Draft Minutes – October 6th, 2011 Meeting

ALMS Meeting
DRAFT Minutes
Thursday, October 06, 2011

Attendance
Attendees(see attached PDF):Attendee List October 6th Meeting
Minute Taker: Scott Greenlay(in absence of Lia)

DRAFT Minutes

Called to order by Dennis at 7:30pm

Two new members from Lake Manitoba Land Landowners. Moira Somers and Robert Blahey

Past Minutes read. Motion to adopt: Lorne Britton/ Robb Hook. CARRIED.

 Agenda read. Motion to Adopt: Jack King/Woodrow Clark. CARRIED.

Correspondence
Thank you letter Sept. 30th  sent  to St. Johns –  Steven Gaetz  (Cheryl)
Email correspondence with Mike Yacentiuk @ MASC  
MASC Meeting. Oct 26th 7 to 9pm. Location TBD.

Purpose: Discuss MASC and Waterstewardship programs and how they work together and how they stand-alone.  Attendance will be dependent on size of facility. At this point all ALMS and RMs representatives are invited

 Co-Chair Reports
Cheryl

Feedback from NDP Forum. Attended by a few people from ALMS. Was sent out to everyone. Thanks to Pat for taking the notes. Meeting went well. Good questions asked by attendees. Follow-up per the notes. Fred made a good point about waiting until after the election before sending the questions to the Govm’t.

Dennis – see attached PDF

Motion to accept Chair Reports: Doug Connery/Bob Cox. CARRIED.

Other Reports:
Lake Level Survey – Rilla Britton – See handout Lake Level Report
Discussion:

  • Added DBA added 809.5 to 811.5 by DBA reps present.
  • It was noted that in the 2003 advisory committee 810.5 to 812.5 was stipulated range.\
  • It was noted LMFRC stands for (Lake Manitoba Flood Rehab Committee).
  • Doug Connery noted he agrees on range, but needed to tie to regulation, so that actions are predetermined by the level, rather than requiring discussion/decisions. .
  • Jack King noted that when he met with Deputy Minister – they’re saying advisory committee needs to meet again to determine level.
  • Scott Greenlay noted:
  1. Neither we nor the advisory committee are qualified to set the levels, rather it should be based on science and facts. The level should be set based on the historical levels to it original shore line.
  2. The range should be lower in the winter to allow a safety margin/buffer for Spring Melt.
  3. When goes above, due to operation, or lack of operation of the Diversion, there should be legislated action stipulated to protect the Lake and property, and the responsibilities for who should do this work should be legislated as well, to prevent delays and indecision.
  • Woodrow asked wasn’t levels based on needs of Commercial fishery. Connery stated is wasn’t
  • Don Clarkson noted
  1. Have survey’s that show where the land/shoreline should be and these points have been underwater for years, further proof lake level has been held too high for years.
  2. That’s where the lake level should be regulated to(barring a natural disaster) to allow fo natural protection to be restored and protect the lakeshore in years of flood.
  3. Channel. We need to call it that its NOT a diversion.
  4. Govm’t probably hasn’t thought past the 1st channel
  5. We have to push outflows have to match inflows.
  6. Diversion is in bad shape.
  • John
  1. 2005 high lake levels on Lake Winnipeg. They built dykes – why not on Lake Manitoba.
  2. Why don’t they beef up Assiniboine between portage and Winnipeg to allow it to handle more flows?
  3. They are going to increase Diversion capacity
  4. The channel is being built through a Bog. It won’t last long without continual maintenance. It is doubtful such maintenance will occur or has been budgeted for.
  • Jack
  1. Discussion is interesting, but we need to focus on process.
  2. We can send to govm’t with direction.
  3. Water in = Water out
  4. Study they have been using for years, and have been operating at high end of the range for consistent number of years…which was not to keep at the high end all the time.
  5. If you want to reconstitute, fine, but in meantime. We want water in = water out.
  6. Govm’t should enforce the advice given to it in 2003
  • Brian
  1. We have to pick 2 or 3 key points
  2. Need to increase pressure to govm’t to do the right thing
  3. They’ve asked for a Dike and road to be raised. They aren’t sure whose responsibility road is…and no
  4. We cannot accept in action.
  5. They have moral obligation to take care of people 1st and then figure out where money is to come from
  • There are general inequities: St. Laurent / Woodlands / Delta / Cold?

Motion to accept Rilla’s Report and using as a basis to develop a  priority under item #8:  Rilla/ Pat . CARRIED.

Constitution 
Report from Drafting Committee. Randy.

