THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 9, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET], in camera, to examine and report on issues relating to agriculture and forestry generally.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Senators, as I’ve done in the past, before we begin, I’d like to remind you and our witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times, unless you’re recognized by the chair.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience other technical issues or challenges, please contact the ISD service desk with technical assistance number provided.
The use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping won’t be conducted. As such, while conducting our committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private or privileged Senate information. Senators should participate in a private area and be mindful of their surroundings so they do not inadvertently share any personal information or information that could be used to identify your location.
With that, good morning, everyone. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee and our witnesses, as well as those watching on the web.
My name is Rob Black, senator from Ontario, and I’m chair of this committee. It’s my pleasure now to introduce the members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, starting with the deputy chair, Senator Simons from Alberta; Senator Deacon from Nova Scotia; Senator Klyne from Saskatchewan; Senator Marwah from Ontario; Senator Oh from Ontario; Senator Petitclerc, Quebec; and Senator Jaffer from British Columbia.
Today the committee continues its study on the British Columbia flood and recovery efforts, and at this time I would like to introduce the witnesses for our panel. Today we welcome from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., Monica Mannerström and Graeme Vass.
Folks, thanks for joining us, and we’ll hear opening remarks from Ms. Mannerström. You’ll have five minutes for your opening remarks, and I’ll raise my hand at one minute just to give you a sense of time. With that, Ms. Mannerström, the floor is yours.
Monica Mannerström, Principal Flood Management Engineer, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.: Thank you for this opportunity to present our findings from the Lower Mainland dike assessment. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., or NHC, were retained by the B.C. provincial government to carry out this work in 2015. I would like to briefly summarize the history of diking in the Lower Mainland, the present status of the dikes and some thoughts for the future.
When we talk about the Lower Mainland, we refer to the communities from the district of Hope at the upstream end of the Fraser Valley down to the Pacific Ocean.
First Nations have inhabited this area for thousands of years. Historically, flooding was not a major issue as the people had seasonal dwellings and moved out of harm’s way during the freshet, or snowmelt season. This, of course, is not the case anymore.
In the mid 1800s when European settlers began to arrive, farming commenced and the first dikes were built to protect the land. In 1894, when the flood of record occurred, all diking failed and the entire Fraser Valley was flooded.
Following the flood, more substantial dikes were built. In 1948, the second-largest Fraser flood breached these dikes, and again the valley was flooded. After this, the Fraser River Flood Control Program was introduced and substantial dike upgrades were carried out.
Our 2015 dike assessment included well over a hundred dike segments. This was a desktop, overview-level study, based on readily available information from previous engineering reports. It did not include field assessments. The intent was to provide a comparison of flood levels based on 1D hydraulic modelling and surveyed crest elevations of the dikes.
We also summarized dike characteristics, such as cross-section geometry, geotechnical stability, erosion protection, et cetera. We found that the dikes, generally, do not meet provincial standards. This is because recent numerical modelling has resulted in higher and more accurate design flood levels, and dike design criteria have become more stringent over time.
In considering dike crest elevations relative to design flood levels, 71% of the dikes are expected to fail simply by overtopping during the design flood event. That’s the recurrence of the 1894 flood of record. And in terms of other characteristics, 87% of the dikes were categorized as in less-than-fair condition. The dikes are also seismically vulnerable and would experience deformation and displacement during a major earthquake.
Considering land costs, raising the dikes would be very expensive and meeting seismic criteria extremely difficult. Dike upgrades need to be prioritized and other flood mitigation measures, both structural and non-structural, explored. Flood emergency preparedness plans are urgently required.
We have worked on a number of Fraser Basin Council flood management initiatives, but these have been of limited budget, and specifics for flood protection are yet to be developed. Adaptation to climate change impacts, such as increased peak flows and sea-level rise, will, in the future, require much more significant measures.
The November 2021 flood was not the result of the Fraser River overflowing its banks, but the inundation can be seen as a mini Fraser flood. The damages from the Fraser design flood would be at least tenfold what we saw in November.
On that note, I will end NHC’s presentation. Graeme Vass worked with me on this project, and together we would be glad to answer questions you may have.
