Mountain View County council has decided to seek a consultant to update a decade-old study of drainage issues southeast of Sundre and come up with possible solutions.Reeve Paddy Munro, whose property lies within the problem area, provided background to fellow councillors at the July 20 meeting on flow patterns, the history of drainage studies and the impact of flooding on small country-residential parcels.When Div. 4 Coun. Bruce Beattie cut in at one point to ask why the matter was coming before council, CAO Tony Martens said he had brought it forward after receiving complaints from ratepayers whose basements flooded.ìWe have continuous problems every year that we have to deal with. That's my reason for putting it on the agenda,î Martens said.Pete Waycott, manager of infrastructure maintenance, confirmed the area demands regular attention by operational services crews, who sometimes go in daily during the winter to thaw ice in culverts.ìWith the wet season I get calls weekly. Just the amount of water coming out of the muskeg Ö it has the potential to jeopardize our infrastructure,î Waycott said.ìWe're in there every week and it's my suggestion we do something to relieve our field guys so the water isn't an issue all the time,î he said.The request for proposals will include a review of the land-use management plan for the area prepared by Komex International Ltd. in 2001, which was never brought out of draft form.ìIt's important to make sure of the accuracy of flow rates in the report ñ to make sure they are current,î Waycott said.Describing the area, Munro said problems came after the county promoted high-density development ñ with lot sizes of 1.25 acres ñ on the flat below the hill that carries runoff from natural drainage basins.ìWater for a million years has run down this hill,î Munro said, calling it ìa natural path.îOne of the issues, he said, is that ìin dry years people were allowed to build there and they put basements in there. A basement just doesn't work. The same people were allowed to put their septic tanks right in the middle of a watercourse.îThe result is ìquite a nightmare,î he said.ìIt's not on the big lots ñ it's the little lots that are the issue.îMunro recounted how he fought the county for 10 years to block high-density development from the area.ìAnyone who walked in this building in the last 10 years and wanted to do a subdivision in this area was forced ñ forced ñ to do high density,î Munro said. ìPeople in the area are upset.îMidway through the discussion, Munro said for him personally ìit's 20 extra acresî that wouldn't be saturated ìif we go this way. But as reeve maybe tell me if I should leave the room,î he added, apparently asking if he was in a perceived conflict of interest.ìIt's your choice whether to leave the room,î Div. 7 Coun. Al Kemmere said.Munro remained in the chair and later voted on the motion, which passed unanimously.One of Munro's claims was that the Komex report was ìlost for a period of years then magically it just showed upî again in the planning department a couple of years ago.Div. 1 Coun Kevin Good was more explicit.ìThis Komex report came out and in my opinion did not match the ideas that the planning department had. Now we're reaping the rewards of that,î Good said, adding that he was ìin full support of bringing this forward now.îJohn Rusling, interim director of planning and development, said he was working at the county when two Komex reports were prepared. A third report, which was supposed to examine options hinted at in the second, was never finished, he said.ìIn effect the Komex report is up in the air and that's why this (request for decision) is before you today,î Rusling said.
