Download to read offline
Uploaded byRobert Muir
Storm Warts, The Floods Awaken, A New Hope for Cost-Effective Investment in Flood Management
The document discusses the increasing importance of cost-effective flood management infrastructure due to rising climate change impacts and highlights the necessity for thorough benefit-cost analyses of various flood-related projects. With annual flood damage costs estimated at $367 million, it suggests focusing on infrastructure upgrades and systemic capacity quantification to address the shortfall in current water management systems. Through detailed analyses, including project components and cost estimates, the document emphasizes the economic justification for investing in enhanced flood management strategies.
More Related Content
Similar to Storm Warts, The Floods Awaken, A New Hope for Cost-Effective Investment in Flood Management
![C3 [et 2] darrin connecticut 2014 nhma](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/c3et-2darrinconnecticut2014nhma-141215122622-conversion-gate01-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Storm Warts, The Floods Awaken, A New Hope for Cost-Effective Investment in Flood Management
- 2. Not long ago,in many cities not far away ….
- 5. The Floods Awaken- A New Hope for Cost-Effective Investment in Flood Management Infrastructure
- 6. Have the floods“awakened” ?
- 7. Look at somedata we must $400 M / yr > $1 B / yr CatIQ Data “various company surveys” ?
- 8. Flood, water, stormperils … Benefit-cost analysis considers frequency Expected loss = $367M / yr 2013 is one in 21-Year event Gumbel N=18 Xbar = 0.42 S=0.66 2013 $40k* loss per home not ‘average’
- 9. Water damage %is decreasing 34.0 % of Total Losses 31.7%
- 10. “Fear is thepath to the dark side.”
- 11. Should we fearclimate change effects? Dark Force Climate ChangeYour Infrastructure
- 12. Should we fearclimate change effects? “..all culverts are undersized. All sewers are undersized …” Dark Force Climate ChangeYour Infrastructure
- 13. Or carefully quantifysystem capacity? Sewer meeting design capacity = 96% Culverts meeting head water standard = 94% Culverts meeting velocity criteria = 96%
- 14. And stay laser-focusedon isolated Storm Warts (gaps). DMAF Projects Asset Value 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Billion$ Storm Waste -water Bridges Approximate National Storm and Wastewater Upgrades (Scaled Markham and Toronto Flood Programs 6% of Asset Value) $5 B $418 B $28 B
- 15. Cost-benefit analysis offersa New Hope to focus infrastructure upgrades.
- 16. Cost-benefit analysis offersa New Hope to focus infrastructure upgrades. BCR = Benefits (deferred damages) Project Costs
- 17. Analysis for FloodBenefit/Cost (ROI) ROI Analysis Component 1. Climate Change 2. All event frequencies 3. H&H Engineering 4. Local Damages (Benefits) 5. Mitigation Costs 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 7. Other Benefits Quantified Capital Cost ($M) Required Engineering analysis Complete weather (event) frequency conditions Economic analysis Other
- 18. Systems: Project: ROI Analysis Component Red River Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm MasterPlan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change 2. All event frequencies 3. H&H Engineering 4. Local Damages (Benefits) 5. Mitigation Costs 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 7. Other Benefits Quantified Capital Cost ($M) Required Large River Large River Creek CreekCreek City-wide Sewers City-wide Sewers
- 19. Study Purpose : Project: ROIAnalysis Component Red River Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change 2. All event frequencies 3. H&H Engineering 4. Local Damages (Benefits) 5. Mitigation Costs 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 7. Other Benefits Quantified Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 - - 0.02 Required
- 20. Royal Commission –Comprehensive Project: ROI Analysis Component Red River Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change No 2. All event frequencies Yes 3. H&H Engineering Yes 4. Local Damages (Benefits) Yes 5. Mitigation Costs Yes 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 2.73 7. Other Benefits Quantified No Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 No - 0.02 Required Engineering analysis (9 Volumes)