The Chair: We will proceed with questions, and as has been our previous practice, I’d like to remind each senator that we have five minutes for your questions and answers. If you wish to ask a question, just signal. Either raise your hand in the room or raise your hand on the Zoom platform and I will note that. I will raise my hand at one minute left to go, just so everyone knows that, and we will do multiple rounds if needed. We have lots of time.
With that, I’ll turn the first question over to our deputy chair, Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’m so glad that you are with us this morning. I have so many questions, and I’m glad we have time for lots of them.
You did this major study in 2015, and you said at the time it was a desktop study, that it didn’t involve the actual inspection of the dike. When was the last time, that you know of, that the dikes were physically inspected? If you’re saying that 71% are substandard, when was the last time somebody actually looked to see what condition they are in now?
Ms. Mannerström: I believe that has not been done. In 2003, the provincial government downloaded responsibility for flood management to municipalities. Some municipalities have more funding than others, and they have managed to conduct dike inspections on their own, some of which we’ve been part of, but definitely not all of them. Whereas other municipalities, other diking authorities have not been able to do thorough inspections. I think it’s part of their work to every year do annual inspections before the freshet, but the standards vary a lot.
Senator Simons: As an expert in this field, would you recommend that it should be policy to examine the diking system holistically? Because presumably the only way you can see if the flood mitigation infrastructure will be sufficiently resilient is if you look at it as an entire system and not one-off and one-off.
Ms. Mannerström: I totally agree. I think it would be very important to analyze the whole system holistically because in many cases if one dike fails, several communities will be affected.
Senator Simons: Do I have time for one more question?
The Chair: You have time.
Senator Simons: As I understood what you said at the end, this particular flood was not a result of the Fraser River overflowing its banks; it was the Nooksack River and the Sumas Lake issues. Did I understand you to say that if the Fraser overflowed its banks, the flooding damage and extent could be 10 times what we experienced last year?
Ms. Mannerström: Correct. That’s my estimate. In 2016, Fraser Basin Council retained Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to do a vulnerability assessment for the Lower Mainland. I feel these numbers may now be outdated, but in any case we looked at billions of dollars of damage, and if you factor in climate change for future conditions, we are up to something in the order of $30 or $40 billion.
Senator Simons: One last question before I pass. You talked about the seismic standards. The Lower Mainland of British Columbia is an earthquake zone. What would be required? I’m trying to imagine the consequences of a spring flood happening at the same time as a major tremor. What would need to be done to bring these dikes up to standard to be earthquake resistant?
Ms. Mannerström: This is problematic, primarily because the dikes have been built so close to the river. The greatest danger is that they would simply slump into the river during an earthquake. The probability of having both a freshet and an earthquake at the same time is very small. It’s still there, but it’s small.
The criteria for seismic stability is typically based on how quickly the dike can be rebuilt to protect against future floods. Considering the soils that underlie the dikes, this is a really big problem. Very expensive to remediate.
Senator Simons: Thank you so much. I suspect I could take up our whole time with my questions, but I know others have them as well, so thank you very much.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. I just want to follow up with the questions being asked just now. The flood could come at any time again this year. It could be happening again in November, December or January. Have the three levels of government worked together to come up with something concrete?
Ms. Mannerström: We are looking at basically two types of floods. We have the freshet snowmelt flood in the springtime, and then we have rainfall-generated floods in the fall. Yes, flooding could happen this year, as well as next year.
Right now for snowmelt, I think there is potential for a fairly large flow on the Fraser River because the snowmelt has been very slow. If we were to have a heat dome or atmospheric river combined with the Fraser, that could result in considerable flood levels.
Senator Oh: Do you know who is taking the lead of this project? This is so critical now, the time. As you say, spring could bring flooding, and a rainstorm could come, and climate change is a big thing happening now. Is anyone taking the lead of getting this thing quickly being fixed?
Ms. Mannerström: Our provincial government plays a role in river forecasting, both looking at the flows and flood levels. They also provide diking patrols when the flood levels get very high. Graeme, would you like to add to that?
