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 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 Bill Nike Village of Elbow Gerry Rein R.M. of Maple Bush #224 Lynne Saas Resort Village of 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 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 ”. 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. Campbell?  Small communities do not have the resources to deal with the costs of the high water levels. Possible impacts include the moving of water treatment plants, lack of beach areas, and losses of ten feet of shoreline in 2011 due to high water levels and shoreline erosion. Hitchcock Bay has had to look at improvements to their water treatment plant, as shoreline erosion has impacted the current water treatment facility.  Participants were concerned about the water quality of Lake Diefenbaker due to siltation and increased turbidity. Comments were made that towns have had to shut down their treatment plant when turbidity is high.  Water quality affects tourism and recreation on the lake. A participant indicated that the University of Saskatchewan has found that blue-green algae are prominent in the lake. Water treatment will cost millions of dollars for communities around the lake as current treatment cannot handle blue-green toxins. A comment was made that Lake Diefenbaker never had a problem with blue green algae until the fish farm was established. A concern was raised that the province approved the expansion of the fish farm, but it was the participants’ understanding that the fish farm does not have a limit on the tonnes of phosphorus that they can release. 4

 A question was raised about the quality of water that is used for irrigation and whether the perceived decrease in water quality from Lake Diefenbaker is impacting irrigators.  The low levels of water in the spring are not good for irrigators and ranchers that depend on water from the lake. Participants did not think that if the FSL were reduced by one metre that it would affect the irrigators.  Comments were made that the ranchers have extended their fences during periods of low water levels. A suggestion was made that the province should insist that producers set up off site watering for cattle. Ministry of Environment (MOE) does not have the staff to monitor the lake. A comment was made that an MOE enforcement staff had indicated that the ministry is moving to codes for the regulation of water quality.  Further discussion on the topic of water quality. A participant indicated that the nutrient/pollution contributions from the fish farm and cattle are miniscule compared to the run-off from upstream communities. Extreme floods that cause run-off from agriculture make it difficult to control where the water is coming from. One participant indicated that the pollution levels in Alberta have decreased over the past several years.  Comments were made that the province is continually band-aiding and retrofitting the management of Lake Diefenbaker rather envisioning and being pro-active. An important issue is absolute transparency with the communication of information that can be supported. Participants felt that if an explanation from SWA were provided on the various management decisions, at least the communities would be informed about the reason for the management decisions.  Comments were made that there is a lack of transparency with so many forces at play with multiple agendas and competing issues. The public has no idea about the decision- making in the senior executive of the Crown corporations. The participants felt that confusion and conflict is created from the disinformation and misinformation that is provided. Participants identified a need for honesty, integrity and simplicity in regards to the management decisions associated with Lake Diefenbaker and they requested that the reason for the management decisions also be provided.  A concern was identified about aerial spraying by agricultural producers and the fact that the operators fly over the lake. A participant observed that the sprayers fill over the fields but then open their sprayers over the water. A participant was wondering how communities can find out about the rules and regulations regarding the aerial spray operators? A participant indicated that this is an environmental issue and that MOE will investigate any calls made through the TIPS line, including environmental issues.

The second part of the meeting focused on the Issues Matrix component (table on the following page).

5

Issues Matrix

Critical Reservoir information Comments Issue Value/Service Frequency Seasonality Severity Trend Competing Values Co-benefits needs High water and Recreational use Yearly, for Spring - Top priority and Has been Power generation, Increased Would like to  Biggest concern is the wind causing of shoreline the past 10- summer (June, biggest concern getting mining industries habitat for be informed mountain flow shoreline including 15 years July and for lakeshore much Piping plover of:  Communities would erosion tourism the lake has August) communities worse nesting and 1) current like to know why had high (100%). It is also fish. Reduces water water levels and water about the water levels; shoreline erosion has levels. visitors/tourists treatment 2) optimal been getting worse ; costs, reduced sector need for each shoreline specific community receiving stability and water information from increased levels(hi SWA as to why tourism gh and management low decisions are being water made the way they levels) - are. not just  Could SWA take into to be average wind gusts concerne and include this in d of the management power decisions? generati on when these levels are set; 3) Projecte d water levels. Shoreline Maintenance of High winds can impact the erosion existing back of the rip-rapped infrastructure armoured area along Elbow Harbour; concern that water erosion can also impact land behind rip- rapped area. Prevailing winds can also cause damage. 6