- 21. Provincial Class EAProcess Project: ROI Analysis Component Red River Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Strafford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change No No 2. All event frequencies Yes Yes 3. H&H Engineering Yes Yes 4. Local Damages (Benefits) Yes Yes (by property) 5. Mitigation Costs Yes Yes 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 2.73 0.06 to 0.77 (priority sys.) 7. Other Benefits Quantified No No Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 No - 0.02 Required Property–by–property Loss Estimates
- 22. Provincial EA -Comprehensive Project: ROI Analysis Component Red River Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change No No No 2. All event frequencies Yes Yes Yes 3. H&H Engineering Yes Yes Yes 4. Local Damages (Benefits) Yes Yes (by property) Yes 5. Mitigation Costs Yes Yes Yes 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 2.73 0.06 to 0.77 (priority sys.) 1.3 to 1.9 7. Other Benefits Quantified No No No Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 No - 0.02 Required Public / Peer Review (Prov. EIA, Fed. CEAA process)
- 23. Provincial Class EAProcess Project: ROI Analysis Component Red River Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change No No No Yes 2. All event frequencies Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. H&H Engineering Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. Local Damages (Benefits) Yes Yes (by property) Yes Yes (by prop.) 5. Mitigation Costs Yes Yes Yes Yes 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 2.73 0.06 to 0.77 (priority sys.) 1.3 to 1.9 2.2 7. Other Benefits Quantified No No No No Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 No - 0.02 Required First Nation &, Business Stakeholder Consultation, Formal Public & Ministry Review, Funding Consultation, Building- by-building damage estimates, 2D hydraulic model … Exceeds DMAF ROI (Eligibility Screening)
- 24. City-Wide Program &Policy ROI Project: ROI Analysis Component Red River Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change No No No Yes Yes 2. All event frequencies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. H&H Engineering Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. Local Damages (Benefits) Yes Yes (by property) Yes Yes (by prop.) Yes (city-wide) 5. Mitigation Costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 2.73 0.06 to 0.77 (priority sys.) 1.3 to 1.9 2.2 2.0 to 5.5 7. Other Benefits Quantified No No No No Yes (eros., qual.) Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 Required Consolidates Class EAs and Master Plans (Calibrated Models) Detailed Actual & Projected Costs Local Insured Cat IQ and Total Losses Validates City-wide Program Scope Informs Grey/Green Policy
- 25. University Research Project: ROI Analysis Component RedRiver Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change No No No Yes Yes No 2. All event frequencies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. H&H Engineering Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. Local Damages (Benefits) Yes Yes (by property) Yes Yes (by prop.) Yes (city-wide) Yes / No 5. Mitigation Costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 2.73 0.06 to 0.77 (priority sys.) 1.3 to 1.9 2.2 2.0 to 5.5 No 7. Other Benefits Quantified No No No No Yes (eros., qual.) No Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 No Required Damages Not Annualized No Cost of Mitigation or Benefit/Cost
- 26. Economic Research Project: ROI Analysis Component RedRiver Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change No No No Yes Yes No No* 2. All event frequencies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. H&H Engineering Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 4. Local Damages (Benefits) Yes Yes (by property) Yes Yes (by prop.) Yes (city-wide) Yes / No No (US eqn’s) 5. Mitigation Costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 2.73 0.06 to 0.77 (priority sys.) 1.3 to 1.9 2.2 2.0 to 5.5 No 4.8 7. Other Benefits Quantified No No No No Yes (eros., qual.) No Yes (many) Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 No - 0.02 Required US River Flood Damage Indices – No Local Data Used No Hydrology or Hydraulic Analysis (Local Subwatershed Study, Municipal SWM Not Used) “Meant to Inspire Further Study”, Autocase Flood Analysis Limited – Emphasis on “Non-flood” Conventional Tank Classified as “Green” (?)
