But not for the reason Jeff Johnson is selling.

A public school teacher does something against the Alberta Teachers’ Association Professional Code of Conduct.  It’s bad enough to earn that teacher disciplinary action; a recommendation to have their teacher’s certificate suspended, let’s say for six years.  What does this mean for students in classrooms six years from now?

Not much, because that teacher will likely never be back in the classroom.

Jeff Johnson, the Education Minister of Alberta, would have you believe that he’s the reason why.  This is far from the truth.

Let’s take the Education Minister out of the equation (which is not abnormal because that’s how professional discipline has been taking place for 78 years).

Let’s say that teacher, who after six years has not been teaching in public schools, wants to go back into the classroom.  They’d have to apply to the ATA to get their certificate back.  They’d have to prove that there is no chance, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will relapse into their previous inappropriate behavior.  He or she would have to convince a panel of professionals who are under constant public scrutiny that he/she has rehabilitated him/herself so much so that he/she is worthy of that very same public scrutiny.

I can count on my index finger the number of times that someone has actually been able to convince the ATA they are worthy of that scrutiny in the 78 years the ATA has been doing this.  The ATA doesn’t want unprofessional individuals in their midst, because where the media is involved, one bad apple rots the whole bunch.

There are some caveats here; that teacher simply is suspended from teaching in public schools.  That means the teacher, who still holds a valid teacher certificate, can be hired to teach in a private school or charter school in Alberta, because the ATA holds no jurisdiction there.  They can also apply for a teaching certificate in any other province or territory because, again, the ATA holds no jurisdiction there.

But really, who would hire that potential bombshell?  The ATA sends details of their disciplinary actions to all other professional bodies in the country, just as those other professional bodies send their disciplinary action details to the ATA.  This makes that person virtually unhireable, but if a private school were to actually be insane enough to hire that person, they’d have to justify that decision to the people who pay tuition to that school – parents (oh, and the people of Alberta who fund those schools to 70% of student instructional grants).

This is the way professional conduct issues have been dealt with for decades.  The people of Alberta must recognize that it works as well, as we have one of the most enviable Education systems in the world, and that other top-notch education systems, including Finland, Singapore, and another leader in Canada in Ontario, come to the Alberta Teachers’ Association for advice and input.  The professional conduct issues are dealt with not only adequately, but in such a way that the profession in Alberta can self-advance to the top of the world.

Government interference would completely inhibit that self-advancement.  It’s why government doesn’t get involved in issues of professional discipline in the medical field, engineering field, legal field and other professions, so that they can self-govern, ensure every member adheres to a certain code of conduct, and therefore have the ability to advance themselves as well.  Further to that, the only people who can appropriately self-regulate are the ones with the expertise and knowledge in the profession.  It would be a scary scenario if people with no expertise in accounting started regulating what products chartered accountants can suggest to their clients.

The desire to advance the profession to the betterment of the public trumps any desire to represent poor professionals.  We call this “enlightened self-interest”, recognizing that serving the public good also serves our own interests.  In a self-serving way we could say “why would we want to keep around the bad, they could easily just drag us down”.  For teachers, that has been the reason we self-regulate, to get rid of the bad apples that would cast a pall over the whole bunch, such that we do indeed serve the public good, namely our students.

Insert Jeff Johnson.  Or rather, Jeff Johnson, insert yourself.

Recently he overturned 4 recommendations of disciplinary action by the ATA, saying they weren’t harsh enough.  Rather than a suspension, that as previously discussed would make the person unhireable, Johnson nominates himself judge and jury and gives these 4 a life sentence, suggesting the ATA is unwilling to do so themselves.

He never mentions the fact that the ATA has already recommended numerous other life sentences on its own.  Something about these four very serious cases, with public hearings and legal counsel present, gave the ATA the impression that rehabilitation might be possible if the offenders so chose.  History has reflected that the offenders would not choose to return to the profession, so it would be a non-issue, but in our society, even in the legal system, we allow the opportunity for rehabilitation.  However, Johnson isn’t interested in opportunities to improve one’s behavior, nor is he interested in precedent.  Just in opportunities for him to be judge and jury.  So judge he does.

The offenders are never going to teach again.  Johnson just used red ink instead of black ink on the death certificate of those individuals’ teaching careers.

The only other thing that Johnson’s decision has done is ensure the offenders can’t teach at private or charter schools in Alberta.  As many who have decried the ATA’s “soft” approach suggest, this is probably a good thing.  However there is another way of dealing with that.

Don’t have private or charter schools in Alberta.

Not only would you ensure that anyone who the ATA disciplines can’t get a job in Alberta, but every dollar of public education money would actually be spent on – get this – public education.  This has been the position of the ATA for many moons.

So, as this seems to be the latest battle in a war Johnson has declared against the ATA, one must ask themselves the question “which is more likely, that a disciplinary process that has been in place for 78 years has been defunct that entire time and that the quality of our Education system is simply a 78-year-old fluke, or that the Education Minister has a particular agenda against the Alberta Teachers’ Association.”  For the answer to this question, we must surveil the activities between the two thus far.

Johnson has gone out of his way to make the Alberta Teachers’ Association his adversary.  Had he spent even an iota of this warring time on reducing child poverty, reducing student inequality, correcting infrastructure issues, enabling the professional development of teachers, improving classroom conditions, developing a balanced curriculum, or any other issue that actually exists in education as opposed to fabricating issues, we would be looking at a vastly improved Education system.

However, Johnson seems adamant about living up to the designation he earned as no longer having the confidence of the ATA.  Here’s how to earn such a designation.

