Dear editor:
I write regarding your recent story "Storm Brewing Over West Van Stormwater Management Project."
I have lived in West Vancouver for almost 30 years within the five-creeks catchment. In fact, one creek, Turner, passes within 30 metres of where I live. I am an engineer by training with a master’s degree in hydrology. I have spent practically my entire career in stormwater management/flood control measures in Canada, the United States and Asia.
I have been in discussions with the District of West Vancouver for over three years on rainfall management, specifically the state of the five-creeks area. Over this time I have made requests of them for a second and independent opinion on the “big pipe” solution. I am aware creek diversions have been used in the past years in the more eastern catchments. However, rainfall management has changed and progressed in the last half-century, and these advances, where possible, should be applied in the district. The “big pipe” solution is never the first option in modern-day stormwater management. It may be the last option after others are eliminated.
Integrated stormwater management, adopted as policy in Metro Vancouver, calls for “working with nature.” It calls for maintaining the natural hydrologic regimes, both surface and subsurface, in their natural predevelopment state as much as feasible. This entails dealing with the increased flows due to development of land where the development occurs. The “big pipe” solution contravenes this principle. In the case as proposed for the five creeks, it takes the old approach to a more negative level. It combines the diversions from five creeks, concentrates them in a big pipe, and runs it through a developed neighbourhood at enormous social costs, as shown by the concerns expressed and actions taken by the impacted residents.
“We consult on impacts, not on the project” you report Donna Powers, West Vancouver’s spokesperson, as saying to the assembled residents.
How, I ask, can you consult on impacts without discussing the project components causing the impacts?
Where, I ask, are the district’s engineers who should be able to discuss these issues in a clear and informative fashion? When residents ask to view drawings and details of the project, district staff say it’s not possible because the project is “owned” by British Pacific Properties.
I am aware of West Vancouver Streamkeeper Society’s support for the five-creeks project and have read their letter to the mayor and council. I am also aware of the tremendous amount of work the group does in increasing awareness and monitoring the health of our creeks.
Their letter of support mainly deals with fisheries. However, there is more to creeks than fisheries. They serve other important functions; conveyance, environmental, recreation, and educational.
The “integrated” in integrated stormwater management means that all these functions are considered in planning stormwater systems so that optimum systems are selected.
Where their support letter refers to flooding, peak flows, etc. (that is, creek hydrology), the statements need to be questioned. Creek hydrology is a complicated subject and I would welcome the opportunity to meet up with streamkeepers to discuss how diversions such as those planned can increase erosion.
Also, they seem to indicate the systems in place since the 1960s and ’70s have served the community well. Their members should talk to property owners in Ambleside whose properties are being rendered uninsurable by the frequency and severity of flooding in recent years.
Tom Field
West Vancouver
What are your thoughts? Send us a letter via email by clicking here or post a comment below.
