I would like to begin by saying that I applaud the government for having adopted this draft decree concerning the declaration of a special intervention zone in the territory of certain local municipalities affected by the floods that occurred in April and May 2017. I hope that the government will remain steadfast in its intention to reduce the effects of seasonal flooding and continue its reflection on the ways of doing so. My intervention will focus on the presence of North Hatley on the list of municipalities set out in annex 1 of the decree. My argument is that North Hatley should most definitely be on this list, and that the part of its territory in the high-velocity flood zone should be declared a special intervention zone.

The town council and the general manager of the Village of North Hatley have worked hard and long on a management plan that would apply to the flood zone. It would allow the construction of three predominantly residential buildings, containing 210 condominiums, and of two largely commercial buildings. But if the city council and the general director have worked hard, they have also worked blindly, closing their eyes to the facts – that the area planned for the construction of the residential buildings floods regularly and severely. The map of the flood zone produced in May 2017, to which the management plan adopted by the MRC de Memphrémagog on 21 June 2017 refers, confirms this. More than 84% of the footprint of the three residential buildings foreseen in the management plan (see page 28, table 4, Plan de gestion) is situated in the high-velocity, 0-20 year flood zone! When the area floods, residents will have to be evacuated – at the expense of taxpayers across the province and across the country, and not only of those who have benefited from the construction, i.e. the developer and the municipality.

The municipal council, or rather the three councillors – half of a full council – who voted for the resolution being presented by the mayor and the general manager of the municipality, argue that North Hatley is in a better position than other municipalities, that North Hatley did not suffer damage in 2017, that North Hatley monitors water levels better than do others – but none of these change the fact that North Hatley wants to allow the construction of residential buildings in a high-velocity flood zone, and would do so – to quote the language of the draft decree – “in the context of climate change.” If North Hatley is allowed to continue to proceed with this development, if the municipality is removed from annex 1 of the decree, this will increase – not reduce, as is the stated objective of the decree, and of the government – “the number of people and the amount of property exposed to future flooding.”

It is argued as well that the planned waterproofing of the buildings to be constructed, set at a level of 32 cm above the 100-year flooding level (based on an arbitrary projected 20% increase in water flow) makes the buildings safe in the event of flooding. But have simulations been carried out to establish if this theoretical level is indeed sufficient? A major rainfall event – even substantially less than the 158 mm of rain that fell during a few hours in Mount Forest, Ontario, on 24 June 2017 – would most probably demonstrate that it is not. Moreover, securing the buildings by waterproofing them, even if that were possible with absolute certainty, would not prevent the people living in them from having to be evacuated, possibly in inflatable boats and by helicopter, and it will be the taxpayers of Montreal, Chicoutimi, Jonquière and Stanstead who will pay the cost of doing so. The only certain way of ensuring the protection of people and property is to build outside 0-20 flood zones.

The town council is supporting a project without knowing what its consequences will be. This is precisely what the government wishes to avoid by adopting its draft decree: the disastrous effects for residents, but also for taxpayers generally, of construction in zones prone to flooding. Granting an exceptional status to the Village of North Hatley by withdrawing it from the list of municipalities to which the proposed decree applies would be tantamount to saying that the construction of residential buildings in 0-20 year flood zones is consistent with government policy. Granting such an exemption would mean returning to the status quo; it would send a signal that we are not living “in a context of climate change,” that the 2017 spring floods were nothing special and of little importance. The very existence of the draft decree demonstrates that the government wants the existing situation to change, that there can no longer be any possible exceptions to the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains in the case of residential buildings. For this reason, North Hatley must be kept on the list of municipalities to which the draft decree applies. In the meantime, over the next 18 months, simulations of significant rainfall and of combinations of rapid snowmelt and of rainfall should be carried out to verify whether the studies put forward by the Village of North Hatley have any basis in reality and whether, in fact, the effects of climate change are likely to produce situations in which waterproofing, to any level, is an insufficient response. During this 18-month period, the village should itself explore the possibility of developing other areas of its territory, outside the 0-20 year flood zone, since several such areas in fact exist.

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.