• Insert yourself into negotiations when you don’t even sign the contracts.
• Breach teacher privacy by collecting private emails and using them for governmental purposes.
• Make significant cuts to distance education programs.
• Commission a taskforce on teaching excellence without talking to the professional body of teachers.
• Handpick the members.  Make sure one of the individuals on the “blue-ribbon panel” is someone you worked with before with Xerox, and another person isn’t even in Education, but rather in Forestry.
• Ensure a large portion of the panel includes PC MLAs, but don’t commit them to doing much work with it until towards the end of the process, where they can insert party ideals.
• Don’t announce the existence of the group until months after it has already started, so that the professional body of teachers has no opportunity to get involved.
• Make sure it is not based in research, but only in the collection of opinions.  The opinions can be collected by a sole-sourced contractor.
• Call it a “fiercely independent” panel, but in as discreet a manner possible meet with the chair of the panel regularly to ensure the accomplishment of certain objectives.
• Early in the process, have the panel meet with the professional body of the teachers, promise meetings for consultation to get them to stop whining about not being involved, but then never meet.
• Do not consult the professional body of teachers about recommendations to split the professional body of teachers.
• Do not consult the professional body of teachers about recommendations that suggest the professional body of teachers cannot regulate itself.
• When you release it, release it to the media under the strict instruction that the media not get input from teachers.  Don’t tell the professional body of teachers about the details of the report until the last possible second to ensure they are caught unprepared.
• Force contracts on teachers and Boards in such a way that Boards choose not to bargain at all, opting to do nothing and simply let an arbitrator decide, ruining local relationships between trustees and teachers.
• Include a Freudian slip at a meeting of teachers by saying “the taskforce, which seemed to be an attack on teachers was never meant to be anything but.    ... I mean, uh ..."
• Suggest that while the professional body of teachers represents only teachers, you represent students, even though students can’t vote, and you’ve never taught a class.
• Overrule a disciplinary decision by the professional body of teachers that effectively cancels the offender’s ability to teach by making a spectacle of canceling that offender’s ability to teach.  Suggest the professional body of teachers were not being transparent enough, downplaying the facts that the process is open to the public, involves legal counsel, and that decisions are shared amongst the profession.

After reviewing all this, it becomes pretty obvious which is more likely.  Johnson has a vendetta.  No wonder the Alberta Teachers’ Association has lost confidence in him.  While Johnson says "we have to stop pointing the fingers at individuals and start talking about the issues," he has shown no interest in discussing class sizes, classroom conditions, bullying or student inequality, which are true issues in Alberta Education, not a fabrication of a non-existent problem in teacher discipline.

Parents should be freaking out right about now.  The people who interact with their children every day are having their profession attacked on a daily basis by someone in power who seems to have a vendetta.  That profession is under threats of being dismantled, and the powers that be are not talking about the things that truly affect their children.  Yup, parents should be freaking out right about now.

We are now passed the cross-roads.  It is now over two months since the flood, and less than two months before we have a new Town Council.  Very soon, if you haven't already, you'll see the campaigns begin.

Look at what has happened.  Basements have been stripped out.  Tens of thousands of tonnes of our former lives have been taken to the dump.  Infrastructure has been moved, changed, remodelled, and rebuilt.  Yes indeed, lots has been done.

However, there are still multitudes who feel like they are being left behind.  Landlords, renters, small and mid-sized businesses, and residents who have nothing left and limited coverage are still in limbo.

Yet out of the receding waters comes opportunity.  In High River, a building stands empty where a library once stood.  An incredible opportunity to rebuild the arts and culture in the town now sits in that empty shell.  Schools in town are undergoing slight modifications to better use the space they have.  Serious consideration to mitigation efforts is being given, and various roadblocks to getting those completed are being removed.

2 weeks after the flood I saw the "For Sale" signs pop up, and I was worried. Within the past two weeks, many of those "For Sale" signs have been replaced with "Sold" signs, and I am encouraged.  My neighbours, two wonderful people I've had the pleasure of sharing a fence with, are moving on, but our new neighbours hale from Calgary, which reminds me that High River, even in it's most significant need, is still a place other people want to live.

Yes indeed, there is opportunity in them waters.

We need clear communication to understand how every action helps our town.

We need decisions to be informed and to fulfill a long-term vision.  No more band-aid solutions with short term gains, long-term consequences.

We need to stop doing studies that are already done, and start moving forward.

We need to spend smart.  Rather than tear out a road to fix one problem, repave it, and tear it out again months later to fix another that could have been fixed the first time, we need to spend the resources we have in the most efficient way possible.

We need to redevelop all of High River, not just the location of berms.  This community is rich in culture, even though there is minimal support for it.  The character of our town resides in our Downtown core, and it must be retained.  Developments must be smart, forward-looking, and with a 10-year vision, not a re-election vision.

Some people still fear how High River will recover.  The answer is "it will".  How it recovers is dependent on who leads the recovery.  The best parts of democracy start with the right people for the job in the local government.

I've heard time and time again "it won't matter what Council does, because in two years everyone will forget."  Do not allow yourselves to forget.  Hold Town Council to account.  Only then can we have any hope of avoiding June 20, 2013 again.

I implore everyone to really get to know your Town of High River Council candidates.  The right people can make this Town a beacon of light in Alberta.  The wrong people can cause a flood of problems that we will be managing for decades.

The right people are electable because they will do what's right.  The wrong people are electable because they are the loudest.

I believe Richard Murray is one of those "right people".  Murray will do what's right.  He won't be the loudest, but his background knowledge, his "big picture thinking", and his vision make him the "right person".  So while I know he won't be the loudest, I'll be loud for him.

While I've already told you why, I still believe you need to see for yourself, so visit his site at www.voteformurray.ca.

Because I love this town.

