History
Early 1900′s – landowners wished to improve drainage of their land in the Carp River watershed. A municipal drain was dug after a very contentious process that resulted in a legal precedent being established in the Ontario Court of Appeal that drainage must “continue to a sufficient outlet”. In 1909 the point of sufficient outlet for a municipal drain originating at Maple Grove Road, in an agricultural watershed, was downstream of the Village of Carp. All landowners in the watershed were assessed their share of the costs of the drain – not just those landowners adjacent to the drain.
1960′s – 1970′s – The community of Glen Cairn is developed. The Carp River is realigned and channelized. Houses are built on reclaimed floodplain where the Carp River once flowed.
Late 1970′s – MTO builds Highway 417, including two bridge structures (1 eastbound, 1 westbound) over the Carp River.
Early 1980′s – planning of the Bridlewood community commences. Several hundred hectares of the Bridlewood community is located in the Carp River watershed, upstream of Glen Cairn, where houses have already been built in the former floodplain of the Carp River.
1983 – Floodplain mapping is completed for rivers within the jurisdiction of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority as part of a National program called the Flood Damage Reduction Program. During the preparation of floodplain mapping on the Carp River it was discovered that the culverts constructed at Castlefrank Road and Rickey’s Place as part of the channelization of the Carp River in the development in Glen Cairn had insufficient capacity to convey flows from the 100-year flood event. The report commented that flood levels would rise behind these structures and start to flow along the path of the original Carp River floodplain where houses had been built. The report recommended the MVC to review this situation further.
1990 – The Hazeldean Housing Coop is built in reclaimed floodplain with the Approval of the MVC. Within months of the construction, the development suffers serious foundation problems and is flooded twice resulting in $500,000 damage. This situation is reported by the Provincial Auditor, and the issue is raised in the Ontario Legislature by MPP Chris Stockwell.
Mid 1980′s- mid 1990′s Bridlewood development in Carp River watershed is developed with little or no stormwater controls, despite the findings of the 1983 floodplain mapping that the Castlefrank Road and Rickey’s Place culverts had insufficient capacity to convey the 100-year flows.
1996 – The first flooding of Glen Cairn occurs – exactly as anticipated in the 1983 floodplain mapping study.
Post 1996 – the City of Kanata undertakes cleaning out the storm sewers through Glen Cairn.
2000 – The City of Kanata and Region of Ottawa Carleton commence the Carp River Subwatershed Study. The Study is carried over to the new City of Ottawa.
2002 – The second flooding of Glen Cairn occurs exactly the same way as predicted in 1983 and that occurred six years earlier. The second flooding incident prompts the City of Ottawa to undertake a $7 Million Flood Remediation Project. The engineering consultant hired by the City is the same consultant who worked for many of the developers in both Glen Cairn and Bridlewood, and who undertook the 1983 floodplain study. The design of the new channel is based on conservative design storms.
2002 – Acting on the advice of MVC, the City approves “Two Zone” floodplain policy in the Terry Fox Business Park based on the interim findings of the Carp River Subwatershed Plan. So, on the east side of the Carp River from Maple Grove Road to Highway 417, there is Two Zone Policy, but on the west side of the Carp River there is one zone policy.
2004 – The City and Kanata West Owners Group (KWOG) initiate 22 Class Environmental Assessments, including the Carp River Restoration Plan and Class EAs for the various Stormwater Management Facilities in Kanata West.
2004 – The City and MVC approves the development of the Sensplex that includes filling of the Carp River floodplain.
September 9, 2004 – Hurricane Frances hits the Ottawa area causing flooding of the Kizell Drain in North Kanata that swamps the March Pump Station, resulting in flooding of dozens of recently built homes and a Nursing Home more than 1 km away from the Pump Station. The Kizell Drain was channelized, and floodplain was developed contrary to the recommendations of the Shirley’s Brook and Watts Creek Subwatershed Plan that was Approved by the City of Kanata and Region in 1999. The City is now facing lawsuits from affected property owners.
2005 – January 12th, Ottawa City Council approves the Carp River Subwatershed Plan that includes recommendations for the development of up to 60 Ha of floodplain and the channelization of the Carp River through Kanata West, from Hazeldean Road downstream to Richardson Sideroad. The original 1909 drainage works that have since largely filled-in with sediment over the decades, and that continued downstream another 7 kilometers from Richardson Sideroad will not be improved based on the recommendations of the Subwatershed Plan. Of the 224 page document, only one paragraph on page 137 of the Subwatershed Plan mentions anything about the 1996 and 2002 flooding of Glen Cairn that affected dozens of homes, and cost taxpayers $Millions to correct, and non-disclosed $Millions in damage settlements.
The recommendation to fill and develop the floodplain was made despite the fact that the Subwatershed Plan recommends that all of the floodplain analysis needs to be re-done.