- 27. Range of detailconsidered Project: Analysis Component Red River Floodway Barber, Chesney, Templeton Engineering Stratford Storm Master Plan Dillon Consulting Alberta Spring- bank Reservoir IBI Markham Don Mills Channel Class EA TMIG Markham City-Wide Storm / San. CBA Muir, Papa Laurel Cr. Wetlands Waterloo SPA ICCA Metro- linx Green Park’g Lot PwC Autocase 1. Climate Change No No No Yes Yes No No* 2. All event frequencies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. H&H Engineering Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 4. Local Damages (Benefits) Yes Yes (by property) Yes Yes (by prop.) Yes (city-wide) Yes No (US eqn’s) 5. Mitigation Costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 6. Benefit/Cost for Flood Damages 2.73 0.06 to 0.77 (priority sys.) 1.3 to 1.9 2.2 2.0 to 5.5 No 4.8 7. Other Benefits Quantified No No No No Yes (eros., qual.) No Yes (many) Capital Cost ($M) 73 (‘58) 77 (‘04) 160 70 260 No - 0.02 “Econ-gineering” Required
- 28. Evidence-based Policy “Econ-gineering” Evidenceis ‘expert knowledge; published research; existing research; stakeholder consultations; previous policy evaluations; … outcomes from consultations; costings of policy options; output from economic and statistical modelling’ (UK Cabinet Office, 1999) Evidence- based “Number stretching and concept massaging”
- 29. Resources for SoundROI Analysis • Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals, 2007. “all regulatory departments and agencies are expected to show that the recommended option maximizes the net economic, environmental, and social benefits to Canadians, business, and government over time”
- 30. Resources for SoundROI Analysis • Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals (2007) 5 Step Process: • STEP 1: Identify Issues, Risks, & the Baseline Scenario, Consult • STEP 2: Set Objectives • STEP 3: Develop Alternative Regulatory & Non-Reg. Options, Consult Stakeholders • STEP 4: Assess Benefits & Costs • STEP 5: Prepare Accounting Statement • Municipal Class EA Process, Ontario (amended 2015): • Phase 1: Identify Problem or Opportunity • Phase 2: Identify Alternative Solutions (incl. consultation) • Phase 3: Examine Alternatives and + and – Effects (ROI optional) • Phase 4: Report on Preferred Alternative & Consult • Phase 5: Design, Construct, mon.
- 31. Example City-wide Benefit/Cost 0.77 0.06 0.53 0.15 Invest$ 1 to defer 77 cents of flood damage Invest $1 to defer 6 cents of flood damageProceed to Class EA Best Practices, Policies & Programs
- 32. Flood & OtherBenefits (IBC)
- 33. Pelly’s Lake Wetland Restoration (Reservoir) Flood AttenuationBiomass Production CO2 Offset Phosphorus Nitrogen Flood & Other Benefits (IBC) All Benefits Net Benefit/Cost = 2.83 – 3.64 Meta-Flood Benefits Net Benefit/Cost = 0.56 – 0.72 “Meta-analysis” Flood Attenuation = 20 % of total benefitsFlood Other
- 34. Flood & OtherBenefits (Original) An economic assessment of local farm multi-purpose surface water retention systems in a Canadian Prairie setting Pamela Berry, Fuad Yassin, Kenneth Belcher, Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt 27 July 2017
- 35. Flood & OtherBenefits (Original)An economic assessment of local farm multi-purpose surface water retention systems in a Canadian Prairie setting Manitoba – to - Literature Flood Benefits Net Benefit/Cost = Nil to 0.14 Avoided flooding costs = 0.03 % to 4% of total benefits Pelly’s Lake Wetland Restoration (Reservoir) Flood Attenuation Biomass Production Carbon Credits Phosphorus Nitrogen Flood Other
- 36. Econ-gineering Case Studies(IBC) Project: Analysis Component Case Study #1 Assessing the value of natural assets .. Gibsons, BC Case Study #2 Assessing the benefits of wetland conserve. Waterloo, ON Case Study #3: Assessing the value of the Pelly’s Lake .. Manitoba Case Study #4: Assessing value of natural infrastructure … Oakville, ON Metrolinx Green Parking Lot Brampton, ON 1. Climate Chg. No No No No No* 2. All event freq. No Yes No Yes Yes 3. H&H Eng’g No Yes No Yes No 4. Local Damages (Benefits) No Yes No (meta-analysis)* No No* (US eqn’s) 5. Mitigation Costs No (alt. cost only) No Yes No (alt. cost only) Yes 6. Benefit/Cost No No 0**–0.72* (flood) 2.8 – 3.6 (all) No 4.8* (flood) 12.35 (all) 7. Other Benefits No No Yes No Yes Capital Cost ($M) 3.5 – 4 (alt.) No 1.0 1.2 – 1.4 (alt.) - 0.02
- 37. Flood Control Program- Markham 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Standards Downspout Prgm. Backwater Valve Pgm. San.Sewer Upgrades Stm. Sewer Upgrades Green Infr. Retrofit Cost($M) < $0.1 M