We've lost focus. We are talking about the wrong things.

Don't get me wrong, the things we are talking about need to be discussed.  Raj Sherman is exactly right asking about how contracts are being distributed.  Danielle Smith is exactly right to call for a public inquiry.  The PCs are right to get started on mapping and mitigations, they just don't know how to do it.

None of this matters to many Albertans right now.

We must focus on the disaster at hand, and get the recovery taken care of.  The PCs aren't getting that job done, but they are right to focus on it.

There are still hundreds of people, maybe thousands, who have no idea where their insurance coverage stops and the Disaster Recovery Program starts.  This is not specifically a High River problem, even though they dominate the news.  There are people in Exshaw, Bragg Creek, Medicine Hat, Black Diamond and Calgary still in limbo waiting for answers from their insurance company.  Companies are not necessarily at fault; they are trying to protect their bottom line, and they do so by saying "the Disaster Recovery Program will cover that for you".  But the job of the government is to protect their citizens, and they aren't doing it.

There are still hundreds of people who also have no place to live.  Again, this is not specifically a High River problem, although most of the people in this boat live there.  However, there are those who live in Exshaw, Bragg Creek, Medicine Hat and Black Diamond who, because they weren't in the floodplain but were rather in the flood fringe or no zone at all, are unable to relocate.  Some of those people are unable to build on the former site because, as could be expected with flood waters, the ground their home used to be on is now very far downstream.  Soil contamination is preventing homeowners from returning.

An exemplar; George Lane Park, a beautiful park and campground in downtown High River and just on the flip side of a berm from the river, was heavily flooded; at least 6 inches of silt covered the land.  Today, grass grows through the silt.

However, if you drive through the northeast end of the town, almost 60 days after the flood, no grass grows.  Not even a weed.

You cannot rebuild a home where grass won't even grow, and expect families to let their kids play there.

The Town of High River's Downtown Core is nothing but empty shell after empty shell.  If small business doesn't come back right away, there won't be a reason to rebuild High River.

Residents across southern Alberta know they need help transferring from insurance coverage to Disaster Recovery Funding, and many also know they need help determining how to live anywhere when they can't rebuild where they are.  And all they are hearing from opposition parties is stuff they couldn't care less about ... yet.

So congratulations PCs, you are focusing on the right thing.  However, that's where my congratulations stops.

Under the leadership of Doug Griffiths (not Alison Redford, she has been woefully silent on everything), we have seen flood victims treated like children under his "father knows best" mentality.

At a meeting in High River, Griffiths' numerous "I know how you feel" statements showed he knows anything but how High Riverites feel.

When the official Disaster Recovery Program email is shown to have an autoresponder that says "we will not respond to your email" and is admonished for it, Griffiths responds with "It was fixed already. Try to keep up".  Yes father, I will understand that even though you did wrong, I should not expect an apology, but rather will be scolded like a child.

My favorite Griffiths quote (insert sarcastic tone here): "taxpayers cannot be on the hook just because you're scared."  I now understand that being scared precludes me from being a taxpayer, thanks for the education, Mr. Griffiths.

The problem is that when Griffiths sees a gymnasium stuffed to the point of being called an illegal assembly full of people who are trying to tell him his government is not doing enough, he patronizes them instead of coming up with solutions.

The solutions are easy.  They are in the best interests of PCs, just to get the mob to be quiet, if not to actually help them.

Fund an ombudsman who will help individuals with their insurance, and once they're insurance is completed, have that same ombudsman guide them into the Disaster Recovery Process.  The sooner people get into the DRP system, the less Mr. Griffiths will have to hear gripe from flood victims because, get this, he has actually helped them.

The only reason the government would not do this is because of the fear of the cost of paying these ombudsmen.  I suggest spending a comparatively small amount on the salaries of these ombudsmen, as it will almost definitely save the DRP administrative costs, and will streamline the process, making it more cost effective and efficient.

Adjust the Disaster Recovery Program criteria to help those where rebuilding is simply not an option.  Griffiths has already explained that each DRP claim will be treated on an individual basis.  Why not just tell these people that if rebuilding is not an option, steps will be taken to either make it an option, or to relocate.  Then Mr. Griffiths will not have to hear gripe from these flood victims because, get this, he has actually helped them.

The only reason the government won't do this is because they are afraid that once they start relocating even just one resident, they've set a precedent.  It's a more dangerous precedent to make residents feel as though they have no choice but to walk away from everything they've worked for.  Once you do that, the government is going to need to start increasing funding for homeless shelters, because that's where all these flood victims will end up.

Do whatever it takes to get small and mid-sized businesses back in their buildings.  Intervene on rental/landlord disputes for a temporary time, and get the repair process expedited in business-places immediately.  Help retail outlets purchase stock right away, they are already passed the point of ordering for Christmas.  Do what it takes.

The only reason the government hasn't done this, as Doug Griffiths has explained, is that they are still focused on residents, and they'll get to businesses later.  Not good enough.  No business means no residents.  He of all people should know this.

It has become obvious that fatherly Doug Griffiths will not listen to the children. He can't see the forest for the floodwaters.

It also became obvious long ago that the Associate Ministers in charge of Recovery and Reconstruction are not in the position to make these decisions, being relegated by the father to the back of the room or even further outside the hall, as was the case with Rick Fraser in High River last week.

So where is the leader of our province in all this?  Nowhere.  She doesn't run this province.  Even when she said "we will return all to what it once was", the rest of her caucus isn't following through with it.  She is not leading.  Such a shame that she isn't even willing to consider what her late mother's neighbours are suggesting.  Even her constituents in Calgary-Elbow can't get in touch with her.  I wonder if the PCs will be willing to allow a non-leader to allow the caucus to continue to run amok?

