Mountain View County councillors have been presented with possible options regarding flood protection on the Red Deer River upstream of Sundre.During last week's regularly scheduled council meeting, councillors reviewed three options prepared by administration for information purposes.Council had instructed administration to bring forward possible options following an open house at the Sundre Legion Hall.The county has been considering flood protection options after high water flooded private and public lands in the McDougal Flats area in the spring.Administration presented three options, but did not make a recommendation that council proceed with any of the three.• One option would see the existing berm, constructed earlier by the county, remain in place. Administration said pros of that option would be that the berm is already constructed, only two properties would be potentially impacted negatively, and no local improvement tax would be needed.The cons of that option would be that there is the expectation from the public to finish the berm, and there are two landowners who have said the berm has negatively impacted them.• The second option would be to extend the existing berm at a reduced cost without armouring. The pros of that option would satisfy two landowner requests for protection, and help protect private and county-owned properties from future floods.Cons of that option would include the $1,500,000 cost, a local improvement tax or other source of funding would be required, the county would assume an ownership role and all related liabilities, future maintenance and upgrades would be the county's responsibility, and the berm could negatively impact stakeholders downstream.• The third option would be to remove the existing berm. The pros of that option would be to reduce the county's role and future liabilities concerning the berm, the county could be a facilitator, not the owner, in the process, there would be no future expectations to construct more berms, a local improvement tax would not be needed, and all future flood damages on private land could be claimed through the province.Cons of that option would be the loss of the $250,000 the county has already invested, and the “county would not be meeting the expectations of the surrounding community.”After the options were presented to council, councillors held further discussions.“There will be a berm, but we don't want to pay for it and we don't want the liability,” said Coun. Paddy Munro. “We have an obligation to the people who are downstream. As we go downstream we have some very expensive property and they deserve protection.“And then there's Coyote Creek. There's a $40-million project. And there are all the people who live south of there, that's a sizable investment. We have our airport there. It's a county asset that needs protection. And then there's the big one, three quarters of the best gravel in Alberta (is in the area). Do we take the risk having that river run right through that? I say no.”Munro says the county needs to “keep working hard to get the province to step up to the plate. They need to deal with it. To allow all the logging (upstream) and all the impact on the watershed, this issue is going to get worse, not better.“Of course we want the province to be in this deal with us. The province has to realize they are in the game too. There's the human side and the money side too. It doesn't make any sense to take such a big risk. Somebody needs to build a berm there to protect that land. My suggestion today is we just have to keep working on this.”Munro calls any plans to remove the existing berm “absolutely ridiculous.”Deputy Reeve Patricia McKean said she has concerns with option 2.“My fear is the liability with this (option). We are looking at $1.5 million to build this but we have no idea how it could affect us liability wise. To me, I'm not willing to take that on,” said McKean.Coun. Kevin Good said he would like to “somehow convince the province” to build the berm.“I'm not in favour of removing (the existing berm). I agree we have to do what we can to convince the province that building it would be a good idea,” said Good.Reeve Bruce Beattie said he would like to see other options, such as dredging, considered for flood protection for the area.“It's hard to know what that river is going to do no matter what we do. I don't think removing the berm make much sense and I don't like the idea of us building it longer,” said Beattie.He said he would like the county to support the Sundre-based Red Deer River Quality Control Committee in its efforts to find flood protection solutions.Coun. Al Kemmere said any work the county does in the river would create liabilities for the county.Coun. Munro said dredging of the river would not be a workable solution to flooding concerns.“It's not going to happen because the province is not going to let it happen,” said Munro.Councillors passed a motion accepting the options for information.The county's draft budget, presented to council last week, does not include any money for the construction of a berm.Meanwhile, during last week's council meeting, councillors passed a motion approving a letter of support for the Red Deer River Quality Control Committee's efforts.The motion states that the county supports the committee's “initiative to encourage the province to take a close review of the threatening flood conditions and encourage them to seek solutions.”The committee is conducting a letter-writing campaign urging the province to act on flooding concerns.The plan is to hand deliver the letters to Premier Alison Redford sometime next month, says committee chairman Myron Thompson.
