1 / 22

Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee

Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee. Recommendations for Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin Regulation Review Committee JULY 21, 2012. Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee.

zalika
Download Presentation

Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee Recommendations for Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin Regulation Review Committee JULY 21, 2012

  2. Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee The Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee gives a voice to the urgent needs of all residents and businesses for an immediate solution to the flooding of Lake Manitoba. It seeks adequate and inclusive compensation for the rehabilitation of land, businesses and residential properties damaged by the man-made flooding of Lake Manitoba. We live each day in the shadow of a flood that has not gone away. Shirley Nordal, Lundar, July 2012

  3. Committee Representatives Diane Price Dan Meisner RM of Grahamdale Oli Olson Peonan Point Dale Myhre Crane River Caron Clarke RM of Siglunes, Manitoba Beef Producers Fred Taylor RM of Lawrence Dennis Skoropata Blair Olafson RM of Siglunes Bill Finney RM of Alonsa Arne Lindell John Wainwright RM of Eriksdale Tom Teichroeb Joe Johnson Philip Thordarson RM of Lakeview Brian Sigfusson Greg Brown Harold Halls on RM of Coldwell Hugh Blair Malcolm Wild RM of Westbourne Larry Baker RM of St. Laurent, MACO Kevin Yuill Terry Simpson Portage La Prairie Ila Buchanan RM of Woodlands

  4. Public Survey The Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee conducted a simple survey regarding the most acceptable range of regulation for Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin and additional water control structure(s) for Lake Manitoba. The objective was to contact residents and business owners in the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin areas to get their recommendations for the operation of these two lakes. Communities between Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg were of particular interest as this area is highly impacted by the management of Lake Manitoba. Survey Questions What is your preferred operating range for Lake Manitoba and/or Lake St. Martin? Are you in favour or not in favour of an Emergency Drainage Channel from Lake Manitoba to Lake St. Martin? Do you have additional comments or concerns ?

  5. Survey Template

  6. Process The Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee queried permanent residents, seasonal residents, business owners, farmers, ranchers, and First Nations in both the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin areas. Respondents completed the survey questionnaire at various public meetings. Committee members queried their local communities in attempt to reach respondents from all areas surrounding Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. The survey questionnaire was also circulated via e-mail to flood related contacts. There was a significant effort to reach respondents in the Lake St. Martin area, including the various First Nations communities, as this area is highly impacted by the management of Lake Manitoba.

  7. Results • 495 respondents provided feedback on the management of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. • The respondents had been affected by the 2011 flooding of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. They freely voiced their concerns on the management of these two lakes because it is critical to recovering from the flood and moving forward with their lives and businesses. • 342 of 481 respondents (71%) commented on Lake Manitoba only. • 134 of 481 respondents (28%) commented on both Lake Manitoba and • Lake St. Martin. • 5 of 481 respondents (1%) commented on Lake St. Martin only. • 451 of 495 respondents (91%) were from the Lake Manitoba area. • 44 of 495 respondents (9%) were from the Lake St. Martin area. • The Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee feels it is important to continue to compile responses from the Lake St. Martin area.

  8. Range of Regulation RESPONDENTS LAKE LEVEL (feet above sea level) Preferred Minimum = 810.0` (324/468 respondents) [69%] Preferred Maximum = 812.0` (214/476 respondents) [45%]

  9. Range of Regulation RESPONDENTS LAKE LEVEL (feet above sea level) Preferred Minimum = 798.0` (71/138 respondents) [51%] Preferred Maximum = 802.0` (112/139 respondents) [80%]

  10. Range of Regulation RESPONDENTS LAKE LEVEL (feet above sea level) Preferred Minimum = 799.0` (16/26 respondents) [62%] Preferred Maximum = 802.0` (14/27 respondents) [52%]

  11. Lake Manitoba Water Control Structures Respondents in favour or against additional water control structures for Lake Manitoba. Respondent In Favour [476/489 (97%)] 16 • 489 respondents • 446 from Lake • Manitoba area • 43 from Lake St. • Martin area Respondent Possibly In Favour [3/489 (1%)] 16 23 Respondent Not In Favour [10/489 (2%)] 22 80 33 22 50 28 64 Distribution Map of Respondents 15 17

  12. Feedback: • Respondents were given an opportunity to comment on their recommendations for the management of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. • Their comments were grouped into the following categories: • Watershed Management • Range of Regulation • Lake Manitoba Water Control Structures • Environmental Concerns • Government Involvement

  13. Feedback: Watershed Management • The management of the entire watershed, specifically the Portage Diversion, should be reconsidered . • Shirley Nordal, Lundar • Solutions are needed throughout the watershed system. A permanent solution is needed. • Chief Gerald Anderson, Little Saskatchewan First Nation • There needs to be more concentration on control structures throughout the system (Saskatchewan, North Dakota, Manitoba). • Chief Garnet Woodhouse, Pinaymootang First Nation • The deficiency of dams and structures needs to be recognized. • Arvil Wilfred, • The flood of 2011 was a tragedy. Short-term solutions will not suffice. • Mathew Traverse , St. Martin First Nation • Don’t build piecemeal solutions. • Fred Hartman, St. Laurent