I hope she steps up to the plate.  She needs to show up to her own party.  But she needs to do it now, because we're starting to lose focus on the needs of right now.

"Trust is the only capital a government needs, and it's the one thing they haven't got."

I was told this by an Alberta Party Leadership candidate, and I have found most recently how true this statement is.

Three weeks ago, Rick Fraser, Associate Minister in charge of Recovery and Reconstruction in High River stood on a stage in front of a grandstand of High River residents and expounded the efforts of one Darwin Durnie, crediting him with the organization of multiple logistics during the 2013 Flood in the Town. He was credited for setting up the temporary bus system, the building of massive berms, and many other tasks.

Durnie deserved that praise. He was thanked with an ovation, and Fraser started painting himself as the guy who would give credit where credit was due. It was a refreshing moment.

Fast forward two weeks. The Hamptons and Sunrise residents of High River have been escorted in for a peek, let in, kicked out, let back in and kicked out again. At a meeting originally scheduled with the mayor, they end up listening to Durnie explain what happened.

This is when a video of him explaining their homes were sacrificed was taken. Residents were happy, because this is the guy Fraser stood behind two weeks ago.

Fast forward another week, and Fraser releases a statement saying that contractor's "words do not reflect the Government's views".

Durnie, meet bus.

How is Fraser to be trusted on his word if he can't even stand by it himself?

Then they get Albert Flootman out at a presser to explain how the Hamptons were only barely sacrificed with his "straw versus fire hose" comment.

His comments do not change the fact there was one neighborhood sacrificed for the good of the Town.  That's not "the Government's views", but it is a fact.

Interesting how "the Government's views" and reality don't coincide. What was I saying about a government needing Trust as it's only capital?

Health Minister Fred Horne's flip-flop-flip-flop on the opening of the High River Hospital in its entirety doesn't inspire the investment of that capital.

Municipal Affairs Minister Doug Griffiths has an inability to recognize his Disaster Recovery Program doesn't help those in Flood Fringe or those not in any Flood zone who have no choice. His program will actually cost taxpayers more without a relocation option. This is not just in High River but also in Black Diamond, Exshaw and even Calgary. Griffiths pigeon-holed view on what Albertans "need" doesn't inspire the investment in that Trust capital.

The recent opening of $350 million of office space for PC MLAs instead of spending that money on flood mitigation efforts doesn't inspire that investment either.

When voters no longer invest Trust in their government, they don't allow the government the confidence they need to make tough (and sometimes unpopular) decisions in the best interests of Albertans.

Decisions like changing how we collect our revenue from oil producers to make sure we get full value for our resources.

Decisions like building large-scale flood mitigation projects that will directly affect a few farmers, but save billions of dollars in the long run.

Decisions like not allowing development on Crown lands in the foothills, which has removed the ability for that environment to act like the sponge it used to be. This has effectively sped up all river flow, and can be considered a significant cause of the flood.

Decisions like helping out home owners with no choice because they need it and it's the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, the PCs have lost almost all their Trust capital. If Alison Redford truly wanted to give people a reason to reinvest, I've already given her three ways do it.

1. Fund an Event-Specific Ombudsman who will help the many people still confused about insurance coverage figure out the next steps and move on sooner.
   
2. Revamp the Disaster Recovery Program criteria to also meet needs of people in Flood Fringe or in no flood zone at all who have no choice but to relocate.
3. Update Flood Maps immediately, but also plan future mitigative measures concurrently. Flood Maps inform mitigations, but mitigations also affect Flood Maps. Focusing on one but not the other would be irresponsible.

But what if Redford doesn't work to have us reinvest in the PCs? The Wildrose Party had their own problems with getting a Trust Investment in the last election, but who knows, they may be able to shake that history of in two years.

Perhaps it's time  invest elsewhere. The Alberta Party is inviting you to share with them your concerns and ideas. Right now is a perfect time as we are in the middle of a leadership race. We need your input now to put the best ideas forward. We believe we are the best place for you to invest your Trust because we do it all with you in mind.

The floods in late June of 2013 were unlike anything our province has every experienced before.  It should come as no surprise that challenges and conflict arise when our livelihoods are at risk.  The most recent communication between residents of High River and Heather Mack, Director of Government Relations with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, received from @okotoksNow is a great example of one set of challenges that we must face.

Insurance Providers are expected to be, in the common vernacular, "the good guys".  We rely upon our Insurance Provider in times when we need it most, and we expect them to come and "save the day".  When this doesn't happen, it is no surprise we leave the interaction very wounded.

It is obvious from this communication and the nature of the forum at the Flood Information Night on July 18, 2013, and many other meetings I’ve had since across Southern Alberta, that there are some very wounded people as a result of confusion with regards to insurance.  There is a lot of uncertainty as to what is supposed to be covered, what impact independent adjusters have, why some receive coverage and others don't, what procedures are appropriate for adjusting a claim, and other issues of communication.

The Alberta Party endeavours to focus on common sense solutions, and believes it can govern this way.  One such solution that would best serve Albertans is to appoint an independent Event-Specific Ombudsman, paid for through the Disaster Recovery Program, selected by the Superintendent of Insurance in Alberta, and given a strict set of parameters in their job description.  Those parameters would include meeting with those who experience confusion with their insurance policies and helping to educate those individuals as to what their policies cover; assisting individuals in claims appeals processes where necessary; educating and advising individuals as to what the next steps should be once the claim process has been completed (whether covered or not) including Disaster Recovery Program applications.