- 38. Flood Control Program- Markham 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Standards Downspout Prgm. Backwater Valve Pgm. San.Sewer Upgrades Stm. Sewer Upgrades Green Infr. Retrofit < $0.1 M Grey Infrastructure Benefit / Cost = 2.0 Insured = 5.5 Total Green Infrastructure Benefit / Cost = 0.1 Insured = 0.3 Total Best Practices No Regrets Policies & Programs High ROI Approved Program $ 263 M $2.19 B for 25% of city
- 39. Conclusions • Floods areimportant but have not “awakened”, data trends show (“water damage” fraction decreasing) • On Storm Warts, we shall be laser focused • Benefit-cost analysis for flood infrastructure, a New Hope it is • Detailed engineering studies to assess project and policy benefits, we must have • Clear of the dark side, we must stay
- 40. Questions ? Robert J.Muir, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. rmuir@markham.ca Blog: www.CityFloodMap.com Podcast: Open During Construction on iTunes Twitter: @RobertMuir_PEng Web: www.markham.ca The National Conference of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association Montréal, Canada, November 5, 2018 PRINT VERSION
- 41. Woodbine Evolution of DesignStandards 41 Engineer Master Storm-whacker Climate Change Fab Solo
- 42. Insurance Industry: • “WaterDamage” is key driver to growing costs after 2008 http://http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Resources/IBC-Natural-Infrastructure-Report-2018.pdf
- 43. Losses Are Increasingfor All Perils
- 44. % Water DamageDecreasing After 2008 1983-2008 Flood, Water Rain, Storm, Hurricane Perils – “Water Damage” $4.57 B 34.0% of Total 2009-2017 Flood, Water Rain, Storm, Hurricane Perils – “Water Damage” $8.90 B 31.7% of Total
Editor's Notes
- #6 So thank you for having me, my name is Engineer Master Storm-whacker and I’d like to share with you what is sweeping the galaxy in terms of fixing ‘Storm Warts’, the blemishes in our infrastructure systems under extreme rain, and show how to do it in the most cost-effective way.
- #7 But first have the floods awakened? To answer that.. Look at some data, we must
- #8 My droid R2-Vac-Poo pulled some loss data together. Pre 2008 400 million losses a year. Post 2008 1 billion - Seems like a big jump CLICK but these are 2 vastly different datasets which could explain a lot of the difference and the trend. And it includes fires. What about flooding only? We have to use the engineering force and dig deeper.
- #9 R2 has pulled up the flood only losses. In recent years where the CatIQ data is reliable flood losses are flat except for 2013. To do benefit cost analysis and assess expected annual losses, we need to analyze the distribution of losses. CLICK That gives us average losses of 367 million. CLICK That’s right R2 we also have extremes in the distribution. CLICK- benefit cost analysis has to consider frequency. So while the insurance industry may use 2013 to estimate average damages, those are actually an extreme and 10 times above the annualized loss.
- #10 And have flood losses awakened? Not really. Up to 2008, water damage was 34% of total losses. After 2008? Less.
- #11 So benefit cost analysis needs robust statistics. Don’t fear it. Fear is the path to the dark side.
- #12 Should we fear climate change effects? .. Will it destroy ALL our infrastructure like the Death Star obliterating Alderron ? CLICK A former Environmental Commissioner in the media said this “all culverts are undersized .. all sewers”
- #13 Should we fear climate change effects? .. Will it destroy ALL our infrastructure like the Death Star obliterating Alderron ? CLICK A former Environmental Commissioner in the media said this “all culverts are undersized .. all sewers”
- #14 Should we fear it, or can we use the engineering force and carefully quantify system capacity? CLICK MTO did that for culverts and a sewers to see how they perform with future storms. What did they find? Let’s ask my statistics droid C-3- Pee-Pee CLICK – Hi C-3. Thanks. The study shows the vast majority of culverts and sewers meet FULL design standards with future storms.
- #15 So I, Engineer Master Storm-whacker, say there’s nothing to fear if we stay laser focused on the few Storm Warts. And we must because in Canada we have over 400 Billion in assets. DMAF grants and matching funding will be about 1% of that. But based on flood program costs in Toronto .. Markham, we may need to spend 6% of asset value on fixing warts. CLICK Scaled up that’s 28 B across the county - those investments must focus on high ROI projects CLICK … or else we will be running around spinning our wheels like BB-8 here. Dollars have to target warts.
- #16 Cost-benefit analysis offers a New Hope to focus infrastructure upgrades. Helping us decide what investments are worthwhile. CLICK But its not new – we did this back in the 1950’s to assess the Red River Floodway in Manitoba.
- #17 What does the analysis get us ? Simple. A benefit-cost ratio – benefits, or deferred damages divided by costs.