Graeme Vass, Hydrotechnical Engineer, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.: I don’t necessarily have too much to add to that. I’m unsure of what steps are currently being taken to address these issues.
Senator Oh: Has the government given feedback on the progress to all of you? You guys have the local area knowledge. Are you being consulted by the government on where do we go for the next step?
Ms. Mannerström: In fact, NHC was asked to provide a quote for assisting with flood level forecasting just yesterday. We often do work for the provincial government, but my understanding is that they are understaffed.
Senator Oh: That’s not very good, understaffed on a very serious project happening. Thank you, witnesses.
Senator Klyne: Thank you for your report and being here with us this morning. I see that your work takes a very pragmatic approach based in science, technology, engineering and the study of history in the area. I have two questions. The second one I’ll save for the second round.
The first one is: Based on your knowledge and your in-depth experience and all the tools available to you in your tool box — I’m concerned about the vulnerability of this area and history repeating itself — is there any way we can build back forward in terms of taking lessons learned and everything we know — including traditional knowledge, working with the First Nations, who, as you mentioned, have been there since time immemorial — to come up with something that increases the probability of success going forward? We expect to see this happen again, and it just seems as if we need — I don’t want to use the phrase “good money chasing bad”— to look for that breakthrough strategy here in the alternatives. I’m not sure we’re considering those as much as we should, and maybe we will make similar mistakes and see this all over again.
What is your view or perspective on building back forward?
Ms. Mannerström: It’s a classic case of having an ounce of prevention. If we can prevent or reduce flood damages, we will save so much money from the reduced damages. There are so many things that could be done, but they will require funding, and that seems to be the bottom line every time, that there isn’t enough funding.
We have worked on a number of projects to try to reduce flood damages, but they are always limited in scope, and very little can be accomplished. If you were to ask me, I could provide a very long list of what I think should be done.
Senator Klyne: I’m asking.
Senator Simons: Please. Give us a long list.
Senator Klyne: That would be great.
Regarding the limit in funding, there are ways for this country to pull together resources, not just through its own treasuries. However, if we are going to do this every 10 years, the cost won’t decrease. If we could invest, today, not just to mitigate but also to eliminate this through a significant canal project that reroutes the runoff from the mountains and maybe even captures some of it in times of flood, we can manage the floodwaters. In times of drought, we could release some of that water.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. Maybe today is the day to make huge investments to thwart these things going forward. It would be great to hear your thoughts about going forward if you have a report. Thank you.
Ms. Mannerström: I couldn’t agree more with you that we need to invest today to prevent future damages, because that would be a tremendous saving for the taxpayers.
With climate change, this will only get worse. We can already detect that in our flow records and precipitation records. The situation will only get more dire. It’s important that we look at other flood mitigation measures than just diking.
Senator Klyne: Hear, hear.
Ms. Mannerström: The biggest problem with dikes is that they actually increase risk. They drive more population and development behind the dikes, and when the dikes fail, the damage is so much higher.
One of the measures we need to consider is setting back the dikes to give the river more room. Traditionally, we’ve been greedy by building so close to the rivers. We need to, especially at constricted areas in the river, open them up so that the capacity of the channel is greater.
Sediment removal is contentious because it affects fish habitats, but to some degree and if done in an environmentally careful way, it also needs to be considered.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much for being with us this morning.
About that long list of recommendations, I can’t tell you how much I think all of us would like to see it. Therefore, to the extent that you would be willing to invest some time in giving us at least a summary of that list, it would be gratefully received. It appears, Ms. Mannerström, that you have a wonderful perspective on this in what has and hasn’t been done.
We had some powerful testimony a week ago from Chief Tyrone McNeil and Brenden Mercer about the restrictions that they have on them and their inability to act to use traditional knowledge and traditional practices to prevent this cascade of challenges that can occur and that did occur last fall and likely will occur again in the not-too-distant future.
Could you just make sure that the list, if you’re willing to make it, helps us to bring forward key pieces of advice that you would like to see in our report?
Could you speak to one, two or three key things, right now, that you would want to make sure we speak to as we report on this event that has not been mitigated and that won’t be mitigated in the future unless action is taken?