Individuals with insurance questions remain in limbo.  Any effort the Alberta Government makes in helping individuals through the insurance process and into the Disaster Recovery Program processes means less limbo for residents.  It also means less overall cost on the Disaster Recovery Program; the sooner residents receive the assistance they need, the less cost they will need to incur to return to normal.  The cost of employing an Event-Specific Ombudsman would easily be made up in the savings in reconstruction, should that reconstruction happen sooner rather than later when the destruction is even worse.  It only makes sense to help this process get completed quickly.

Certainly changes to the Insurance industry is not a common sense solution. While competition within the industry is one reason why there are such varied issues, it is also a way of ensuring the best services are available to Albertans.  An insurance company who treats its clients poorly and does not make appropriate coverage affordable will not likely be retained following this flood.  What is needed, therefore, is a method of speeding the recovery process.

Flood victims need to get through this recovery process quickly.  Their livelihood and Alberta's economy depends upon it.  It is easily seen in the best interests of residents, Insurance Providers and the Province to go through these processes quickly and efficiently.  The Alberta Government is in the perfect position to make this happen.

As a member of the Alberta Party in the Highwood constituency, I have written this letter to our Premier, the Honourable Alison Redford, asking her to work with the Insurance Industry by funding the appointment of an Event-Specific Ombudsman to effectively complete the insurance claim process for those affected by the flood.  This will help the Alberta Government show to Albertans how much they truly value rebuilding Alberta after the flood.

I'll give the Alberta Government credit for being forward thinking.  However, they are leaving a lot of Albertans behind in the present while they focus on the future.

This is not unusual, as our province is dealing with chronic symptoms of this approach.  There are homeless people being left behind, mentally ill not being cared for, and senior citizens being ignored.  As many of us have heard before, the quality of a society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable.  Today's example of vulnerable Albertans being left behind are those still trying to get back into their homes after the 2013 flood, 32 days later.

This past weekend, the Government of Alberta announced a volunteer panel of experts in flood mitigation who would work to come upon solutions for the future.  Their intent is to take into account the knowledge, experience, and opinion of everyday Albertans.  This is a fantastic concept, and I'll congratulate the Alberta Government on this project, as it is necessary for us to move forward.

However, the Government is missing out on one key thing; flood mitigation does not matter in the slightest in the minds of Albertans who can't even get into their homes as a result of this flood.

I thought the Government already set themselves out a framework of priorities for response to this flood.  It seems they forgot them already.

For many Albertans in High River, the Siksika Nation, Exshaw and Calgary (among other places, I'm sure), they are still in the "Stabilization" phase of that framework; some could even argue they are still in the "Response" phase.  This panel is only applicable to the "Intermediate Recovery", arguably the "Long Term Recovery" phases.

Yes we need to discuss how to prevent this from happening again to the best of our ability.  But not at the expense of those who are waiting to be helped back into their homes right now.

These people need answers to questions of what they should do now.  These questions aren't "what should we do in the future to prevent this?"  These questions are "what do I need to do to be able to go home?"

A lady at a Flood Information Night in High River called the residents who haven't gotten home yet the "sacrificial lambs".  Announcing a flood mitigation panel is not likely to change that viewpoint.

Please share this Open Letter addressed to Rick Fraser.  These are the questions we need answers to immediately, before anybody should care about flood mitigation for the future.

Click here to see the original letter and document.

Attention: The Honourable Rick Fraser, Associate Minister of Recovery and Reconstruction for High River

Dear Associate Minister,

I write to offer you the opportunity to directly respond in an open format to questions and concerns expressed by victims of the most recent 2013 Alberta Floods.  It is in Albertans' best interests to have open, clear and concise communication about the needs of Albertans, and the Government's efforts to fulfill them.  I intend on being a partner with you in the development of this communication.

In particular, the questions and concerns I refer to are many of those expressed at the Flood Information evening in High River on July 18, 2013, a meeting that left the vast majority of those attending dissatisfied with a lack of details.  While the five gentlemen at the forum-styled information session answered questions to the best of their ability, they simply were not equipped to provide the details that High River residents were expecting, and that many other Albertans will also be expecting at their own Flood Information nights.

This has led to a great deal of frustration, and the level of discourse between residents and officials is dwindling rapidly as a result.  I am hoping that through this letter we can retain a high level of discourse, and yet provide the details Albertans need, want and expect.

I am writing in this open format as many were unable to attend the meeting for a variety of reasons, and should have access to the content of the discussions, just as much as they should have access to the detailed responses.  I believe this to be a perfect opportunity for you to connect more directly with the concerns expressed by residents, and therefore improve the level of communication with your open responses.

The format of the questions attached provide synopses of those expressed at the July 18 Information Night, the answers provided that same night, and the remaining detail High River residents in particular are looking for.  It is my hope, as a partner in communication, you respond in a similarly open fashion.  Should you do so, I would be very happy to share as publicly as possible on your behalf the responses you provide.

It should be noted that none of the questions attached refer to how the flood was managed, although it was a significant theme brought forward by High River residents during that Information Night.  That would be a topic that should be assigned to an independent inquiry following the Stabilization phase of the Provincial Recovery Framework publicized earlier today.  All questions below apply directly to the current stage of that Framework, the Stabilization phase.

I know you share with me a desire to help Albertans move forward following this flood.  I hope you share with me a desire for improved communications, and therefore can work with me as a partner in informing Albertans with the details they need.  Albertans have shown great resiliency through working in concert with each other, and I hope that working as partners in communication, we can continue that collaboration to the benefit of all Albertans.

