Cloud Hosting

Last Tuesday, the citys utility committee approved Epcors flood mitigation plan. On Sept. 12, the vote goes to city council.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Edmonton River Valley Conservation Coalition is concerned about this plans impacts not only on the river valley, but also on the protection of our drinking water. We oppose the project and urge council to think carefully about what resilience actually means.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We have five interrelated concerns. The first is the cutting of 577 trees, including 77 mature trees. Replanting young trees will not replace mature trees; the latter offer exponentially greater carbon sequestration, flood and drought mitigation, and habitat. Some areas will be kept cut as root-free maintenance zones with lawn-covered walls with security fencing on top. It seemed lost on Epcor and councillors that one of the main causes of the climate crisis behind extreme flooding is deforestation. Nor did Epcor consult with the energy transition climate resilience committee (the advisory group that reports to council on climate matters). Edmontonians were angry about the loss of 200 trees in Hawrelak Park, yet council now seems ready to approve a project involving the loss of nearly three times that number.

Our second concern is further impact to the wildlife corridor, in particular on pinch points that are already in desperate need of restoration. This will drive wildlife into residential areas and increase conflict. It also negates our responsibility to help ensure the safe passage of wildlife along a critical corridor from the Rockies to Hudson Bay.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Our third concern regards the questionable wisdom of trying to hold back the river in a flood plain. As Calgary and High River learned 10 years ago, water will do what it wants. Cities around the world have learned the hard way that concrete berms and barriers are mistakes. In cities in the Netherlands and the U.K., concrete walls are now being removed along rivers. They have found that working with, rather than against, nature is far more effective in preventing floods.

The cities above are instead restoring flood plains to allow for absorption of water in the landscape. In Edmonton, this would mean re-wilding Rossdale and E.L. Smith water treatment plants so that there is minimal infrastructure and healthy soil and vegetation that can absorb water during a flood. This slow-water approach is cost-efficient, protects wildlife corridors, restores vegetation that holds up banks, prevents drought (the twin crisis to flooding), and increases habitat. Why is Epcor not proposing this nature-based solution, and why is the city not demanding it, when the concrete approach has been proven to fail?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Our fourth concern is Epcors lack of a long-term plan to decentralize water treatment. How resilient is a water system in which over 90 communities rely on just two water treatment plants (located in flood plains)? Epcor says that decentralization involves decreasing water consumption, and admits they have no plan to encourage that. At Tuesdays meeting they said the only consumption reduction they are considering targets people who have trouble paying their bills not affluent landowners who water their lawns, even though lawn watering is apparently one of the main reasons for consumption spikes in summer. This is the problem with considering water a business.

We should be protecting our drinking water through protecting the resilience of the river valley. By further degrading the flood plain and ignoring the need for decentralization, Epcor is arguably making the water system vulnerable in Edmonton and much of the region. Yes, decentralization would cost more in the short term. But consider the cost when the concrete fails (for water always wins) and the city and 90 communities are without drinking water, and all the infrastructure including the $65 million worth for this project alone is lost because we did not respect the flood plain. Epcor says much of their infrastructure goes back to the 1940s; might now be a good time to rethink the system? And while Epcor says the $22-million grant they are receiving is tied to this project, there are also grants available for ecosystem restoration, as well as for truth and reconciliation.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That brings us to our final main concern. How does one even put a price tag on protecting the river valley and land that has the same archaeological designation as UNESCO World Heritage sites? We do not understand how the city can say it cares about decolonization while continuing to disturb important Indigenous cultural sites, as well as disrespecting the river and the land.

Council is aware of all the concerns above. For the protection of our river valley and our water, we urge them to ask Epcor for a plan that aligns with the nature-based solutions for flood mitigation happening and working in cities around the world. The urgency of the situation means we have to get this right, now.

Kristine Kowalchuk is chair of the Edmonton River Valley Conservation Coalition.

See original here:

Opinion: Edmonton must protect its river valley and drinking water - Edmonton Journal