Ms. Mannerström: I would be happy to prepare a list of projects. I think this would become a scoping study for us. A fair bit of thought needs to go into it.
We are working with First Nations on several projects. Traditional knowledge is valuable, and it’s been overlooked for far too long. To do this properly, we would need to do a small project, a scoping study, to take it forward, and I can certainly provide details on what I think should be done.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses. It’s very helpful. So many good questions have been asked already, but I do want to dig in a little more on one point.
Last week, we heard some interesting testimony, as we have today. When we were talking about what is happening now and what we can do in the future, one of the witnesses last week mentioned that maybe the way we did things years and years ago was not optimal. It was not always a good idea to build in certain places. It is a very difficult conversation to have, obviously. I’m not asking about what is happening now. I’m wondering: Now that we know better, are we doing better? Are you consulted when it comes to new projects or developments? Have we learned, and are we putting populations, organizations, businesses at risk?
They are big questions. It’s a difficult conversation, but I would like to have your input on that.
Ms. Mannerström: You ask if we have learned. We are learning. It’s an ongoing process. There is hope that we will approach flood management in better ways in the future.
We see a great example from Washington State with Yakima River, where dikes have been set back with great results. There’s some precedent, though not much, in British Columbia so far, but I think there’s potential to learn from our past mistakes and introduce new ways of doing things.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. Let me just be precise. I’m not an expert. If there is an idea, a project, that might happen in such territory that presents some risk of flooding, are you consulted? Are organizations consulting, saying, “Okay, is this maybe not the right spot? Is it a good idea? What is the level of risk?” Or are we consulting you after the fact?
Ms. Mannerström: Well, it is primarily after the fact, when there has been a problem, flooding has occurred, and then a retroactive approach is taken. It would be so much better to be proactive. That’s not happening to a great extent. I think, primarily, it boils down to cost. People don’t see this as a high priority, as it should be.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. It’s been very interesting. As you know, Ms. Mannerström, a lot of the farms were built on the lakes, and that’s a challenge. Some years later, the lakes remember that there was water here, so that’s a challenge, as you know.
However, there is the Abbotsford council. There is our B.C. province, but there’s also the Whatcom County in the U.S., as well as Washington, D.C. The biggest challenge there is that dikes need to be two metres above the grade. I don’t think we’ve been able to convince them about that. Can you kindly speak about the U.S. role? In the last flood, the water, a lot of it, came, if I’m not mistaken, from the U.S. Can you suggest how we can work to improve our situation there?
Ms. Mannerström: I’m not very knowledgeable about what’s happening in Whatcom County. We do have an office on the U.S. side, and I know they are working away on this problem. My understanding is that they are quite innovative and actually looking at building a second channel to the Nooksack River that will be able to carry overflow and will also allow sediment to be deposited in one channel and then the option of switching the river to the other channel while removing material from the first channel. Please don’t quote me on this because I don’t have all the details, but I believe some very good concepts are being looked at.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much. I’m sorry I put you in an uncomfortable position. That was not what I meant to do. I also understand that, the U.S. does not necessarily look to benefit British Columbia and Canada sometimes in their planning. Have you heard that, or no?
Ms. Mannerström: Yes, I have heard that. We do have the International Joint Commission looking at transboundary water issues. I feel that this organization should also look at the Nooksack River.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: This has been so tremendously helpful. I want to look back specifically at what actually happened in British Columbia this fall. Technically speaking, can you walk us through where the dikes and other water management systems failed, which led to the crisis we saw in British Columbia last year?
Ms. Mannerström: I can try. In Abbotsford, there is a so-called interceptor dike. It protects the lowest Sumas Lake area from flooding from the Nooksack River. The dike is built to actually overtop. It’s perhaps something that not many people are familiar with, but it is built to overtop so that the flooding is more equitable over the entire area. If the interceptor dike were built to prevent any flow going into the Sumas Lake area, it would cause very severe flooding on the other side of it. So it actually performed as planned.
Senator Simons: So the issue there wasn’t the failure of that dike. It was just the unprecedented volume of the water between the Nooksack and the — what do they call it? You know, the river in the sky.