Yours faithfully,
[original signed]
Joel Windsor,
High River Resident

CC: The Honourable Alison Redford, Premier of Alberta
Ms. Danielle Smith, M.L.A. for HighwoodThe Honourable Doug Horner, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Finance
The Honourable Doug Griffiths, Minister of Municipal Affairs
The Honourable Diana McQueen, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
His Worship Emile Blokland, Mayor of the Town of High River
Mr. William Munsey, President of the Alberta Party
Citizens of the Province of Alberta

Encl.

Question: Regarding Flood Maps - It is obvious, particularly to High River residents, the current flood maps were out-of-date prior to the flood, are now even moreso as a result of changes to the terrain due to the flood, and in some cases inaccurate as residents expressed a history of flooding even though their property is not in any designated flood zone.  Residents not only want to know their status regarding potential future Disaster Recovery Funding but also the general safety and flood-mitigative needs of their houses regardless of the occurence of disasters.  We recognize that no map can necessarily be perfectly accurate, but the extent to which the inaccuracies exist is causing undue pressure on residents.  What is the timeline for the updating of these maps?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013 was inconclusive, however the need for updating the maps was recognized.
Associate Minister, can you please provide a commitment to a timeline for the updating of these maps so Albertans can make informed decisions about the future of their homes?

Question: Regarding Insurance Complaints - One representative at the Flood Information Evening explained that many houses were affected by sewage as high as the second level of their houses due to the pressure the floodwaters placed on the sewage system.  Some insurance companies refuse to cover damage at those levels of the houses stating “sewage that high is not possible.”  This is simply one example of the many disputes residents are having with their insurance providers.  If there is a dispute between a resident and their insurance company, what recourse does the resident have?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013: Hire a lawyer.
Follow-Up Question: If the insurance company is found to be at fault, will the Disaster Recovery Program cover those legal costs?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013: No.
Recommendation provided by a representative from the Insurance Bureau of Canada via a Tele-Town Hall hosted by Danielle Smith, M.L.A. for Highwood: For any grievance, complaint or even minor inconvenience, consumers are asked to call the Insurance Bureau of Canada at 1-800-377-6378.
Associate Minister, can you please commit to collaborating with the Insurance Bureau of Canada to ensure not only are insurance contracts appropriately adhered to, but that consumers are protected from insurance companies who downplay the damage caused by the effects of the flood?

Question: Regarding Disaster Recovery Funding Timeline - Residents are ready to remediate their houses now.  These residents, however, have no financial means to procure the professional services to do so.  How long will residents need to wait before they have the various resources, including financial, to begin the remediation process?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013 was inconclusive, as responses are likely on a case-by-case basis, and require the presence of assessors prior to allocation of funds.
Associate Minister, in order to begin the remediation process immediately, can you please make funds available to residents immediately, understanding that residents will be responsible for costs over and above what is allocated to them through the Disaster Recovery Program?  If not, can you offer another solution that will expediate the process of getting funds to residents so they can remediate their homes sooner?

Question: Regarding Mortgages - Many residents are at the season where they need to renegotiate their mortgages.  Some of these residents are uncertain as to the future of their homes, and therefore do not know the next step in the mortgage-renegotiation process.  What course of action should these residents take?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013 was inconclusive, as the panel recognized they did not have the skillset to answer the question.
Associate Minister, can you and the Alberta Government advocate on behalf of residents to the various financial institutions to temporarily stay all mortgage activity of those who are eligible for Disaster Recovery Funding so that residents can focus on making the best decisions for themselves and their property which those financial institutions have a stake in?  If not, can you ensure that Disaster Recovery Funding will also cover the costs of not renegotiating mortgages in a timely fashion?

Question: Regarding Disaster Recovery Program Loophole - For residents living in Flood Fringe or Overland Water Flow zones (according to current maps) as well as residents who were not in any designated Flood zone, yet were devastated by these most recent floods, many of them are no longer in the physical, mental and/or financial position to remain in the same premises.  Some of these homes have been condemned, and therefore residents have no choice available to them but to relocate.  According to the summary flowchart provided by the Disaster Recovery Program, residents in these zones are only provided assistance if they chose to remain.  For residents who, due to condemned houses, health-related inability or significant financial malady are incapable of choosing to remain and have a need to relocate due to the devastating impacts of this flood, what Disaster Recovery Funding is available to them?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013: None.
Associate Minister, please recognize that the criteria for Disaster Recovery Funding for individuals in Flood Fringe zones assumes residents have a choice.  Can you please adjust the criteria to also provide assistance to those residents who, for their own individual circumstances, have no choice remaining, and must relocate?

Question: Regarding Floodproofing Standards - Many residents expected that with an announcement that the Government of Alberta would only provide future disaster funding in the event of another flood if homes were appropriately mitigated, that the announcement would be followed presently by a description of those floodproofing standards.  They expected at the July 18, 2013 meeting to be told what those standards are.  High River residents are very resourceful and well-experienced in flood recovery, so knowing those standards would have undoubtedly assisted residents in speeding up the recovery process.  What are those floodproofing standards?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013 was that those standards are as of yet unidentified, but are likely to differ on a case-by-case basis.
Associate Minister, standards are benchmarks that all Albertans can be expected to adhere to, should not differ on a case-by-case basis, and through their very existence can help speed up the recovery process.  Can you commit to providing at the very least guidelines, or preferably a document detailing floodproofing standards that can be applied across the province, and when can Albertans expect those documents to be made publicly available?

Click here to see the original letter and document.

Doug Griffiths made an announcement that put some people in a tizzy this past week.  Some claimed it was insensitive to High Riverites, although I disagree.  It's the detail this announcement was missing.

Monday night, people came in droves to the High River Expo at Highwood High School.  They left more confused than ever.

I went with one question in mind, the one question that must be answered before anything can be detailed with this new flood-disaster funding policy.  How long should we expect to wait until we have updated flood maps that take into account the changes in terrain from this most recent flood?

