical option on both the Bow and Elbow rivers. The City administration reported that the cost of removing buildings and infrastructure out of harm’s way in Calgary is ”10s and 10s of billions of dollars” – an order of magnitude beyond the total cost of mitigation on the Bow and Elbow rivers.
The City feels, as we do, that upstream mitigation needs to be taken into account before coming up with new floodway development regulations (the “FDR” we’ve written about many times). As Councillor Carra said, “It’s crazy if we spend all this money on upstream mitigation, and then our policy environment does not reflect what we spent our money on. … We’ve pursued so far a very good approach of being the most reasonable people at the table…. At what point do we light our hair on fire?”
City Administration is comfortable that they can successfully lobby the provincial government on this important issue, and reiterated the importance of Special Policy Area (SPA) solution in Calgary’s core. Along with Councillor Demong however, we stand ready to assist Councillor Carra in lighting his hair on fire, should it be required. A transcribed excerpt of this discussion at the meeting follows below and you should read all of it.
We are thrilled that Councillor Druh Farrell added recommendation #6 – that flood mitigation is a top strategic priority for the City of Calgary. We thank both City Administration and our Councillors for their clear and strong position on these issues, as they align with our views.
All 6 recommendations were passed unanimously. Here they are:
1. Work with Council to advocate for an upstream reservoir and continuation of the Provincial-TransAlta operational agreement for the Bow River;
2. Continue supporting the development of the Springbank Off-stream Reservoir on the Elbow River by the Province;
3. Develop an implementation and funding plan for community level flood mitigation and report back to Council through the SPC on Utilities and Corporate Services or the Priorities and Finance Committee by Q2 2017;
4. Explore the development of a property level mitigation program;
5. In alignment with Provincial mapping and policy updates, conduct further investigation on land use policy and building regulations for areas prone to flooding; and
6. Work with City Council to confirm and communicate to other orders of government, that flood mitigation is a top strategic priority for the City of Calgary.
What happens next?
The recommendations will be passed to Council in a public meeting; we don’t know the date yet. Members of the public will each have an opportunity to speak for 5 minutes at this meeting. Your CRCAG executive will attend, but we encourage everyone to attend and let the City know how you were affected by the flood, and tell the City to fully engage on all six recommendations.
Links
Minutes of meeting (click on the title of section 3.2 in the minutes to get the ability to download the materials that Water Resources presented.
The Video of the meeting is also available. It is in the top right hand corner of the minutes page. It is many hours long, and you will have to scroll forward to about half way in the video to get to the part of the meeting that deals with flood mitigation: look for a title on the video saying section “3.2” , and you’ll know they are dealing with the flood mitigation part of the agenda.
An Excerpt:
Here’s some of the exchange at the meeting (with apologies for minor errors):
Councillor Gian-Carlo Carra:
There are really two responses to protecting the City like Calgary from a natural disaster like the 2013 flood and future watershed events. One is that you remove the city from the floodplain, and all the neighbourhoods along the floodplain, and all the infrastructure along the floodplain, and get it up out of there, and you pursue life high above the highwater mark. The other is that you recognize the massive cultural, financial and social investments that we’ve made in our downtown, in all of the neighbourhoods, and in institutions like the Stampede and everything. Then the idea of removing these things from the landscape is just a non-starter, so you go on with the project of protecting it. That’s the decision that we’ve made, but we haven’t really daylighted that initial conversation because there are still people in the positions of power and influence who, in the back of their mind, would just like to see us remove everything. And they’re still giving us advice along those lines. And I would probably argue that the conversation that is currently going right now is that if we protect to a 1:100 or 1:200 standard upstream, the idea that individual redevelopment projects would have to also come up with their own 1:100 or 1:200 mitigation on their own, as if there was no mitigation upstream, seems counterproductive, counterintuitive and a waste of money. So my opening question in, in light of that, what is the current state of that debate, and what can we do to daylight and end that pernicious conversation that’s kinking the recommendations we’re going in the wrong direction.
Frank Frigo, City’s Lead River Engineer:
A component of Attachment 2, which is a brief document that summarizes the City’s flood mitigation measures assessment does address that very question. The really simple answer is, in the case of Calgary, the infrastructure that is in place is far more valuable, and costs far more than the protection upstream. In general, we’re talking about more than an order of magnitude. So to buyout and convert the land use to an open space type used for any significant portion of the existing zone of risk, we’d be looking at 10s and 10s of billions of dollars, where mitigation looks like it would be in the order of 1 to 2 billion dollar total cost [for Elbow and Bow]. So in essence, that cost doesn’t seem to bear out. This is based on a full triple bottom line cost [social, environmental, financial], recognizing that if we were to look at selective or widescale community relocation or land use redesignation, it does mean that the existing functions and facilities would have to be abandoned, and there are costs there. And the environmental footprint of re-creating the same elsewhere would be incurred as well. So from the work we’ve done, it is very clear that in Calgary, the mitigation costs, if we’re looking at anything like the market value for the existing infrastructure, are far cheaper than that. Because our recommendations do include looking at intelligent land use, there are certain uses that we would recommend that we do consider very carefully. Particularly uses that involve any form is a vulnerable population: things like elder care facilities, daycares, these sorts of things. Though we’re looking for complete sustainment of communities in floodplain areas, there are critical pieces of infrastructure and emergency response facilities, major electrical power or utility installations that really ought to be outside of any zone of risk all the way up to the 1:1000 risk. We don’t believe it’s intelligent to talk about that in great details until we understand what level of protection can be afforded by the combination of structural measures that are being proposed here.
GC Carra
I have a question about the level of protection we’re doing, reflecting the policy. So our statement is that future policy changes must align with structural investments and future provincial policy and federal floodplain guidelines. And that’s sort of like technospeak for the fact that if we protect to a 1:100 year event upstream, then the policy for downstream has to reflect that 1:100 protection. Currently we’re getting signals from the province that they want to do 1:100 upstream, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and then want to do it [development policy] on a case by case basis on the downstream beneficiaries. Is that still the case? Are we still getting the mixed messages from the province?
Frank Frigo
The province up until now has identified that floodplain mapping standards are based on naturalized flows which do not account for local infrastructure, other than for landfilling. So if the topography has actually been changed in a place, like Quarry Park where fill has been brought in, that kind of a change is recognized. At present, the province doesn’t recognize any other flood mitigation components. They map what they call naturalized flows that ignore the effect of dams and ignore the effect of local embankments.
GC Carra
So they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to achieve outcomes that they are then ignoring?
Frank Frigo
The province has proposed that a new floodplain area called Special Policy Area or SPA, may be introduced. That has been discussed publicly at a number of forums. To date, we don’t have details on precisely what will be considering within the confines of that new floodplain hazard zone.
GC Carra
That’s enraging. Not just as someone who represents the citizens of Calgary, but as someone who is a taxpayer in the province of Alberta and the City of Calgary. When do we come pounding on this, or do we just let this work itself out? We’ve pursued so far a very good approach of being the most reasonable people at the table, and slowly watching everything fall into place. At what point do we light our hair on fire, or, at what point do we take solace in the fact that you and your team have ‘got this’.
Frank Frigo
I don’t think there’s cause right now to light our hair on fire.
GC Carra
Thank God
Frank Frigo
We’ve had productive conversations with Municipal Affairs at the province as well as Alberta Environment. We are seeking through that fifth Recommendation that Council recognize that this is an important component and we do appreciate the comments from the public and comments that we’ve gathered through our extensive public engagement program earlier in 2016 around this issue. The fact that we have presented an overall solution to flooding that rest heavily on structural mitigation very much expresses that we expect the structural mitigation investments will be recognized in eventual policy changes.
{…}
GC Carra
I do have one final question, sent in email form from someone who was here earlier today and was unable to attend. We’ve addressed it at length. It’s really the question of: It’s crazy if we spend all this money on upstream mitigation and then our policy environment does not reflect what we spent our money on. [Recommendation] #5 addresses that. The question is, does it address it as forcefully as it could or should, given where we are in the negotiations with the province. Are you comfortable that that handles it, or do we need to maybe be a little more forceful in our language?
Frank Frigo
I am comfortable with it and I do have faith in the province that we will be able to align and that our efforts to communicate and our work around explaining from a technical perspective what implications might be, will be, fruitful. So I do feel that it is reasonable.
GC Carra
Thanks and I reiterate that I am standing by to set my hair on fire, if required.
{…}
Druh Farrell closing remarks:
Thank you to all the community groups who have been working so hard on this one. We’re going to need your advocacy in communicating this priority to the provincial and federal governments. When we talk about priorities, this [flood mitigation] is certainly my top priority. If we want to look at all the messages we’re giving to the province, we have a whole bunch of requests into them formally and informally. We have the flood, green line, west ring road, completion of the arena, affordable housing and if we don’t get this one [flood mitigation] right , it certainly impacts the green line as it goes through the City core. We have to focus on this one, as people forget what it was like. So I think it is incredibly important that we communicate this continually to the province until they get it done. Because both dams are going to be very hard to execute politically for the province. They’re going to need us to back them up, or it will be easy for them to just move on. And we can’t let that happen.