Fifteen families in Springbank, Alta., are opposing government’s flood plan and construction project outside Calgary
COCHRANE, Alta. — Alberta landowners are up in arms over a project on the Elbow River to protect Calgary and other downstream communities from future floods.
Premier Jim Prentice announced a dry reservoir last fall that is capable of holding 67.6 million cubic metres of water, as well as diversion canals for the Springbank region west of Calgary. Springbank is a rural community west of Calgary where owners of high-end homes, ranchers and farmers live together.
The 2013 flood that inundated Bragg Creek, Redwood Meadows, Calgary and High River was Canada’s most expensive natural disaster at more than $6 billion. The province promised immediate steps to prevent such a catastrophe from repeating.
Read Also
Alberta crop diversification centres receive funding
$5.2 million of provincial funding pumped into crop diversity research centres
Ryan Robinson, a Calgary businessperson, ranches with his father, John, on property that has been in the family for more than 100 years. His family lives in what would be the middle of the proposed reservoir.
Robinson understands the need for protection, but his landowner group, Don’t Damn Springbank, which represents about 15 families, argues that other locations would serve as well.
“We think this is a bad public policy decision by the government,” he said in an interview at an open house held in Cochrane Jan. 28 to outline the project to local residents.
“They are taking thousands of acres of private land and people’s homes, ranches and farms.”
His group favours moving the project to the northwest to McLean Creek, located in the Elbow Forest Preserve. He contends it would protect more upstream communities and wouldn’t displace people because it is on public land.
The government says the region is under study, but a reservoir in that location would be more costly.
Three projects have been announced: Springbank, a diversion in the High River area and a large tunnel in Calgary that would move water from rivers to the Glenmore Reservoir and eventually downstream into the Bow River.
Two open houses have been held to explain the concepts. About 300 people attended the Calgary meeting, where many urban residents favoured the idea, which could save their homes. Attendance was smaller at the Cochrane meeting, but those present represented the residents who could lose their homes and property to the reservoir.
Jason Penner, a spokesperson for Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, said cabinet will make the final call on the Springbank proposal within the next few weeks.
An environmental impact assessment should be complete in the summer of 2016. Construction is expected to start soon after that.
The $216 million proposal is to build a 4.5 kilometre canal from the Elbow River to divert water into the dry dam. Another channel would then slowly release water later as the flood waters subsided.
The Glenmore Reservoir in southwest Calgary holds 15 million cubic metres of water. Together, the two reservoirs could manage 83 million cubic metres, which is enough to handle a flood similar to what happened in 2013.
The reservoir would be 15 km west of Calgary: south of the Trans-Canada Highway and north of Highway 8.
A government handout said 1,600 acres would be affected, but Robinson’s group argues up to 5,700 acres would be affected once roads are rerouted and canals and other dam infrastructure are completed.
“It is productive agricultural land that could be taken away to make downtown Calgary happy,” said Mary Robinson, who owns an equestrian centre.
Robinson, whose family has been ranching in the area since 1888, fears that ranches, farms, a feedlot, a tree nursery, a Kiwanis children’s camp and protected habitat areas will be lost.
Penner said the reservoir will be dry most of the time because gigantic floods do not happen every year.
Land on the outer edges of the reservoir could be used during dry periods.
“Retaining use of the land for ranching could be done,” he said.
“We will have to work out the details as to what would be usable and not usable.”
The area is in a natural valley and works better from an engineering perspective.
“You need an area where the land does much of the work for you,” he said.
“We may or may not go forward with McLean Creek. That will be decided in a few weeks. That doesn’t change the status of this project. We are going forward with this project and we are going to work with the landowners to come up with some sort of deal that hopefully works for both sides.”
barbara.duckworth@producer.com
