Lake Diefenbaker Operating Plan Consultations Municipal Upstream Sector July 11, 2012 @ 10:00 a.m. Harbor Golf Club and Resort, Elbow Harbour Recreation Site Facilitators: Ken Gustavson, Dazawray Landrie-Parker Recorders: Robin Tod, Heather Davies Stakeholders: Name Municipality Velma Corbett Organized Hamlet of Hitchcock Bay Gary Dunn Village of Elbow Gary Ewen R.M. of Maple Bush #224 Milt Harriman Organized Hamlet of Hitchcock Bay Gordon Johnson Resort Village of Coteau Beach Bill Nike Village of Elbow Gerry Rein R.M. of Maple Bush #224 Lynne Saas Resort Village of Mistusinne Bill Sheppard R.M. of Canaan #225 Garry Stone Village of Loreburn Meeting Notes Kent Gustavson started the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Kent Gustavson made introductions and asked the participants to introduce themselves. Rescan Environmental has been contracted by Saskatchewan Watershed Authority (SWA) to facilitate the working sessions and the follow-up session in November 2012. Question: How many people were invited to attend response sessions? Comments indicated that there did not seem to be a big turn-out for this session. Answer: There were 25 people invited to this meeting. It was agreed that fewer people were in attendance than we hoped. Kent indicated that between 10 to 12 people is optimal for this type of session. Robin indicated that due to the large number of municipalities, the sector group was split into two sessions for upstream and downstream communities. Kent discussed the background of the process and asked whether the participants had attended the first meeting in Outlook. Comments indicated that all of the participants had attended the May 30th meeting. Kent reviewed the schedule for the consultation process. The intent of the sector specific meeting is to get the municipalities feedback and input when SWA revises the operating plan. 1 Rescan staff will record and represent what participants have to say. This is the information that participants believed was important. Kent discussed the large meeting in the fall (November) where Rescan will report back on what was shared at the response sessions. This session will allow attendees to further respond to findings. SWA will take this information and draft a revised operating plan. The plan will be subject to Cabinet approval. With reference to the presentation, Kent talked about sector specific issues, past and current issues, values of the reservoir and other related issues to the management of the reservoir. Comments from participants indicated confusion about the questionnaire in the document “Developing a new reservoir operating plan for Lake Diefenbaker”. Some participants were not aware of the questionnaire and others had not completed it before the meeting. Some participants thought that the questionnaire was to be used to stimulate thought and discussion. Comments indicated that the information provided was not clear about what to do with the questionnaire. A request was made that participants send in the completed questionnaires to: Robin Tod, 420-2365 Albert Street, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4P 4K1, e-mail [email protected] or fax (306)787-0780. Kent went over the rules for the working session regarding respect and discussion: Please speak one at a time. Be respectful of colleagues. Kent noted that the meeting notes would be posted on the SWA website (www.swa.ca) on the “Developing a New Reservoir Operating Plan for Lake Diefenbaker” page. Challenges Kent asked participants for their feedback on the broad level challenges inspired by the background document and/or any challenges they may experience associated with the operation of Lake Diefenbaker. From a community perspective, small rural communities are struggling with the day to day realities of development and sustainability. Participants were concerned about the provincial government’s emphasis and focus over the last 2-3 years on promoting Lake Diefenbaker as a recreational and tourism destination. However, participants feel that this is in conflict with how the water levels in Lake Diefenbaker are managed. For example, it was noted that 80% of provincial park users come to the parks to use the beaches and to swim, yet due to high water levels there is not a lot of beach left for these uses. A comment was made that it is important when managing Lake Diefenbaker’s water levels to recognize and to not ignore all of the other priorities with which Lake Diefenbaker was created. Participants felt that because Lake Diefenbaker is promoted as an important recreation and tourism site for Saskatchewan, the lake should be managed to 2 accommodate these uses. One solution that was suggested was the provision of artificial beaches for tourists. It was noted that the economic activity associated with tourism is heavily dependent upon a short commercial season. Participants felt one of the big issues surrounding the management of Lake Diefenbaker is the upper elevation or full supply level of the lake. They felt that it is the top metre of water that is causing the most problems to the waterfront communities, such as shoreline erosion. At Coteau Beach, issues are similar regarding the water levels. The community has protected the shoreline from erosion through the installation of rip-rap but the beaches are not protected. Why are we reacting when the damage is done? Reference was made to correspondence from the provincial government regarding the issue. When the lake is near full supply level, the beach is very narrow with less than 10 metres of sand for use. o Comments were made about the management of the reservoir being reactionary rather than anticipating the flows from Alberta. In 2012, the spillway was opened much later than expected. Information from SWA announced that it was to be opened weeks earlier than the actual date when the spillway was opened. A comment was made that the water that goes through the spillway does not generate power. o The challenge is to proactively predict and manage flow level so that the beaches are available during the summer months for tourists. Participants understand that there are issues downstream of Gardiner dam. Comments were made by participants that SWA does not do a good job of educating communities around the lake. o Suggestions were made that SWA should do a better job of communicating/educating the communities about the management of the reservoir. One suggestion included SWA developing a database of all affected communities/landowners around the lake so that the Authority can send out advisories through e-mails. o Suggestions were made that SWA/province should investigate solutions to the management of the lake relative to the high water levels. Participants felt that if SWA cannot manage the top elevation, the province needs to look into solutions for resort communities such as a raised artificial beach. A comment was made that the province is putting on a party for tourism and that the communities are paying for the cost of the party. Infrastructure should be provided to communities to deal with the high water levels on Lake Diefenbaker. A comment was made that the water level of Lake Diefenbaker can be controlled. Full supply level (FSL) can be adjusted by SWA if necessary. A general comment was made that if SWA were to bring the FSL down by one metre it would resolve most of the shoreline problems the upstream communities experience. Participants were concerned that there is now less water in the lake due to shoreline erosion. Participants felt that SaskPower has too much control of Lake Diefenbaker’s water level management for the generation of hydro power. They felt that it is important to balance the water needs of SaskPower with the other needs/uses of the lake. 3 Participants felt that SaskPower is not aware of what it costs communities to deal with the shoreline erosion caused by the current operation of the reservoir. They felt that SaskPower should be made aware of the issues and costs the communities must face when water levels are high, including armament of the shoreline to reduce shoreline erosion and increased water treatment costs due to increased turbidity of the water. Provincial parks have recently spent $1 million to deal with shoreline erosion. Participants are happy that this discussion/response session is taking place. They feel that they are dealing with a good cop (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority)/bad cop (SaskPower) situation. A comment was made that Ministry of Environment should also be involved in these discussions, as communities need to develop beaches further back due to the range in water levels. Infrastructure needs to be constructed by communities to reduce the impact of erosion. Comments were made about the advantages of hydro-electric power as “clean” electricity and the maximization of this form of power generation. An additional comment was made that SaskPower does not have to pass hydro-electric power to the USA and that the corporation should focus on producing only the amount of hydro-electric power necessary to meet the power demands of the residents of Saskatchewan. SaskPower has noted that they generate $3 to $7 million of power from the top metre of water in Lake Diefenbaker. Participants felt that the provincial government should inform the utility that the top metre of water is not available and that this should be considered in the operations of SaskPower. Comments were made on the environmental advantages of dropping the full supply level by a metre rather than having to deal with the problems associated with the current full supply level (FSL). Comments were made on whether SaskPower could manage releases, including the spillway, from Lake Diefenbaker to optimize power generation from the other two dams on the Saskatchewan River. If the province is releasing water through the spillway, water may not generate power at Gardiner dam, but will it generate power downstream at Francois Findlay dams (Nipawin) and E.B.