Critical Reservoir information Issue Value/Service Frequency Seasonality Severity Trend Competing Values Co-benefits needs Comments Shoreline Water quality erosion and treatment Shoreline Environmental - erosion Fish habitat, fishery spawning areas and bird habitat Poor water Water quality Continuous August/ Critical Getting Fish farm, agricultural Turbidity, Important for relationship quality (algae September/Oct worse producers, aerial farm phosphorus, between water blooms, ober - related (dramatic spraying, instream nitrogen, management and nutrients, etc.) to temperature ally) livestock watering, algae blooms stewards. and bacteria Appreciation of Information would management provide communities with challenges an appreciation of the implications and difficulties of managing this system. Dam safety Safety and Lower water What are  Failure of the dam concerns effects level would parameters will affect everybody. downstream result in a safer around what  Would a stable water dam SWA level keep the dam measures; more stable than the affirm status current operation of dam is in where water levels the green fluctuate between zone and high and low water confidence in levels? the safety of the dam. Ignoring Tourism and Yearly, for June - August Top priority and Viable tourism, high sustainable the past 10 biggest concern economic water levels and development, - 15 years for lakeshore development beaches. economic communities and future Potential future support (100%). It is also demand for extinction of the about the increased communities visitors/tourists subdivision along the lake 7 development.

Critical Reservoir information Issue Value/Service Frequency Seasonality Severity Trend Competing Values Co-benefits needs Comments Lack of Municipal Ongoing Starting in early  Stakeholders would communication planning and spring like a webpage on and appreciation of the SWA website to transparency of complexity of allow users to go decisions system and directly to each issue challenges facing (e.g., water quality - the what is the management of phosphorus and this system. nitrogen level; water Would provide level – elevation). the ability of SWA should be communities to publishing be proactive information and facts versus reactive. about lake parameters on website.  Communities may want to have a point person that could be informed of the management decisions. This person would be contacted through simple e-mail alerts including monthly predictions of water levels. Ignoring Tourism and Yearly, for June - August Top priority and Viable tourism, high sustainable the past 10 biggest concern economic water levels and development, - 15 years for lakeshore development beaches. economic communities and future Potential future support (100%). It is also demand for extinction of the about the increased communities visitors/tourists subdivision along the lake development.

8

Critical Reservoir information Issue Value/Service Frequency Seasonality Severity Trend Competing Values Co-benefits needs Comments Burden of Economic Ongoing Year round Very important Getting Other communities Salvation of  Need for grants funding of development issue and has worse that don't value rural that take into infrastructure and growth of been ignored in (conflict growth. communities account not only upgrading by communities the past. ed and in the Lake yearly residents, small confuse Diefenbaker but also the communities d) and area. seasonal residents including poor potential – Government highways ly needs to realize resulting they need to put in the their money where terminat their mouth is. ion of  Stabilized water commun levels at lower ities. level result in more stable shoreline thus increased shoreline development (e.g., large hotels, etc.)  Long-term predictability of water level and shoreline stability

9

Issues Matrix Discussion

 Comments about transparency about the operation of Lake Diefenbaker regarding lake levels.  Comment that the loss of shoreline could be evaluated through study and technical means. Municipalities get requests to reduce taxes due to loss of land.  Competing values from industry for water demand, such as potash mining.  Shoreline erosion is a concern as the intense winds during high water levels cause ongoing erosion of the shoreline.  Comments that SWA should provide alerts about the management and water levels on Lake Diefenbaker.  Transparency can allow municipalities to plan for the impacts of high water.  Prevailing winds in the spring are from the northwest. Information that wind is taking into consideration when the development of new subdivision with a safe building elevation taking into consideration the impact of surges by the wind.  Studies by the Global Institute for Water Security - University of Saskatchewan indicate that the is unique due to the climate extremes of the watershed.  Appreciation that the water quality of Lake Diefenbaker is being studied due to critical situation.  Concern about the use of the lake for watering of cattle.  Comments that the public should be able to able to interpret the information about issues such as water quality and water levels.  Recommendation for a closer relationship between the local municipalities and Ministry of Environment.  Concern about the dam safety of Gardiner Dam.  When you get into scientific and engineering areas, it is important to provide information that the average individual can understand, e.g., provide information in an accessible format and in plain language.  Tourism and recreation needs are important issues to the upstream communities. Tourism should be built into the operating plan for Lake Diefenbaker. Heavy demand for tourism in the future due to the location of Lake Diefenbaker.  Small communities need the stimulus of investment on highways and infrastructure as the communities have a high risk of failure.  Resort communities have to provide infrastructure for thousands of residents in the summer, yet funding for infrastructure is based upon the small year-round population base.  Reservoir communities need a long term predictability of water levels.

Kent moved to the second step in the process with the criteria matrix that included the identification of reservoir value/service, flow needs, water level needs and timing of flows.

