“Opponents believe the change in government will give them another shot at convincing politicians to reconsider.”

That’s what CBC Calgary reported in their article Proposed Springbank reservoir faces renewed, invigorated opposition and in their news broadcast (video at 16:30) last week.

But the facts haven’t changed. The Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir (SR1) was chosen as (and still is) the superior project for the Province to move forward with.

“The Springbank project has been selected through the science and the work done as the project of choice … it just needs to continue. The idea that it could ever be set aside or rethought is just completely untenable” – Tony Morris, CRCAG Co-President

Here’s a quick reminder of why the McLean Creek Reservoir (MC1) was not chosen:

• it is significantly more expensive, and thus has a lower cost-benefit ratio and lower return for Alberta taxpayers (and the cost-escalation risk for MC1 is higher than for SR1);
• it is expected to have more environmental impacts on the project area;
• it has a longer environmental review process, assuming it is determined to be environmentally acceptable (up to 69 months, and longer if well-funded opponents use the courts for delay tactics);
• it is a dam built in the river and, as such, it has a risk of catastrophic failure if hit by a flood during the construction process;
• it is more susceptible to sedimentation build up;
• it has longer construction timeline as it is being built on-stream; and
• the catchment area for retaining floodwaters in MC1 is smaller than SR1.

You can read the full list of reasons SR1 was chosen as the superior project in Alberta Environment and Park’s Recommendations on the Elbow River major infrastructure decisions report dated October 2015.

Dry Dam vs Wet Dam

MC1 is an on-stream reservoir and would need to have a permanent wet pool (aka ‘dead storage’), to control the sediment bed load from upstream, so it’d have to be operated ‘wet’, though it might not be purposefully managed for water supply needs.

Technically, SR1 could be operated ‘wet’ as well (and the flexibility exists), however, as we will explain next, using SR1 as permanent water storage is considered to be a less favourable solution (in addition to many other complexities that would need to be considered).

Drought Mitigation

Earlier this month, you may have noticed Mayor Nenshi’s somewhat surprising comment about SR1 being used for water storage:

“A reservoir on the Bow River [upstream of Calgary] will be more useful. That said, I know that the new government is in the midst of doing some more analysis on Springbank and if this is somewhere that they want to go, we can certainly help them with the analysis on that,” -Mayor Naheed Nenshi

Geographically, the Elbow River is not ideal for drought mitigation projects (it is a much narrower valley), whereas the Bow River (a much wider valley) is better suited to this type of project (larger capacity).

Currently, Alberta Environment and Parks is conducting a conceptual analysis of ten potential reservoir sites on the Bow River (expanded from three general areas; more info on this to come shortly); all of which would be multi-use for both drought and flood mitigation purposes.

When the province conducted the conceptual assessment on Elbow River options and the subsequent feasibility studies on SR1 and MC1, it did not intend to build a multi-use reservoir; the impetus for the project was flood mitigation.

Additional SR1 vs MC1 comparison expected in Province’s response to CEAA information request

As we eagerly await Transportation’s response to regulatory information requests, keep the following question in mind:

Question 45 in the CEAA’s IR package 3, addressing the topic of Alternate Means, cites the EIS Guidelines requirement for the proponent to “identify and consider the effects of alternative means of carrying out the project,” specifically: 

• updated comparison of MC1 and SR1, including costs/benefits
• additional study of the potential environmental impacts of MC1, specifically to Indigenous stakeholders; and
• an evaluation of whether the Tri-River Joint Reservoir of Alberta and the Micro-Watershed Impounding Concept are feasible alternative means of meeting the Project’s purpose.

It is our hope that the information provided in this information request can finally put to rest the SR1 vs MC1 debate once and for all.

If you have any questions or comments, please reach out to us at info@crcactiongroup.com.

For all flood season media coverage, access our blog post: In the news: 2019 flood season media roundup. We continue to update this post as new media coverage is published.

Regards,

Your CRCAG Board