Dear Minister Ashton,
I am writing as a seasonal visitor/inhabitant along Lake Manitoba for the past 30 years, first visiting as a child when my parents rented property, and then for the past 22 years as they have owned land along the southeast shore. Like many people experienced, properties in our area were devastated in 2011 when the lake rose 4.65 feet above the high end of its operating range, reaching a record 817.15 feet above sea level. During the time of the rising waters, the Portage Diversion was channeling unprecedented amounts of water into the lake. Then executive director of what used to be Manitoba Water Stewardship, Mr. Steve Topping, was quoted in the media saying that it was “unfortunate, but there was nowhere to put the water.” (1) In late 2011, I received a written email reply from the province’s flood forecasting team that the Portage Diversion had been responsible for diverting the equivalent of 4.13 feet of water into Lake Manitoba during the time it operated from early April until early August of 2011, and that 70-80% of this amount was estimated to be artificial input. Though the province had not directly publicly acknowledged it at the time (and in fact, to my knowledge, has yet to directly publicly announce it), this made it clear beyond any doubt that the primary reason that Lake Manitoba rose during the spring of 2011 was due to the operation of the Portage Diversion, and this fact has been regularly noted in the media.
I believe that most people around the lake are aware that the province, given the infrastructure that was in place, had to make the choice to divert water from the Assiniboine River into Lake Manitoba so that the area between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg would be spared a potentially even greater disaster. At the peak of the flood, roughly only one third (18,000 cfs) of the water at Portage la Prairie was continuing on the Assiniboine toward Winnipeg; the remaining two thirds was being diverted into Lake Manitoba. One can imagine the consequences had the water been allowed to follow its natural path. However, as you are aware, it has been well documented in the media that many people north of the Portage Diversion feel that they have been insufficiently compensated for taking the hit from the diverted water. Legally, this was evidenced in 2012 by a First Nations class-action lawsuit against the province, and more recently, it is evidenced this year by a class-action lawsuit filed against the province by inhabitants around Lake Manitoba.
I have heard you say and have read your comments in the past that you respect flood victims, and on the surface, this is an appreciated gesture. However, in recent weeks, I have listened to the province’s February and March Manitoba Flood Outlooks. In them, I have heard some comments from you regarding Lake Manitoba that appear to be very inaccurate, and in turn, are very disrespectful to those who were affected by the flooding in 2011.
First, in the February 28 Flood Outlook I note that you commented on the Lake St. Martin Emergency Outlet, stating that “The Emergency Outlet, by the way, reduced the level of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin by around 5 feet.” (2) Again, in the March 26, 2013 Flood Outlook, you stated that “The Emergency Outlet we put in place… dropped the lake levels by as much as 5 feet.” (3)
While the people of Lake Manitoba appreciated the building of the outlet, and I do not disagree that the Emergency Outlet had some effect in decreasing Lake Manitoba’s flood level (4), these statements appear to be enormously exaggerated. Looking at the province’s graph of Lake Manitoba levels, Lake Manitoba had dropped to 815 feet above sea level before the outlet was even completed in November 2011 (5). By the spring of 2012 when the lake thawed, the levels dropped to only 813.5 feet, or a difference of 1.5 feet. Some of this water would have flowed out of Lake Manitoba over winter through Fairford even without the Emergency Outlet. In addition, once open water was present on the lake in the spring, my understanding is that the Emergency Outlet did not provide further benefit – it only gave limited relief over the winter. In other words, your claim of 5 feet appears to have zero factual basis with respect to Lake Manitoba.
Second, in the February 28 Flood Outlook you stated that “The one thing that was never constructed was an artificial outlet from Lake St. Martin to enhance the capacity… we did that on an emergency basis in the last flood in 2011… so we’re in a much better situation than we were in 2011 in terms of Lake Manitoba.” (6) In addition, you noted that “The weak link was the outlet from Lake St. Martin – that’s now in place, so we’re in much better shape than we were in 2011 in terms of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin.” (7)
Again, it appears that your statements appear to have little basis in fact. If 2011 conditions repeated themselves this year, or next year, or any year in the future, and Lake Manitoba sat at the top of its operating range in the spring as it did in 2011, and there were similar flows from the Whitemud River, the Waterhen River, and the Portage Diversion, opening the Emergency Outlet in the spring would not provide the extra drainage needed on Lake Manitoba. The consequences of adding 4.13 feet of water through the Portage Diversion again would have the same disastrous consequences that they did in 2011. In other words, contrary to your assertion, we are actually in no better shape than we were in 2011. The link is as weak as ever with respect to future spring floods on Lake Manitoba.
If the province now knows that there is the possibility of dumping massive volumes of water through the Portage Diversion into Lake Manitoba, then the lake needs matching additional outflow through a secondary channel. Such a recommendation was contained in Dr. Jon Gerrard’s detailed 2011 flood report, finalized in 2012 (8), and those of us along the lake can only hope that the reports from the 2011 Flood Review Task Force and The Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Regulation Review and Operating Advisory Committee will make the same recommendations. I note that you stated last week in the March 26, 2013 Flood Outlook that these flood reports would be released in the next week or two; therefore, I anxiously await to read these reports this week or next. After all, the province had previously announced that they were initially due to be released in the late summer of 2012 (9), yet they are still pending in the spring of 2013.
Minister Ashton, in this letter, specifically, I am challenging your comments and am asking for you to either back up or retract your claim that the Emergency Outlet lowered Lake Manitoba by about 5 feet, and for you to back up or retract your claim that Lake Manitoba, with the Emergency Outlet in place, no longer has a weak link in terms of flood control.
The people affected from the 2011 flows from the Portage Diversion are tired of having their concerns deflected, answered indirectly, or ignored altogether. I simply ask for you be accountable with your statements. You state that you respect flood victims, and that they are entitled to say what they feel is right. This is what I am doing, saying what I feel is right, and I would certainly want to know if I am misunderstanding the facts. Respect goes both ways, and as an elected official, I realize you are entitled and expected to give accurate information to the public in video-recorded Flood Outlooks. You are not, however, entitled as an elected official to look into the lens of the camera and state blatant mistruths, which, to me, is what you appear to be doing.
I await your reponse to this letter in hopes that your comments will be clarified.
Sincerely,
Andy Zubrycki
http://new.livestream.com/WinnipegFreePressNews/events/1915295 (see 41:54 of video)
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/manitobas-billion-dollar-mistake-197725491.html
http://new.livestream.com/WinnipegFreePressNews/events/1915295 (see 45:12 of video)
http://new.livestream.com/WinnipegFreePressNews/events/191529 (see 46:11 of video)