- #18 But what goes into the analysis of these assessments? Well. We need to look at a complete spectrum of events. Engineering analysis to quantify system damages and benefits. Economic analysis for mitigation costs. And then we can calculate benefit – cost ratios. As a bonus we can look at other benefits beyond flood mitigation. Numbers 2 to 6 are essential for a complete assessment.
- #19 Let’s look at some examples of this analysis for various projects listed up top. What kinds of systems is analysis applied to? Large river systems Local creeks City wide sewer systems (not so common)
- #20 And these studies have various purposes. To assess regional mega projects costing the equivalent of hundreds of millions. Or city-wide master plans of local projects costing tens of millions. Sometimes no tangible project and the study is mostly to assess policy direction. Virtually no capital costs. And for Markham, we have aggregated all master plans and project costs into a city-wide program and policy benefit cost analysis.
- #21 So what are highlights of the various projects and some gaps? The Red River Commission has 9 volumes of technical analysis – great engineering.
- #22 The Stratford Storm master plan had detailed modelling too and property by property damage and benefit analysis.
- #23 The Springbank reservoir project had extensive public and peer review – for the provincial EIA, and federal CEAA
- #24 And Markham’s latest EA had extensive consultation, public and agency reviews, building by building damage and benefit assessment using actual floor elevations, 2D integrated river and sewer models – and –yes! – we this extensive analysis shows we meet the DMAF ROI threshold of at least 2.
- #25 In the Markham city-wide cost-benefit analysis Fabian Papa and I have assessed the entire storm and sanitary system ROI. CLICK This analysis consolidates 10 years of earlier detailed EAs and master plans, CLICK uses local losses from IBC CLICK detailed project costs including constructed and tendered works CLICK It validates the scope of our quarter billion dollar program – a benefit-cost ratio of 2 to over 5 CLICK we also looked at erosion and water quality benefits too to help inform grey / green infrastructure policies
- #26 Some university research is not as detailed. For example the Laurel Creek wetlands study from 2017 by the Intact Centre. It did not annualize the damages. And did not look at costs of mitigation so no benefit cost analysis was possible.
- #27 And then we have economic research by mgmt consultant PwC and economists at Autocase who reported on a Metrolinx Green Parking Lot where Total Economic Value (TEV) analysis was done – which means triple bottom line. Several limitations are apparent. No modelling to assess damages or benefits. No local loss data. Mitigation was costed but conventional underground tank.. To be fair, Autocase told me work was only meant to inspire further study. There is a lot of emphasis on non-flood benefits … the flood analysis was limited.
- #28 So we have a range of detail that goes into benefit cost analyses. Studies may or may not meet required elements. The last 2 we could call .. ‘econ-gineering’ – not complete economics, not complete engineering either. And you have to ask “Are those suitable to guide policy decisions?” Or are they just fun to look at, like Jar Jar Binks?
- #29 A robust evidence-based approach is what we need to guide flood policy. An approach widely promoted in the UK since the 1990’s. The Brits describe evidence to be expert knowledge – like you get from engineering analysis, it includes stakeholder consultations like from our EA’s, and costing of policy options .. mitigation costs from an engineering study. CLICK The Econ-gineering approach has been called ‘number stretching and concept massaging’ in the Financial Post, and the Brampton engineers who this the Metrolix drainage system agreed. The economists did not consider any of the local subwatershed or SWM studies. CLICK So really not evidence based. Ironically, this case study was one of the most highly promoted studies through IBC, Intact Centre and IISD this year. On CBC on CTV.
- #30 What resources are there to guide sound policy development? The Treasury Board has a guide for regulatory proposals. It requires that departments show that new regulations maximize net benefits, economic and other benefits.
- #31 That guide has steps to completing cost benefit analysis that we see here. And those steps parallel those that we follow for flood control studies in Ontario under the Municipal Class EA process. CLICK Both identify issues, evaluate alternatives for positive and negative impacts, and report. In the Ontario process proponents assess costs but ROI analysis is optional – interestingly the Ontario framework is risk based such that no regrets projects are preapproved “Schedules” – you don’t need analysis to move ahead.
- #32 This is an example of an Ontario EA study in Stratford where we did city-wide benefit-cost analysis. “Green to red” means “low to high” flood density. We determined a benefit cost ratio for each sewershed to prioritize upgrades and make a “go no-go” decisions. CLICK Some low risk areas just got Best Practices. Because investing one dollar in bigger sewers gets ONLY 6 cents of benefits. CLICK High risk areas – invest a dollar and we get most of that back in benefits – they go to further study and perhaps capital projects. CLICK And THOSE are the targeted areas with Storm Warts that we want to go away.