10

Criteria Matrix Timing Flow Water Level of Other Issue Reservoir Value/Service Needs Needs Flows Criteria Comments High water and wind Recreational use of shoreline including 1 3 (maximum FSL 3 Be proactive rather than reactive causing shoreline erosion tourism should be reduced by minimum of 1m) Maintenance of existing infrastructure 1 3 (maximum FSL 3 Be proactive rather than reactive should be reduced by minimum of 1m) Water quality and treatment 1 3 (maximum FSL 3 Be proactive rather than reactive should be reduced by minimum of 1m) Environmental - Fish habitat - 1 3 (maximum FSL 3 Be proactive rather than reactive fisheries/spawning and bird habitat should be reduced by minimum of 1m) Poor water quality (algae Water quality 1 3 2 Upstream Once again by reducing FSL by 1 m would blooms, nutrients, etc) and in lake improve water quality. Could management inputs increase the water level that extra 1m in the fall, when recreation and tourism is not reliant upon the amount of beach? Lack of communication and Municipal planning, appreciation of 1 3 2 3 Need to communicate using KISS principle transparency of decisions complexity of system and challenges on the facts that are facing the management of this system, directly related to each would provide the ability of issue communities to be proactive versus reactive Appreciation of management 2 3 2 challenges

11

Timing Flow Water Level of Other Issue Reservoir Value/Service Needs Needs Flows Criteria Comments Dam safety concerns Safety and effects downstream Confidences and trust in the engineers who manage the dam safety - thought that by reducing FSL by 1 m would improve water quality Ignoring tourist Tourism and sustainable development, 3 3 3 Integration without collusion of government needs/extinction of economic support policy communities Lack of infrastructure to Economic development and growth of 3 3 3 Need to set up a grant structure to enable support growth communities communities to set up infrastructure (e.g. waste water treatment plant). Currently money provided on basis of yearly residents, but should also be based on recreational seasonal users. Grants are available to RMs, but not to resort villages.

12

Overall Management Goals

 How can we improve tourism so the communities in the region can be viable?  The lowering of the lake levels would improve water quality of Lake Diefenbaker. The lake is a water supply for 80% of the Saskatchewan population. In addition, a net benefit would accrue to these communities for the cost of water treatment.  Comments that the participants are interested in protection of the quality and environment of the lake. Participants also wish to protect tourism around Lake Diefenbaker. Investment of the province in tourism would be protected by better management of lake levels.  Concern that SaskPower replaced the generators at the Coteau Creek station but not the turbines. Comments that replacement of the turbine could increase the amount of hydro- electric power that is produced.  Lake Diefenbaker is a resource for the whole province not just the local residents or SaskPower.  The reduction in the water levels of Lake Diefenbaker could reduce flooding problems downstream.  Participants commented that the questionnaire was not relevant and that the answers would not be beneficial. A suggestion was made that a questionnaire should be developed with a single feedback system for the management of Lake Diefenbaker. The questionnaire would ask stakeholders to provide parameters on the management of the lake. Residents would be able to provide input through a dedicated website. Information would include water quality, water levels, prediction, and current and sector specific water levels (low and high).  Participants emphasized that they are interested in ensuring the sustainability of the lake for all residents.

Summary

 The primary issue that participants identified is the high water level causing impacts to beaches, tourism and water quality.  The stakeholders’ solution was to lower the full supply level by one metre.

Voting card

Stakeholders were requested to vote on issues to determine the priority.  Green – agreement with all of the content in the matrix  Yellow – agreement with some of the items in the matrix  Red – don’t agree with anything

13

Voting Card Discussion

Issue Reservoir Value/Service Green Yellow Red Reason for vote other than green

High water and wind causing Recreational use of shoreline including tourism 9 shoreline Erosion Maintenance of existing infrastructure 9

Water quality and treatment 9

Environmental - Fish habitat - fisheries/spawning and 9 Comments that cattle and agricultural spraying do not bird habitat have an impact. Comment that the fish farm does not have a significant nutrient load on the lake and is important for local employment (40 people) Poor water quality (algae blooms, Water quality 9 nutrients, etc) Lack of communication and Municipal planning, appreciation of complexity of 8 1 Comment that information and reports are available transparency of decisions on the system and challenges facing the management of this from SWA if someone wants to seek them out. facts that are directly related to system, would provide the ability of communities to be each issue proactive versus reactive

Appreciation of management challenges 8 1 Comment that information and reports are available from SWA if someone wants to seek them out.

Dam safety concerns Safety and effects downstream 7 2 Comments that there is trust in the engineers to take care of this problem. Additional comment that the lowering of lake levels may reduce the potential for dam failure Ignoring tourist needs/extinction of Tourism and sustainable development, economic 9 communities support

Lack of infrastructure to support Economic development and growth of communities 9 growth) 14

Final Comments

Questions were raised about the meeting notes and whether they are confidential. Meeting notes are public information and they will be posted on the web site. It was noted that the matrix will not be provided until the final meeting with contributions from each of the sector groups. Participants requested that the proceedings from the meeting be e-mailed and Dazawray noted several addresses.

Comments that the recommendations from these meetings should be decided upon by the government (SWA) in a timelier manner than the process outlined in the summary document. They recommended that the reservoir operating plan should be developed sooner, such as before June 2013 when water levels will be an issue.

Kent noted that the reporting session in November 2012 will enable all groups to learn what other sectors have said.

The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m.

15