A need to restore public confidence in a badly managed and controversial river restoration project

I strongly support the Auditor’s report and consider management’s less than enthusiastic response as indicative of an outlook that has created many of the problems associated with this project.

Suggestions

1. If there is to be a 3rd person review then the public should have an opportunity to review the terms of reference
2. The public needs to have a more obvious and direct way of tracking progress of the river restoration project. The current piece-meal approach of re-zoning various chunks of land makes things very confusing. If one goes to either the City’s or MVC’s website there’s nothing that communicates where things have gone since the Watershed reports were passed in 2004. The Greenspace Alliance and Riverkeeper websites are excellent models
3. PEC needs to assert its influence in how the river restoration project is managed. There are too many occasions when staff have misrepresented the reality related to some of the approval agencies. Even in management’s response to the Auditor some things are taken out of context, for example, recommendation #2. In a letter dated April 26, 2007 David Ramsay, the Minister of Natural Resources, stated “the Ministry believes the objectives of the provincial natural hazards policy have been met in the Carp River Restoration Plan”. Ramsay’s comments were before the modelling problems that when corrected will result in an increase in flood levels – which of course would be against the PPS. The Minister’s position has been taken entirely out of context, and would set a bad precedent if such alterations of the floodplain were approved and resulted in flood levels rising.
4. Management must find a way of involving Ms Conway and Mr Cooper, the City’s only two water resource engineers, in future river restoration development. The public would expect no less.
5. Clarify to the public that only lands not directly connected with the river will be developed until water issues are settled.
6. Begin developing a plan for river restoration down to the 1909 drainage outlet below the village of Carp.

What is currently being proposed in Kanata West has slowed down development and involves unnecessary risks in the future. There are many other worthwhile uses of a flood plain other than for housing – just think of all the recreational uses and the ecological values. A soon to be presented OPA will prohibit flood plain development in the future – why not let the “future” begin now? Property exchanges or moving the urban boundary might be necessary to accommodate some current property owners who will loose out from the new policy, but saving future costs and building a more sustainable City will make it worthwhile.

Sincerely,
John Almstedt
member of City’s Stormwater PEC, Riverkeeper founding board, Carp River Coalition’s Part II Order