- #33 Flood reduction benefits are typically thought of as easier to calculate than other social and environmental benefits. But I want to share an example to show how flood benefits can vary widely especially if there is not detailed analysis. CLICK IBC’s natural infrastructure report has a case study on Pelly’s Lake in Manitoba that identifies a range of benefits from CO2 offsets to flood attenuation shown here.
- #34 This is how those benefits compare in the IBC analysis – flood attenuation using “meta-analysis” which is a flood benefit per hectare of wetland from the worlds wetlands is 20 percent of total benefits CLICK The blue wedge. CLICK With all benefits the net benefit cost ratio is around 3 – pretty good. With flooding its less than 1. Ed Watt suggests we need a minimum benefit cost ratio of 1.3. The DMAF threshold is 2.0.
- #35 But the flood benefits are actually quite uncertain. Before IBC did their meta-analysis this year, last year in Applied Water Science, similar Pelly’s Lake analysis was published with very different flood benefits.
- #36 Using an estimate from an adjacent watershed in Manitoba, the flood benefits would go down CLICK to 0.03 % of the total benefits. And using literature values, down to 4% of total benefits. CLICK That means the net benefit cost ratio for flood benefits is very very low if we scale down the IBC values. So without local modeling or analysis, any benefit cost ratio is going to be very uncertain. And in this example, when using local losses, the flood attenuation benefits for this wetland reservoir may be practically zero. This could be a challenge for Infrastructure Canada in assessing the merit of DMAF applications – because no reporting on ROI methods is even required. No breakdown of flood and non flood benefits.
- #37 So Pelly’s Lake was one IBC natural infrastructure case study. Here it is in this review table – Case Study 3– like the Metrolinx Green Parking Lot, it calculates a benefit-cost ratio but with no engineering analysis, and no local losses. So not so reliable. This table also has the other IBC case studies. Some calculate equivalent costs of grey infrastructure to replace green functions, but with no flood damage analysis, or benefit-cost calculations. And the grandfather of water resource benefit-cost analysis, Harvard’s Otto Eckstein said assessing alternative costs is not equivalent of benefit-cost analysis.
- #38 I mentioned Markham’s Flood Control Program benefit cost analysis. These are the components and cost – note the scale on the left is a log scale – costs go up a lot from left to right. What’s in the program. We have standards and policies. Sanitary downspout disconnection program Backwater valve and sump pump subsidy program. Sanitary sewer upgrades Storm sewer upgrades And green infrastructure retrofits – we looked at it. More on the next slide.
- #39 We can break it down into Best Practices – the No Regrets Policies and Programs, a million dollars each – they have high ROI, maybe cost a few thousand dollars per hectare. CLICK Grey infrastructure, those are sanitary and storm sewer upgrades – 260 millions with a benefit-cost ratio of 2 to 5 depending if we use insured or total losses. CLICK – then Green infrastructure, which if we converted a quarter of the city would have benefit cost of 0.1 to 0.3. CLICK – We have 263 million approved in the overall program. An we consider green infrastructure only in the most strategic locations, as part of park revitalization and for one large naturalized pond retrofit costing 10’s of millions. CLICK – But we cannot justify spending over 2 billion dollars across the city, raise taxes 40%, to add rain gardens and bioswales in all old areas. These are not the technologies you are looking for. Repeat after me – these are not the technologies I’m looking for. Its not an engineering mind trick - it’s the facts.
- #40 Conclusions Floods are important but have not “awakened”, data trends show (2013 looks like an extreme) – and the percentage of water damages is going down On Storm Warts, we shall be laser focused (defects are isolated – in Markham only 1.5% of sanitary sewers need upsizing) Benefit-cost analysis for flood infrastructure, a New Hope it is (there is not enough funding to do otherwise) Detailed engineering studies to assess project and policy benefits, we must have (to be evidence based, robust engineering analysis is needed ) – a challenge for Infr. Canada to assess DMAF application And with that Clear of the dark side, we must stay – may the engineering force be with you.
- #41 I’m Robert Muir, Manager of Stormwater at the City of Markham Please read my blog – I have posted todays presentation and more review of the IBC natural infrastructure report – cityfloodmap.com Questions?