I first went to the Disaster Recovery Plan booth.  They told me to talk to the people at the Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) booth.  I went there, and asked the same question.

They told me there was no need.

What?

The floodway maps they are currently distributing, and the floodway maps that are on their oh-so-special app on their website are based on regular flood occurences, not the once-a-century floods, and so they should remain accurate.

I call Taurus Excrement.

I asked what would prompt them to start the process of remapping.  They said they'd have to be there physically to reassess and see a potential need.  I told them I'd save them that step and explain the need to them right now.

Examine the below diagram from ESRD's floodplains map.  Running north and south down the center, near the bottom, is a line that seems to divide light red from yellow, meaning it divides flood fringe from no-risk land.

That line is a railroad track berm.  Or at least it was.

Observe what remains of that berm.

The representative from the ESRD seemed to understand there may be a need, although somewhat grudgingly.  I then asked what the next step would be.

She explained ESRD would need to consult with all the stakeholders, including the railroad company, the town and the province, to see if there was any intent to replace and repair that berm.  They'd also have to wait until the municipality asked them to upgrade the flood maps.

And then ...?

And then they'll start the process of updating the maps.

A process before the request process to get a process started.  In my mind, not acceptable.

Canadian Pacific Railway owns that track, and hasn't used it for at least 4 years.  I'd be surprised if they have any interest in rebuilding it.  I won't speak for the town, but I would suggest that they will take quite some time before they start discussing rezoning and building berms, as they have a bit more on their plate right now.

So I translate this to mean months of bureaucracy.

I know this to be the norm for our PC government, but I was hoping for a more common sense approach to our need during this abnormal time.

Here's the deal: if people in Alberta do not know where those flood plains 
actually are (not just where some out-of-date map says they are), how can we protect our homes?  Nowhere in Alberta is this more frustrating on such a mass scale as in High River.

This isn't just about whether or not we will get Disaster Relief in the future.  This is about whether or not our homes and businesses are at risk in the first place.  Nobody will build in High River if they can't even be assured of where the floodplains are.

We need to have these maps updated not now, not months from now, but on Sunday, the same day Minister Griffiths made his policy announcement.

Thankfully, Rick Fraser, Associate Minister for the Recovery of High River, was two booths away.  So I pulled him aside and asked him about this process before the request process to get the process started.  After about 5 minutes of listening to a few talking points, I pulled out my tablet showing him the map above, and he finally clued in.  His response; "they will get going on this if I have anything to say about it."

Alright, one small step for one small man, I thought.  But just in case, I went to Danielle Smith, my MLA, who was also right beside us.  I explained the exact same thing to her.

She shared my sentiment.  She said she had heard similar concerns before, although she had not yet heard what ESRD's triple-stage process was like.  I told her I spoke to Mr. Fraser.  She said "let's wait a couple of days, and be optimistic."

These days I find exercising patience for the sake of optimism much more challenging, and somewhat unnecessary, but I took Smith's suggestion.  It is now two days later.

I asked @RickFraserMLA if there was any news, and did not involve Smith because I knew she was in Red Deer for the day.  The Government of Alberta's twitter feed @YourAlberta responded instead, telling me that nothing has been started except to make the floodmaps mobile-device accessible.  Apparently that will be ready next week.

Priority has been set on making sure I can read this on my cellphone, not whether or not what I'm reading is even accurate or applicable.

So finally, I am pulling my Alberta Party hat out.  I have worked hard to avoid doing it, but I cannot any longer, knowing that what we need is not what either the PC government is willing to work for, nor is Danielle Smith going to do as she waits in optimism.

Wearing my Alberta Party hat in the constituency of Highwood, I will work to make sure floodplain maps are updated immediately.  You don't need to elect me to do this.  I will do it because I know it is needed.  We'll start with the Highwood constituency, and then I will continue this work starting at all communities close to the mountains and working our way downstream of each river system in Alberta.  We will endeavour to skip the three-stages of process-before-the-request-process-to-start-the-process and get this going right away because we need it in our hands already.  If we can't do that, we'll pressure the process to get done faster.

Don't worry, this won't be the only thing the Alberta Party in Highwood works on, as there is a great deal more that needs our common sense input.  If you would like to help in this, feel free to join me.  Send me a message at aphighwood@gmail.com, and we'll get this work done so Albertans know what they need to know.

The Alberta Party will make common sense work for you.

Numerous posts on various sites I have seen, including Facebook, news article comments, and many more, have given credit for the creation of unofficially named Lake Hampton to the new Tongue Creek Road extension, known to many as the George Groeneveld Bridge, or 498th Avenue.  At first blush, that would make sense, given the map below.

However, people passing this judgement seem to have forgotten that this map is woefully incomplete.  It's missing the road that goes past the cemetery (5th Street) and doesn't even show Tongue Creek Road, nor the new overpass.

It also doesn't show how far north Lake Hampton actually goes.

Observe an updated map of High River, with some annotations that I will explain.  I recommend clicking on it to read the annotations.

The Highwood normally flows underneath Tongue Creek Road at the new George Groeneveld Bridge.  The floodplain goes right up to those green lines, which is where 5th Avenue used to be before the overpass was built.  For every flood previous to this one, the old 5th Street berm prevented the water from coming back.  During the first day of the flood, this was still true.  However, once it got north past Tongue Creek Road, the water levels in this year's flood were beyond anything we'd ever seen, and the banks were over-run.

The water spilled out into farmer's fields north of the Tongue Creek Road, and continued filling up, almost all the way out to Cargill.  The only thing preventing it from flowing further east was Highway 2.  Tongue Creek Road dips a bit before rising to the new overpass, and that is where the water spilled back.  This is what the media meant when they said "the river had turned back on itself".

