Oral Submission to Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee
Carp River Audit
Ted Cooper – May 8, 2008
“Drainage water must go not merely to an outlet by means of which it satisfactorily escapes from the lands which are being drained, but to a “sufficient outlet””.
Good evening Mr. Chair and Committee members, my name is Ted Cooper. I am a City of Ottawa employee, but am appearing before Committee this evening so that I can provide my personal comments about the audit of the Carp River related projects.
The quote I just read about the need to extend drainage to a sufficient outlet was the finding of five justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1909 involving a precedent setting court case involving the Carp River Municipal Drain.
One hundred years ago, in a rural watershed, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the point of sufficient outlet was downstream of the Village of Carp. Justice J.A. Garrow, while commenting on the design of drainage engineer Mr. John Harrison Moore, remarked:
“Mr. Moore is, as appears by the evidence, a man of experience; no one questions his skill or good faith. He spent over three months by himself and his assistants in doing his work. And that it was done with great, and I think I might even venture to say with unusual, care, appears from the very elaborate plans which were produced, showing in minute detail the whole drainage area.”
Contrast those remarks with the findings of the Auditor General 100 years later following his review of the developer funded engineering studies supporting the floodplain development in Kanata West:
“The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were completed on the basis of the wrong drainage area”; Point 9, Page iii
“The hydrologic model underestimates significantly the volume of runoff produced by the watershed”; Point 13, Page iii
“The effect of the lack of calibration of the runoff volume is to underestimate the water levels in the Carp River by more than 1.0 m in some locations”; Point 13, Page iii
“The proposed restoration of the Carp River through the Kanata West lands could result in additional sedimentation in downstream reaches”; Point 15, Page iii
“The “Flow Characterization and Flood Level Analysis” report addresses the area to Richardson Road only, leaving out the remainder of the watershed”; Point 18, Page iv
“Development in the flood fringe as proposed in the Servicing Report could lead to unanticipated liability to the City”. Point 23, Page iv
Mr. Chair and Committee members, anybody who is familiar with drainage conditions of the Carp River downstream of Richardson Sideroad knows that there is little conveyance capacity under existing conditions. Looking at tonight’s agenda item number 6, I see landowners in Goulbourn Township are Petitioning for drainage improvements in the Carp watershed that will offload their unwanted flood waters on downstream riparian landowners. This has been going on in the Carp River watershed for the last 100 years.
Over the last 40 years as the watershed has urbanized, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on installing sanitary sewers, pumping stations and forcemains, water distribution systems, storage tanks and water pumping stations. Hundreds of kilometers of roads and expressways have been constructed and at times expanded to accommodate development in the watershed. Despite all of this development not one cent has been spent by any developer or municipality on assuring that stormwater generated from these lands is continued to a sufficient outlet.
Not only should downstream residents be concerned about increased runoff from Kanata West, they should also be concerned about runoff from the Fernbank community and interstitial lands.
It is not only unfair to flood rural resident’s property in Councillor El Chantiry’s ward with unwanted urban runoff, but it infringes upon their riparian rights, and it is the City’s responsibility to ensure when urbanization occurs, it proceeds in a responsible fashion.
There are solutions to the current problems with the Carp River Class EA. They all involve expanding the scope of the project downstream to a point of sufficient outlet, which, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, is downstream of the Village of Carp.
Who is the public to trust? Five Justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal, or developer-funded engineering studies that the Auditor General has found to be full of problems?
Thank-you.