  14. Feedback: Range of Regulation • Lake levels should fluctuate in order to flush out marshes and to avoid permanent wetlands. Brad Knight, RM of Portage La Prairie • Lake Manitoba • Lake Manitoba has been kept at upper range for too long. • Jerry Sumner, Little Saskatchewan First Nation • Malcolm Wild, RM of Lakeview • Our pastures are flooded at levels over 810’. We are continually flooded at the current lake levels.Dale Myhre, Crane River • Lake St. Martin • Work together to achieve water levels of 800’ on Lake St. Martin • Chief Garnet Woodhouse, Pinaymootang First Nation • According to elders, the level of Lake St. Martin was 798’. • Jerry Sumner, Little Saskatchewan First Nation • Lake St. Martin can not be lowered too low. • Bertha Traverse, Little Saskatchewan First Nation

  15. Feedback: Additional Lake Manitoba Control Structure(s) • We are in-favour of additional control structures with a proper study. • Darlene & Wayne Burke, Lundar, Sugar Pt Beach • I am in favour of additional control structures if there are assurances. There needs to be careful consideration before anything is done. Chief Gerald Anderson, Little Saskatchewan First Nation • Chief Garnet Woodhouse, Pinaymootang First Nation • I am not in favour if Lake St. Martin rises over 800’. • Garnet Beardy, Lake St. Martin First Nation • I am not in favour of another channel. The water should be left in its natural flow – through Winnipeg. Dredge the Red River. • Kris Einarson, Dauphin River • I am in favour of additional control structures but not the proposed channels near the Fairford Dam. There would be a great impact on the fish habitat. • John Halchuck, RM of Grahamdale • I am in favour of actions that don’t flood or take advantage of others down stream. I know what it feels like. Shirley Nordal, Lundar • Bob Hayden, St. Laurent • Tom Johnson, St. Laurent • The outflow capacity of Lake St. Martin needs to be expanded to handle extra inflow from Lake Manitoba. Scott Forbes, Twin Beaches

  16. Feedback: Environmental Concerns • Additional control structures are an immediate option to prevent flooding but does nothing to prevent long term pollution of Lake Manitoba via the Portage Diversion. Larry Baker, St. Laurent • I am very concerned about pollution and water quality caused by the Portage Diversion water. Oliver Sanderson, O-Chi-Chak-Ok-Sipi First Nation • Solutions need to consider the fish habitat, it is highly impacted. • John Atridge, Grahamdale • Trapping is in jeopardy. Water wells are contaminated. Chief Garnet Woodhouse, Pinaymootang First Nation • High levels of phosphates will affect the fishing on Lake St. Martin. • Mathew Traverse, Lake St. Martin First Nation • There is no considerations made to wildlife or the environment. • Lolly Hokwats, Lake St. Martin First Nation

  17. Feedback: Government Involvement • The Government will have the opportunity to send more water through Lake Manitoba if another channel is built. • Bernice Einarson, Dauphin River • The Government needs to consult with local people. • Sterling Catchway, Skownan • The Government may have an interest in keeping lake levels high. Water held back equates to more money for Manitoba Hydro and the Government. • Jean Allard, St. Laurent • We are tired of inconsistency of the Government. • Fred Hartman, St. Laurent • The Government should have protected the First Nation communities between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba a long time ago. • Donna Dandeneau, RM of Coldwell • The residents of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin need more information regarding the plans of the Government and Manitoba Hydro. Joe Maud, Skownan

  18. Conclusions Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin residents and business owners have spoken passionately about their concerns regarding the management of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. The Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee would like to bring all of these concerns forward to the Lake Manitoba/Lake St. Martin Regulation Review Committee. These recommendations are valid and should be incorporated into the final report. The committee’s survey provides a inclusive first look at the recommendations of residents in the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin regions.

  19. Conclusions Range of Regulation • Lake Manitoba • 476 respondents commented on their preferred range of regulation for Lake Manitoba. • Minimum Range: 810.0` 69% of responses • Maximum Range: 812.0` 45% of responses • Lake St. Martin • 139 respondents commented on their preferred range of regulation for Lake St. Martin. • Minimum Range: 798.0` 51% of responses • Maximum Range: 802.0` 80% of responses • 27 of the139 respondents that commented on Lake St. Martin reside in the Lake St. Martin area. There preferences are: • Minimum Range: 799.0` 62% of responses • Maximum Range: 802.0` 52% of responses

  20. Conclusions Additional Control Structure(s) for Lake Manitoba • There were 489 responses regarding additional control structure(s) between Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin, • 479/489 of respondents (98%) were in favour. • 10/489 of respondents (2%) were not in favour. • As indicated on the response distribution map, • 446/446 of respondents (100%) from the Lake Manitoba area were in favour. • 33/43 of respondents (77%) from the Lake St. Martin area were in favour. • 10/43 of respondents (23%) from the Lake St. Martin area were not in favour.

  21. Conclusions Additional Control Structure(s) for Lake Manitoba The respondents that were not in favour of additional control structures were from the Lake St. Martin and Dauphin River areas. Their concerns with another control structure lied in the fact that they may be impacted with additional water flow that the area cannot handle. Many respondents indicated that they would be in favour of additional control structures if the Reach 3 Channel was operational. They also indicated that Reach 1 and Reach 3 would have to accommodate any additional water from Lake Manitoba. Proper studies of the watershed would provide these residents with assurances of how additional control structure(s) would operate safely. The Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee is continuing to consult with First Nations people from the Lake St. Martin area. Additional respondents from that area may provide more conclusive information regarding the range of regulation and additional water control structures.

  22. Thank-you for considering the concerns and opinions of the residents of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. The Lake Manitoba Flood Rehabilitation Committee is continuing to work towards complete rehabilitation for everyone affected by the flood of 2011. We need to prevent the disaster that happened in 2011 from happening again. We have not recovered yet. Cheryl Bjornson, RM of Alonsa, July 2012

More Related