Recall tabled at last meeting for discussion purposes. Revisions based on comments from members. Was also a wish to share with some of the associations members. Have a revised constitution. Tabled. Any official responses?

  • Twin Beaches Association(Jeff King): 91 properties slated for demolition. So mood is not jovial. Net effect is “we don’t matter”. No diking. Roads have been built up. That’s it. Constitution is not a requirement. Is not a priority. Didn’t review clause by clause. We are an Ad hoc group. We’re here to provide support for our own members. Have potential to have voice heard by govm’t. Concern is it feels like a distraction. Group feels it is unnecessary. We are a coalition. Not needed. 5 months into the event and we are still talking about who we are – is a sadness. Position is constitution is not required. Procedures to streamline, voting attendance, etc. would be OK
  • Rob as retired lawyer, constituted group is more weight with govm’t.
  • Lorne: More than half of our time has been spent on a constitution. Have had good success without constitution.
  • Woodward: Voices are not in sync. Voices should be in sync. Need to go together. 
  • Pat: Somewhere between. Concerned with the number of reps and where they come from. 
  • Dennis(speaking not as a chair):  no problem with leadership, regime, procedures but doesn’t see need for Constitution.
  • Don: In drafting constitution won’t to abort or circumvent process and progress to date. Has sat on many boards. When there is a constitution, things run easier. Idea of adopting some set of rules is needed. We are in it for long-term. The document becomes more important. 
  • Doug: Didn’t envision change from how we are doing things.
  • Trish: Every association needs a constitution.
  • Scott called for the Question.

Motion:Adopt the Constitution as present with an amendment to membership clause to be changed to “including but not limit to….”. Lundar Beach, Sugar point… ” Trish/Scott. CARRIED.

 Jack King: Report as posted on the Twin Beaches website.

Move to accept report. Don Clarkson/Diane. CARRIED.

 Unfinished Business:

Bakers not present. So carried forward.

 New Business:

Constitution was already dealt with.

Priorities with MASC:
We need formal documentation of approvals /communications.
Cheques being sent out with details on what is being paid for
Like it to be recorded so it can be shared.

Priorities for ALMS:

  • Lake Level is number continues to be one priority
  • Level should be set by science, but restore lake levels to its historical shoreline(see legal surveys from the landowners) but include buffer for Spring Melt, wind set-up etc.
  • Inflow must equal outflows
  • Channel is only temporary need permanent solution
  • Equitable Compensation
  • Speed of compensation
  • All RM’s and property owners be treated equally
  • “Jordan’s principal” regardless of whose jurisdiction resolve.

Motion: Chairs to write a letter to Premier requesting a meeting to articulate the priorities of the ALMS and include the Constitution as a reference document.  Scott/ Dennis/APPROVED 

Reminder: ALMS Leadership. Will be dealt at Next regular meeting per constitution. Nominations will be from floor.

 Next Special Meeting: 26 October with MASC. Details will be provided to ALMS members via email from chairs.

 Next ALMS Meeting: Wed, Nov 9th, 7:00pm Location: TBD

 Motion to Adjourn: Pat/ Jane. CARRIED

Advertisements

Wave Mitigation Systems in use

There are two links on the Delta Beach Association website showing two different wave mitigation systems in use during yesterday`s wind event (Northwest Wind 30 kmh gusting to 50 kmh) at Delta Beach:

1) The `Tube` system – The province provided some RM`s with money to try an experimental tube system. The RM of Portage started to build one at Delta, but had to abandon due to amount of debris and effort required to build the system. However, you can see what the part they did complete looks like here(Note to viewers: This system was erected on the far west beach of Delta, which is the highest part of the community, so you will see some shoreline – however, this is badly eroded compare to what was there prior to the Flood):

http://deltabeach.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/video-of-wave-mitigation-system-in-action-at-delta/

2) The `Rock Wall` system – A number of residents have banded together to build Stone wall comprised of large field stones(limestone tends to dissolve over time due to it`s softness, so was not used). This system was built on the East Beach of Delta, where residents have been badly impacted by the Flood, lost homes, had the Lake literally go through their homes. Even at this late day the video shows the Lake is still within feet of their homes. Normally, the Lake is100 feet from these homes, but has been sitting at 50 feet for the last few years due to the artificial maintenance of high water levels. You will notice a startling difference in the condition of the homes and the closeness of the Lake to them, however without the rock wall system, these homes would likely be  underwater with yesterdays wind. (Note: This system was built at the personal expense of the homeowners after the devastation caused by the May 31st storm):

http://deltabeach.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/video-of-east-beach-rock-wall-wave-mitigation-system/