June 6, 2016

Dear Commissioner Clayton,

Thank-you for reviewing this file. Im attaching this letter to offer you
my arguments for why Section 25(1)(b) and (c)(i) do not apply to the
maps in question, and to outline why their release is very much in the
public interest.
The records in question are a series of neighbourhood maps that
predict where water will pond if that neighbourhood is hit by a 1 in 100
year storm. Its important because prior to the 1980s, neighbourhood
storm water systems were only built to handle 1 in 10 year storm
events and city officials have said severe weather events seems to be
getting more frequent.
In her May 26, 2016 explanation for why the release of the maps was
refused, FOIP co-ordinator Andrea Wadsworth seems to make three
arguments.
Protect individual property owners
Wadsworth writes: The maps were withheld to protect individual
property owners whose homes lie within areas of flood risk from the
potential of decreased property values. But she has not pointed to any
section of the act to justify this position. In addition, this position is
unfair because potential buyers who are also
ratepayers/taxpayers/citizens of Edmonton are not being offered any
protection as they get ready to make one of the largest investments of
their lives. By withholding the information, the city is also failing to
give those same property owners the chance to understand their risk
and take basic protective measures to at least mitigate the damage if a
flood occurs.
Section 25(1)(c)(i)
As you know, this section says the head of a public body may refuse to
disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably
be expected to harm the economic interest of a public body
including information the disclosure of which could reasonable be
expected to result in a financial loss.
Wadsworth argues the release of the flood maps will cause some
property values to fall, which will decrease property values and tax
assessments.

But this doesnt make sense because overall property demand in

Edmonton could be reasonably expected to remain constant. Since
releasing the maps will illustrate both where properties are at risk AND
where they are not at risk, then if there is a decrease in value to some
properties one could reasonably expect a corresponding increase to
other properties. This would result in no net loss to the City of
Edmontons bottom line.
Section 25(2)(b)
In her email, Wadsworth says this section applies because the
information requested contains technical information complied by a
consultant retained by the City.
But I believe this is either an overly broad interpretation of the act or
simply a misunderstanding of it. Section 25(1)(b) applies to financial,
commercial, scientific, technical or other information that has, or is
reasonably likely to have, monetary value.
But something doesnt have monetary value just because you paid for
it. It has monetary value because you believe you can sell it. Is the city
honestly considering a scheme to make money off this information? To
force individual homeowners to pay for information about the risk their
own homes face would be a travesty because they need this
information and theyve already paid for its collection through their
utility rates and taxes. To sell this information to the insurance industry
without giving it to the homeowners, would be equally unethical. If the
City has such a scheme, they should be disclosing that.
Section 25(2)
Having looked at the previous sections, I would invite you to read
slightly further in the act to Section 25(2) where it says the head of a
public body must not refuse to disclose under subsection (1) the
results of product or environmental testing carried out by or for a
public body.
I could not find a definition for environmental testing in the act. But I
would suggest that applies here. A flood is an environmental
catastrophe we try to mitigate through building form. These maps
report that level of environmental risk and how well our current system
would mitigate the damages. Flood maps detailing the risk to
homeowners living near streams and rivers that continue to flow above
ground are released for the same reason in Edmonton and other
jurisdictions. There should be no difference simply because in many
Edmonton neighbourhoods the land was been altered to redirect water
from the original streambed into a pipe.

Public Interest
Im asking for these maps because I believe it is in the public interest.
Im a reporter for the Edmonton Journal and have been following the
issue of Edmontons vulnerability to flash flooding since 2013. My
motivation is to get better information to my community.
Its a critical issue as sewer backup is a leading cause of property
damage in Alberta and Edmontons flat topography makes it
particularly vulnerable. When a severe storm rolled in and stalled
above southwest Edmonton and Mill Woods in 2012, 1,200 basements
flooded, many with raw sewage. It left the province on the hook for an
estimated $32 million in disaster assistance, caused $105 million in
insurable damage and other unquantifiable costs to individual owners
and renters in time and stress.
Fixing drainage issues highlighted by the flood in those
neighbourhoods cost the city $300 million. But whats at issue now are
all the other mature neighbourhoods that just havent been hit yet.
Creating these maps through high definition topographical
photography, a map of Edmontons underground sewer system and
computer modelling was the first step to addressing risk across the
rest of Edmonton.
Its going to take decades and billions of dollars to address all the
vulnerabilities in Edmontons older neighbourhoods. So what are
homeowners and potential homeowners to do in the meantime?
Without these maps, how can they tell what their level of risk is? None
of them can see the pipes underground and because Edmonton is
relatively flat, its hard to know where the water will pool. As Edmonton
residents, weve all paid through our utility rates and tax dollars to
have this risk assessment done. Now we should have access to the
information.
Individual homeowners cannot fix this issue themselves, but they can
prioritize their limited household budgets to install backwater values,
increase insurance coverage, modify basement furnishings, install a
water alarm and re-grade their lot. They can also prepare themselves
mentally and know the dangers. Let me quote briefly from my July
2013 article (enclosed):
Next door, (Stan Lenkiewiczs) neighbours were watching
the rain come down when Lenkiewicz warned them to
check their basement. Shyloh Bartlett grabbed his
rubber boots and dashed down the basement hallway to
rescue his six-year-old son, Landin. His basement bed
was surrounded by the dark brown water.