Flood levels documented in the Carp River Subwatershed Plan reveal that the Highway 417 bridges have less than 0.5 m of clearance under the 100-year event, which is well less than the 1.0m clearance required for these bridges that are to remain safe during extreme conditions to allow passage of emergency vehicles. With insufficient freeboard, debris could collect behind the bridges that could cause failure of the bridges.
May 2005 – The City posts a Notice of Completion of the Carp River Subwatershed Plan inviting concerned members of the public to file Part II Order Requests (Bump-up requests) with the MOE Minister.
July 2005 – The City writes to the parties who filed Part II Order Requests indicating that they made an error – Subwatershed Plans are not subject to Part II Order Requests.
August 2005 – Del-Brookfield wins an OMB Appeal that allows the Fernbank Development to proceed. The Fernbank lands contain about 200 Ha of future development land in the Carp River watershed on the south side of Hazeldean Road that is just upstream of where the City and KWOG are underway in their planning of the channelization of the Carp River through Kanata West. The floodplain analysis completed by the City and KWOG in the analysis of the proposed channel assumes that Fernbank remains farmer’s fields, rather than the highly impervious development that will eventually be built. In other words, just like floodplain development in Glen Cairn proceeded without consideration of the impact of upstream urbanization of Bridlewood, the City and KWOG were now proceeding with developing the floodplain in Kanata West without considering the impact of urbanization of the Fernbank Community.
November 2005 – Staff prepares a report to the Planning & Environment Committee regarding Public Input received on the Carp River Subwatershed Plan. Despite the title of the report, the real intent of the Report was to mention to Committee members that the City and KWOG intended to use the Planning Act approval of the Mattamy Fairwinds Subdivision as the process to approve the 22 Kanata West Class EAs. This process is known as the “Integration Provisions” of the Class EA process. The City and KWOG learned shortly after the Committee Meeting from MOE’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (MOE EAAB) that they could not use the Integration Provisions to approve Class EAs that are located outside the area of the Subdivision Approval. This was the second error that the City made involving the Class EA process related to the Carp River (the first being the invitation for Part II Order Requests on the Subwatershed Plan).
December 2005 – The Carp River Subwatershed Plan and Related Projects was reported to the newly established City of Ottawa Auditor General. An investigation was initiated in 2006 under the Fraud and Waste Hotline.
Early 2006 – City approves SMART Technologies building that encroaches into the Carp River floodplain immediately downstream from the confluence with Poole Creek.
May 2006 – Ottawa Council Approves the 22 Class EAs, despite the fact that neither the MTO, MNR, or MOE had approved/supported the Class EAs. Notices of Completion are posted for the 22 Class EAs. The Class EAs include a number of reports including an assessment of Post-development flood levels by CH2M Hill. This document includes a recommendation about stormwater management requirements for Kanata West. It states that if quantity controls (controlling post-development flows to pre-development rates) are provided, flood levels will actually rise. In other words, only design SWM ponds for quality control, and let the rest of the runoff drain into the creeks and rivers as quickly as possible. The CH2M Hill analysis also includes the egregious modeling error whereby not a single drop of runoff from the 700 Ha Kanata West area is factored into the post-development flood level analysis. Not a single drop! Somehow this error escaped the notice of professionals working for the City, MVC, and consultants working on the project. Furthermore, despite the fact that the City had been studying the Carp River since 2000, only 4 months of flow monitoring data had been collected to be used in model calibration. Only 1 rainfall event was used for model calibration, which is inconsistent with Standard procedures that require model calibration to be undertaken on 5 events and validation on 2 separate events. Further, the hydrologic model uses design storms that are more suitable for rural areas, as opposed to the Chicago Design Storms that were used in the design of the flood remediation works in Glen Cairn.
June 2006 – Part II Order requests are filed by 4 different Parties on different Class EAs.
Summer 2006 – MTO supports the Class EAs. MTO did not undertake its own technical review of the Class EAs based on their own Design Directives. Rather, MTO delegated its review of the Class EAs to the MVC.
Summer 2006 – In good faith the Carp River Coalition enters negotiations with Mattamy to restructure the Part II Order Requests such that development of the Fairwinds Subdivision can proceed. This initiative by the Carp River Coalition was to demonstrate that they were not anti-development, but that they were against non-sustainable development like floodplain development along the Carp River. Since none of the Fairwinds subdivision includes any floodplain, certain Part II Order Requests were withdrawn, or adjusted to allow the Fairwinds development to proceed on the basis of interim designs – including the temporary stormwater pond that is constructed south of Maple Grove Road that outlets to Poole Creek.
October 2006 – The Acting MNR District Planner signs-off on the Carp River Class EAs on behalf of MNR. The Acting MNR District Planner is the husband of the branch manager of the engineering firm that prepared the Carp River Class EA.
