For the thousands of Albertans hit by floods in southern Alberta, the hard work continues.
For the provincial government, the hard work, politically speaking, is just beginning. That’s not to say the government hasn’t been working hard — quite the opposite.
Premier Alison Redford has been at so many disaster scenes, recovery events and news conferences you begin to wonder if she managed to have herself cloned. Cabinet ministers have worked around the clock to cut red tape, and civil servants have worked overtime to ensure government aid is literally in the hands of flood victims as quickly as possible.
It has been a lot of hard work and the government deserves a lot of credit. But politically speaking it has been relatively easy. Who is going to criticize a government for displaying compassion, generosity and efficiency in the immediate aftermath of such a disaster?
However, that will change as the reaction phase of the flood moves into the recovery phase. Difficult questions are starting to pop up as the warm glow of the government’s generous response is hit by the cold water of practicalities.
For example, how much will the recovery cost? Redford has promised more than $1 billion in aid to, among other things, help homeowners rebuild their houses. That’s just the “first billion.”
The total cost will be in the multibillions. The lion’s share will be paid by the federal government, which is responsible for 90 per cent of disaster-assistance claims. But the province will still be on the hook for a huge amount of money. How does it cover the cost?
It can’t rely on the province’s Sustainability Fund, which was worth $17 billion in 2009. The fund has been virtually wiped out by the government dipping into it every year to cover spending. The government will either have to cut spending elsewhere to cover the costs of the flood or borrow the money or raise taxes. None of those will be popular moves. Otherwise, it can hope the price of oil — and therefore royalties — goes up.
Even with the federal government on the hook for most of the cost, Ottawa is not exactly Quick Draw McGraw when it comes to writing cheques for disaster assistance. Alberta is only now receiving federal aid for the 2005 floods.
Then there’s the possibility of friction between what Ottawa considers to be reasonable aid and Redford’s promise “to do whatever it takes, in terms of paying to rebuild — to rebuild homes, to rebuild families and communities.”
Has Redford raised expectations above what Ottawa is willing to deliver? And has she raised expectations above what the province is willing to fund?
For example, will the government compensate homeowners what the house was worth before the flood or its much diminished value afterward? And then comes one of the most difficult questions the government will face. Will homeowners be allowed to rebuild their homes on flood plains? On Thursday, Redford suggested the government will announce new policies to answer that question soon.
“We cannot continue as a provincial government to say to people, ‘It’s OK to build in a floodway.’ It’s not the right decision,” Redford told reporters. “We think if people have the information with respect to that, they’ll make constructive choices, take responsibility for their life and then move ahead.”
One official said the government is still committed to giving people “options” but it wants to act responsibly for the sake of all the taxpayers who are footing the bill. No details on what precisely that means, but it seems to suggest the government will not actively stop people from rebuilding on a floodway but if they do so and are flooded again, they won’t get government aid.
That would be in line with recommendations made in a report on flood mitigation written seven years ago (and only released last year) by then-MLA George Groeneveld that said the government should stop selling Crown land in flood-risk areas for development and also no longer distribute financial assistance for “inappropriate development” in floodways.
Groeneveld’s report also recommended the government identify areas prone to flooding and draw up maps, something that is now being done — but very slowly. That offers up another difficult question: How do you tell people not to build on flood plains when you’re not sure exactly where all those flood plains are?