Ms. Mannerström: The atmospheric river. That’s correct. It was an extreme event. Other watersheds in the area, the Coquihalla, other rivers further away in Langley and other areas, saw extreme flow levels, and we can expect more of this.
Senator Simons: We are a Senate committee. It’s not our job necessarily to provide recommendations to provincial or municipal governments. It is our job to provide suggestions to the federal government. What do you think the role of the federal government should be in a leadership position here, given that we’re dealing with interprovincial waterways, with international waterways that cross the U.S. border, and given the scale of the problem? Do you think there’s a role for the federal government to take leadership both from a financial and a practical planning perspective?
Ms. Mannerström: I’d like to say yes, absolutely, and I think it would save the taxpayers money in the future if you did.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Simons. You did a far better job of asking for specific advice than I did. I appreciate that.
You gave a number of 10 times what happened in the Sumas area, the Abbotsford area, last year in terms of the cost if this happened further downriver. You then estimated that to be $30 billion or $40 billion. That suggests you may have an estimate of the cost of this event to the area in general terms. Could you give us a bit of an overview of that, please? Thank you very much.
Ms. Mannerström: I don’t have specific information on the costs of the damages that happened. I’ve seen some numbers just in the newspapers. I have not been involved with assessing the damages in detail. I’ve seen numbers of up to $5 billion. I’m not certain of that.
Senator C. Deacon: If there is a source that you would recommend that we consider in that regard, we’d be appreciative. As well, if you are willing, please send that list of recommendations, specifically as it relates to how we can encourage the federal government to take a leadership role in something that we know will happen again. Thank you.
Ms. Mannerström: Thank you.
The Chair: With that, colleagues, there are no more questions, unless any further hands up or last-minute questions?
Senator Simons: I feel like these witnesses are too good to let them go.
If you had to give advice about where the priorities should be — this is an interlocking system. Have different waterways, different communities, different countries. From an engineering perspective, what should the first steps be? What are the top priorities to safeguard the people and the agricultural industries of this unique community?
Ms. Mannerström: As engineers, we’re not very spontaneous. We need to go away and study and do our calculations. In this case, the calculations would involve estimating risk, primarily, seeing where the major deficiencies are and what the damages could be from structures failing. Our priority should be to avoid loss of life, and that would perhaps be implementing emergency response plans that are detailed, practised, people know about them and people understand the risks involved.
Senator Simons: Thank you. That’s a whole aspect we haven’t talked about yet, emergency preparedness. Knowing that these things might fail, what the backup plans need to be to keep people as safe as possible in the event of an emergency. Thank you so much. You’ve just been an outstanding witness.
Senator Klyne: Just to dovetail off the question and answer you provided; this will be a difficult question to answer, but I’m looking for an answer in the general area of the area code.
The study that you say would be the opposite end of being spontaneous and a more pragmatic approach, from your view, how long would something like that take? And what kind of dollars to do all of these modelling of scenarios and predictions and looking at risks? High risks, low costs, high risks, big costs. That kind of thing.
Ms. Mannerström: Often we find that the best approach is to start with a small scoping study where we can consider options, get a big picture idea of problems and how to resolve them. Scoping studies could run maybe $100,000. That would lead us to a more detailed assessment of the most promising options. To do that properly would be a much larger effort.
Senator Klyne: How long would it take to do the step number one, the scoping study?
Ms. Mannerström: Probably just half a year or so, in that order.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. Ms. Mannerström and Mr. Vass, thank you very much for your participation today. I think you’ve heard from my colleagues that your testimony has been very critical to our study, and so thank you very much for your participation today. We do appreciate it. You can expect to see us report on our study, and I anticipate you will recognize some of the messages that we’ve heard today because your messages have been well received.
Thank you, senators, for your thoughtful participation and your very thoughtful questions. I want to say thanks to our interpreters and our logistics team for ensuring that everything runs smoothly here, and if it’s okay, we will move into in camera, so I’ll suspend for a moment. Thank you very much to our witnesses.
(The committee continued in camera.)