2007 – Development of Mattamy Fairwinds proceeds on the basis of interim servicing plans.
October 2007 – Council Approves the Zoning Bylaw Amendment for the Trinity Commercial Development on Hazeldean Road that includes the realignment of Hazeldean Creek and requires the rezoning of floodplain of the Carp River.
November 2007 – Mr. Ted Cooper initiates an Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of the Zoning Bylaw Amendment for the Trinity Commercial Development.
November 2007 – March 2008 – Trinity undertakes grading of the site including the realignment of Hazeldean Creek, and work in the Carp River floodplain, despite the fact the Planning Act Approvals had yet to be secured because of the OMB Appeal. Despite proper procedures that require Conservation Authorities to issue Approvals under Regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act – after Planning Act Approvals are secured, the MVC jumped the gun, and issued it’s approvals in October 2007. The realignment of Hazeldean Creek, that included work on City-owned land next to the Carp River, proceeded without the necessary approvals under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act. The MOE is currently investigating this undertaking, and charges are pending.
November 2007 – City Management receives the Draft of the Auditor General’s Report. Despite the fact that the Audit finds numerous deficiencies with the technical work, and that flood levels could rise 1m or more, management does not inform Council of the Auditor General’s findings to get direction on whether it should seek a deferral of the OMB Hearing that was scheduled for February.
January 2008 – A City Engineer discovers errors with the floodplain modeling, and reports to City management. City management writes to MOE to defer decisions on the Part II Order Requests while it sorts out problems with the modeling. City management does not inform Council of the errors or of the letter sent to MOE.
February 5, 2008 – Ottawa Citizen front page headlines “Kanata West put on hold”. The Citizen reports on the letters that Mr. Ted Cooper wrote to the Premier and Mayor, after he discovered errors in the modeling work that he had requested from the City in preparation for the OMB Hearing.
February 20-22 – OMB Hearing – City did not disclose what it knew from the Auditor General’s report that flood levels could rise 1m or more. The OMB Member gave 100% deference to position taken by MVC, who were not present to defend their questionable review of the project. The OMB Appeal was dismissed despite the many faults known by the City that it failed to disclose, either voluntarily or under cross-examination.
April 23, 2008 – Auditor General releases report to the public. The report documents conflicts of interests and deficiencies with the technical work, and inconsistencies with the technical requirements of floodplain mapping studies. The Audit states that the Carp River Class EA is a “Schedule C” type of undertaking that requires more rigor compared to the “Schedule B” process that the City and KWOG had followed.
May 2008 – The Audit is discussed at the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC), Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC), and the Planning & Environment Committee (PEC). Prior to the ARAC meeting Mr. Cooper was discussing the status of the Carp River being a municipal drain with the City’s Drainage Superintendent and Drainage Engineer. They both stated to Mr. Cooper that they had undertaken additional research on the issue of the Carp River being a municipal drain, and that they had found design drawings, Borrowing Bylaws from former municipalities for the construction of the drain, as well as other documentation that, based on an opinion of a well respected, now retired OMAF manager, if the matter was put before the Ontario Drainage Referee for a ruling, a finding that the Carp River has status as a Municipal Drain would be likely.
Despite these comments from the two City employees who have the most experience in municipal drainage, the Official City Position – based on advice of the City’s Manager of Planning and Development Law is that the Carp River is not a Municipal Drain.
June 2008 – The City creates Terms of Reference for an Independent Third Party Review. Despite requests to include consideration of floodplain policy in the Third Party Review, City Management convinces Committee and Council not to include consideration of floodplain policy in the review.
July 2008 – The MOE Minister issues an Order under Section 16(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. While the Minister’s Order was not entirely what the Part II Order Requesters had been hoping for, it is not far-off fulfilling their Bump-up request. To put things in perspective, there has not been a Bump-up Request granted in more than 15 years. Further, there have only been a handful of situations over the last decade where an Order under Section 16(3) has been issued. Most importantly, the Minister’s Order requires the City to address the issue of apparent inconsistencies in the application of floodplain policy on the Carp River in Kanata West.
The story after this is yet to be written….
Frank Cairo comes to bat but fails to get on base « Mattamy Fairwinds Kanata Phase 5 Delay said,
September 9, 2008 @ 6:50 am
[...] History [...]
Interested Party said,
April 9, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Much of this information is inaccurate or misleading
Nar Sancue said,
December 12, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
All of the reply by Interested Party is inaccurate and misleading.
Keith Chadwick said,
April 11, 2010 @ 11:43 am
@Interested Party: Well if that is the case then rather than simply saying this ‘anonymous’ you should at a minimum provide some accurate information. Making a blanket statement helps no one. Can you provide links to MORE accurate information.