Between the new 5th Street and the new 20th Street Crossover, the land is low, and dips ultimately to just north of the Hamptons.  When the water came over Tongue Creek Road, the terrain was already perfectly designed to become a lake.  No developers had worked there yet, and so no blame can be laid on them for making the land too low.  This low-lying land was always there.  It was just that there had never been that much water before.

Observe the map below, circa 2002.  Holy Spirit Academy, the school that remained underwater for almost a month in this year's flood, hadn't even been built yet.  Neither had the Tongue Creek extension nor the new overpass.

5th Street was always there.  The river always ran north.  498th Avenue was always there.  Had we not built the extension to Tongue Creek Road, the area we now know as the Hamptons would still have become a lake. All those naysayers suggesting the new road caused all this are dead wrong.

Could we have seen this coming?  Considering Lake Hampton eventually covered approximately 15 square miles of land (approximately the same size as Sylvan Lake), I'd say no.

Did those berms affect the flow, and make the creation of Lake Hampton more likely?  Certainly a possibility.  Where that berm ended is where the breach of the banks occurred that ended up resulting in half of a town sitting underwater for 3 weeks.  I can't imagine that a berm is the best solution on its own anymore.

So what do we do instead of berms? I'll save that for the next post.

(For interest's sake, now that the Lake has been pumped out, some other lines of land have reappeared, particularly Tongue Creek Road, 20th Street, and a fenceline that once separated the Town of High River from the M.D. of the Foothills, somewhat north of the Hamptons.  These lines of land have now effectively cut Lake Hampton into 4 bodies of water, which I have labelled Lake Hampton 1, 2, 3 and 4 in my annotated map)

A recent column in the Calgary Sun suggested that Premier Alison Redford's announcement of policy on disaster relief funding for future floods was poorly timed, and not sensitive to the needs of High Riverites.  "The premier truly is politically tone deaf," charges the Editorial.

Pot, meet kettle.

Imagine a scenario when you have been unable to enter your flood-ravaged home for 3 weeks, and when you finally do, nothing in your house is salvageable because of the high quantities of mould.  You start cleaning up, and very shortly are asking "what for?"  This is what thousands of High Riverites are doing as I type this.

Now imagine this scenario with no announcements from the province or municipal governments explaining what's next.  Some people move away, because they can't handle the recovery.  If they don't get disaster relief funding, they declare bankrupcy and hope for the best in the future.  Others stay, use whatever funding they can get to return the house to liveable state, but will never be able to sell it because no government is saying whether or not they will be covered for future events.  Then, 3 years later, after another political election, the government is in the "safe" zone and can make the controversially timed announcement that they will not get covered if they didn't move.

If that were to actually happen (which thankfully it won't), I would join the riots.

High Riverites are stronger people than the Calgary Sun gives us credit for.  We don't need our Premier to stroke our hair and say "there there, there there." We need our Premier to say "don't build there again, and here's some relief funding to help you make that decision."

Good political decisions are those that are made in the best interests of all Albertans, regardless of the sensitivity of the timing.

Now this policy is a good one for all Albertans, not just High Riverites.  Not making the announcement would have been far less sensitive to our needs.

That being said, the announcement is devoid of detail.  We could look at the current Alberta Environment Flood Mapping application, but it is now badly out of date.  Compare the two pictures below.

The first is Alberta Environment's Flood Mapping app.  The second is a map of the affected areas in the Town of High River's re-entry plan.  Notice how Alberta Environment said there was no risk of floods in the yellow, and yet that is where all the standing water is?

People who were in those yellow areas, yet still flooded out anyway, don't even know if they are in a flood plain or flood fringe zone.  There was never any indication that they were in danger, so that's why they built there.  Now what?

All levels of government need to double ... no, quintuple their efforts to get those flood mapping applications updated with current data, so those people who never expected flooding was a possibility will know whether or not that is still the case.

Then, when it comes to mitigation, we must make decisions that make sense.

The Province says "don't build in a flood plain".  Assuming we know where that flood plain is, I'm sure every High Riverite will say "thanks, I hadn't figured that out yet."

But then the Province says "if you are in the flood fringe, fortify against floods."  Then I see what Alberta Environment's idea of fortification looks like.

You don't need to be an engineer to see the problem here.  If every municipality allowed the building of many flood proofed areas, floodway and flood fringe levels would rise, the flood hazard areas would change, and we'd be back to square one.

Simply flood proofing is obviously not the best course of action if it is the only course of action.  There must be more.  Building berms or dykes aren't the best options either for the same reason.  The reason water levels rise is because they have nowhere else to go.  You build a berm to prevent the water from flowing, it goes somewhere else.  You build a dyke to divert the water, once it arrives at its destination, it still needs somewhere to go.

I'm no expert at this.  But this much I can figure out for myself.  There are experts elsewhere in the world that can help us out with this.  Ask those who manage the mighty Mississippi.  Ask those in the Netherlands who deal with floods regularly.  Those along the Nile use floods to their advantage.  Somebody out there can help us figure out how to manage our ever-changing climate, and the likelihood that this flood can happen again.

I'm glad for the announcement of flood relief policies.  It tells us what to expect, and now we can plan for it.  While the PCs missed a lot prior to the flood (namely sitting on a flood mitigation report), they at least got that part right.  Now the real test is if they'll follow up on that policy and give us the details.

We need those details now.  We need to demand it.  If we have to wait six years for them, we won't be asking the PCs for it, because they won't have been elected again.  We need that action, and we need it now.

And we need the patronization of High Riverites to stop.  We don't need sensitivity.  We need action.