PVWC wants a major well (marked by star). Map courtesy of Whelan Enns Associates.PVWC wants a major well (marked by star). Map courtesy of Whelan Enns Associates.
Eco-Journal, v.16.5, November/December 2006
By Kimberley Ballance
The Pembina Valley Water Cooperative (PVWC) is a regional water supplier that provides treatment and distribution services to approximately 45,000 residents in south central and southwestern Manitoba. Currently the PVWC treats water from the Red River and the Stephenfield Reservoir. Although the PVWC is only utilizing about half of their licensed water withdrawal, they have indicated that their current water supply is susceptible to periods of drought. As part of their risk management strategy, they need to ensure that the water supply is safe and secure. The PVWC contends that a new supply from an independent source is the solution.
The potential source selected was the lower sand unit of the Glaciofluvial Sandilands Aquifer Complex in southeastern Manitoba. This virgin supply would require the water to be transported 95 kilometers to the Morris treatment plant which is an existing part of the PVWC distribution system.
In response to a number of concerns expressed by the public, the Clean Environment Commission was instructed to hold hearings for this proposal. The CEC hearings were held on November 7th and 9th of 2006 in Freidensfield, Manitoba. PVWC presented the proposed project including an overview of the technical aspects of the pumping of the aquifer. The CEC panel, in particular Ian Halket, questioned the proponent on their knowledge of the recharge rate of the aquifer and downstream effects. It was determined that it would be impossible to know concisely how much water was available and how downstream users would be affected.
The Manitoba Eco-Network, as a registered participant, hired experts to bring quality information to the CEC panel. Issues brought to the table included a thorough review of existing legislation at the local, provincial and national levels, that would indicate that the project should not be able to proceed, if government followed its own policies and laws. Interestingly, the RM of Piney, the area where the proposed withdrawal point is, implemented bylaw 45/06 that prohibits the bulk transfer of water from their territory.
Dr. David Brooks, Policy Research Director of Friends of the Earth Canada, assisted the Manitoba Eco-Network in their presentation with a strong argument for water conservation and utilizing water of appropriate quality. Conservation efforts in the PVWC supply region would be a much more cost efficient alternative to the $12 million proposed project. Even conservative retrofits to homes and businesses would justify this alternative. (We´re not talking about reverting to outhouses here, simply using low volume technology that is readily available on the market.)
Evaluation of land and water use practices
Prior to the construction of new water projects, Dr. Brooks advised that an evaluation be completed of current land and water use practices to determine how better use could be made of existing natural water flows. As well, water quality should be connected to water use. For uses where non-potable water can be utilized, it should be available for use. Given that good quality ground water is found to the east of the Red River and lower quality ground water to the west, it is logical to make the best use of regional resources by extracting the latter for those uses that do not require potable water.
Although a number of options had been explored by the PVWC in their reports, there was no serious thought given to the “no-project option’ as proposed by Dr. Brooks. Sam Schellenberg, CEO of the PVWC, indicated in his rebuttal that a no-project option would mean “devastation’ to the communities and people that PVWC serves. This, however, is in total disregard to existing water that is being used unsustainably in the region. The no-project option does not mean that no action is taken, instead, alternative policies or programs would be put in place to provide the same services and at the same level of security. A no-project option would force the proponent and its municipal owners to undergo an overhaul of existing water use practices in the region.
Low flows on the Red River are understandably an issue that the region is forced to deal with. Drought conditions on the Red River are likely to seriously reduce flow about once every twenty years. Given that Canada does not have an apportionment agreement with the United States, the Red River flow could be reduced in the future. However, from a cost-efficiency perspective, organizations are well advised to choose options that emphasize value. “The general economic prescription in planning is to invest capital to cope with chronic problems but to use operating funds to cope with periodic ones’ (Brooks, 2006). This means that when problems occur only occasionally, it is cheaper to deal with them at that time, rather than investing huge sums of money up front on capital projects that will remain mostly idle until needed.
A number of municipalities and stakeholders spoke for and against the proposed project. Generally, RMs and municipalities where residents are utilizing PVWC´s supply and distribution system were in favour of the proposed project, while residents outside the region either requested increased environmental examination and scientific assessment or outright rejected the proposed project.
Manitoba Eco-Network made a closing statement indicating three final points that the panel should consider.
1. The Sandilands Uplands region has significant ecological importance and should be given a special designation and protection.
2. The PVWC should have to re-organize water use within their region prior to accessing new supplies in other areas. Conservation needs to be a priority.
3. The no-project alternative is the path that should be taken to move towards sustainability.
Sam Schellenberg made a closing statement indicating that the PVWC request for water was a small request and that the project will increase information regarding groundwater in the region. He also indicated that the PVWC was committed to their mitigation plan and if surrounding water users were affected, the tap would be shut off, regardless of the $12 million capital investment. Finally, Mr. Schellenberg stated that the PVWC plays an important role and cannot continue to rely on the Red River for its water supply.
The CEC panel is required to make a recommendation to the Minister within 90 days. Copies of the hearing proceedings can be found online at http://www.reidreporting.com/pembina_valley.html.