Bartlett didnt think about danger from electrical short

circuits until afterward.
Can you imagine if Landin woke up first and slipped in that sludge,
ingesting some? We train our children how to evacuate in the event of
a fire. If homeowners know their level of flood risk, they can also take
reasonable precautions to protect their families in the event of a flood
and sewer backup.
One could argue homeowners should be protected against the
potential drop in property value. But what about the potential
homeowner who has a right to information before buying? Or the
homeowner whose value could go up because their home is has a
relatively low risk? The city should not be picking and choosing
between this groups.
One could also argue that insurance rates will increase if the
information is released. But insurance rates are most fairly set when all
parties have access to the same, quality information. Please see my
conversation with Heather Mack of the Insurance Board of Canada in
the attached news article from April 25, 2016. The insurance industry
already has access to historical claims for each part of the
neighbourhood, which is not available to homeowners. The insurance
question is best addressed by making all of the information public.
These points are based on my research of this issue. But let me share
with you a few views from other members of the public as well. Ive
posted about this issue and my Freedom of Information request on my
professional, public Facebook page. Weve had a good debate there
with many views represented and I see high levels of support for my
position. Here are a few comments.
Bob Barnetson: If they have the data and they are reasonably
confident in it, then it should be released so home owners can
take appropriate steps to mitigate their risk. I don't envy the city's
political problem but that doesn't justify withholding information
we could act upon.
Linda Johnson: Consider that the people that "may" be affected may
not want the info released. It could affect property resale values in
a significant way. Personally I would want to prepare and take
steps to protect my property, but I imagine there are many that
doubt it will happen in their time at a location and want it kept
quiet.

Derrick Forsythe (reply to Linda): that works for the current

homeowners - but what about the future homebuyers - don't
they deserve to know there is a risk prior to making the
decision whether or not to buy a property within the affected
area
Linda Johnson (reply to Derrick): I would agree with you Derrick - I
am just offering a reason people would not want to know.
Personally I would want to know.
Ken Cantor: There is no excuse for not releasing this information. The
city and the province both release 100 year flood lines / this is
really no different. Except of course the issue isn't "natural
watercourses", it's inadequate municipal infrastructure that's the
city's responsibility to mitigate/fix. Not releasing the information
isn't for individual homeowner protection (present or future) of
assets or values, it's to protect the city from as much pressure
and liability as possible. If I were a homeowner and didn't know
the risks, I would be requesting the information on a freedom of
information request based on being denied access to information
that would potentially allow me to mitigate me exposure and
potential loss (back flow preventers, water alarms, not using
basement spaces for storage etc.). Hopefully someone will do this
on a class action basis so those that can't afford it will still be able
to get the same information that will allow them to make the
same choices and pursue the same options. And the sooner this
happens the better because the city is only betting other people's
money without their knowledge by not immediately releasing this
kind of information. They release it for increased fire risk from
long fire truck response times, low water pressure risk requiring
booster pumps for sprinkler systems, potential exposure to
hazardous materials etc. already - this should be no different.
Ive included a sheet with the links to the Facebook discussions so you
are free to read the full context of the remarks if you are interested.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,

Elise Stolte

List of attached documents

City of Edmonton FOIP request records

- Initial request (April 25, 2016)
- Acknowledgement of receipt (April 27, 2016)
- Request denied (May 16, 2016)
- Email correspondence detailing the citys reasons for the denial
(May 26, 2016)

Edmonton Journal coverage

- July 22, 2013: City faces staggering cost to protect against
flooding
- November 12, 2014: Flood control: Planning for the big one
- April 25, 2016: City wont release flood predictions

Links for public discussion on Facebook

- Reaction to the April 25 piece:
https://www.facebook.com/elise.stolte/posts/1015338204905102
1
- Reaction to my original FOIP request
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
fbid=10153389508736021&set=a.10150850326956021.403124.
725696020&type=3
- Reaction to the refusal
https://www.facebook.com/elise.stolte/posts/1015342564175102
1
- Reaction to the FOIP co-ordinators explanation
https://www.facebook.com/elise.stolte/posts/1015345224001602
1