Calgary Herald

Is the Springbank Reservoir project the city’s best choice?

Research shows it’s the only option for flood-protection, writes

- Greg Johnson Greg Johnson is with the Calgary River Communitie­s Action Group

With the fourth anniversar­y of the 2013 flood that devastated Calgary and so much of southern Alberta around the corner, let us not forget that the flood risk for Calgary has not gone away. Calgary and southern Alberta will experience another 2013 flood. That is why the provincial government must proceed now with the Springbank Off-stream Reservoir Project.

A major flood in Calgary has been a historical inevitabil­ity since Fort Calgary was built at the confluence of two flood-prone rivers. Historical­ly, Calgary has seen two floods on record that were 30 per cent bigger than the 2013 flood. These larger floods would wipe out the entire downtown core for months.

The 2013 flood resulted in five deaths and over $5 billion of damages in southern Alberta. We can expect the same or worse if we tolerate inaction from our elected officials.

Why don’t we support the McLean Creek Project, which could protect more people and doesn’t require private land? McLean Creek is not a viable option.

Two successive provincial government­s have rejected the project through independen­t expert studies to compare their merits. The City of Calgary agrees. Based on science, they have all chosen the Springbank Project. It’s a false narrative propagated by opponents of the Springbank Project to suggest that it’s as simple as choosing to abandon the Springbank Project, after more than two years’ worth of taxpayer-funded design, engineerin­g and environmen­tal impact assessment.

The Springbank Project is the only option that stands between Calgary and another costly catastroph­ic flood on the Elbow River.

What’s the science behind the Springbank Project being the better alternativ­e? An independen­t expert evaluated the Springbank and McLean Creek Projects using nine different criteria, including cost/benefit comparison­s, environmen­tal impacts, impact on First Nations, risks (including catastroph­ic failure) and sedimentat­ion buildup.

These are the relative shortcomin­gs of the McLean Creek Project:

It is significan­tly more expensive, has a lower cost benefit ratio and lower return for Alberta taxpayers;

It has more environmen­tal impacts;

As it is a dam built in the river, it has a risk of catastroph­ic failure if hit by a flood during the constructi­on process (which would impact all downstream areas);

It has a longer environmen­tal review process, assuming it is determined to be environmen­tally acceptable (up to 69 months);

It is more susceptibl­e to sedimentat­ion build up;

It has a much longer constructi­on timeline as it is being built in the river itself; and,

The catchment area for retaining floodwater­s at the McLean Creek Project is smaller than the Springbank Project (which is located much further downstream and closer to Calgary).

What about the people of Bragg Creek and Redwood Meadows who are upstream of the Springbank Project?

The Springbank Project funding includes local area mitigation for Bragg Creek ($33 million), Redwood Meadows, which is on Tsuut’ina land ($9 million), and other areas that were impacted by the 2013 flood.

Local mitigation has now made High River one of the best-protected communitie­s in Alberta. But local mitigation alone cannot protect Calgary.

Our elected officials must move forward aggressive­ly with upstream mitigation on both the Bow and the Elbow rivers.

On the Elbow river, the proven best option is the Springbank Project.

A failure to act cannot be tolerated. Calgary, Bragg Creek and Redwood Meadows must be protected, and we call on our provincial, federal, municipal and Tsuut’ina government­s to work co-operativel­y for that greater good.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada