Focus on the Environment: The Ottawa River sewage scandal rocks the capital

Sunday, October 5, 2008

A series of unchecked and unnoticed sewage spills has left city officials red-faced, citizens fuming and farmers once again pointing to a double standard

by DON STONEMAN

The local media in Canada's capital call it "sewer gate" and the revelation that more than a billion litres of untreated sewage flowed unchecked and unnoticed, through a jammed gate on the city's sewer system into the Ottawa River for more than two weeks in the summer of 2006 caused more revulsion and disgust than most political debacles on Parliament Hill. 

The scandal grew worse as the summer wore on and spill after spill went into this fabled river, which divides Ontario and Quebec, and a whole series of past spills came to light.
The story began in late May when it became public knowledge that an estimated 1.1 billion litres (900 cubic metres) of untreated sewage flowed into the Ottawa River while a gate on a treatment plant was stuck open for 15 days after a heavy rainfall in August of 2006.

Petrie Island, which is east of the Ottawa suburb of Orleans and downstream from the sewage treatment plant, was closed to swimming for 45 days because of high bacteria counts. That the beach was developed into a summer playground at a cost of several million tax dollars several years before only fuelled public outrage.

Because the spill wasn't reported to the Ministry of Environment's Spills Action Centre until the following May, no one made a connection to the closed Petrie Island beach. In fact, it should have been reported to the Spills Action Centre the same day, as required by provincial law, but the report wasn't made until the spring of 2007 and red-faced city officials weren't told until a year later.

In May, a city employee was suspended, pending completion of an investigation, for alleging telling superiors a report had been made when no action had been taken. Charges against the city for allegedly impairing water quality and for failing to report the spill in a timely fashion were finally laid on July 31, nearly two years after the incident.
The stir in Canada's capital built through the summer. In late August, there were revelations that one 50-year-old gate in the sewage system had stuck open as many as 10 times in 10 years and city officials weren't certain if all of those spills had been reported either.

Then there was a further revelation for Ottawa residents. They were unaware that untreated sewage is intentionally dumped into the Ottawa River during storm and snow melt situations to prevent combined storm and sanitary sewers from backing up into the basements of homes. (This isn't news to readers of Better Farming, who have had access to reports about this routine practice since 2000. This year's reports on spills and bypasses are on pages 39 and 40.)

Meanwhile, on June 2, federal environment minister John Baird, himself an Ottawa-area MP, told reporters that cleaning up the Ottawa River was a priority. On early Saturday morning, July 19, the gate stuck open again, dumping what the CBC referred to as "untreated toilet, sink laundry and storm sewer waste" into the river. The spill was discovered at 9 a.m. and fixed by 11:30. Still, the Petrie Island beach remained closed to swimming on the Monday. By then, the Medical Officer of Health was also being contacted because of the dump as part of the city's own souped-up protocol.

The city committed $25 million to pay for changes to prevent the combined sewer overflows from occurring and Baird offered $20 million from the Building Canada Fund.
Early in July, the city commissioned a $400,000 study to evaluate the effect of spills on the river. The report is due to be completed in December. Yet another June sewage spill was not disclosed to city council until more than a month later.   

On July 31, the city of Ottawa was charged with two counts. The first was for allegedly causing or permitting the discharge of material into the river that might impair water quality, the second for allegedly failing to notify the ministry on Aug. 15, 2006, of the discharge, contrary to section 30 of the Ontario Water Resources Act. Under the Act, the city faces potential minimum and maximum fines of $25,000 to $600,000 for each day or part day on which each offense occurred.

So which is the worse sin? The actual spill or the failure to report it? "I'm not at liberty to comment," says Fred Maefs, counsel for the environment ministry's legal services branch and the lead prosecutor in the case. He directed Better Farming to speak to the ministry's information officers. Kate Jordan, the ministry's communication officer, said that failure to report in a timely fashion left a person or corporation open to more charges than if a report was made.

Ottawa's "sewer gate" leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of Terry Otto, a local farmer and Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) executive member.

When problems came to light, politicians began responding to pressure to fix the situation with money, Otto points out. "Then (Premier Dalton) McGuinty gave them $17 million to help solve the problem." Later, federal environment minister John Baird offered Ottawa $20 million. But, says Otto, "you don't see governments giving farmers money when they want to be proactive" and prevent environmental damage. "The Nutrient Management Act and the stewardship fund "is nowhere near the kind of money that is going to the municipalities."

"They (governments) really aren't helping us very much."

Furthermore, the newly minted Source Water Protection Act and the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species legislation and the Greenbelt Act all have stipulations built in so compensation isn't allowed for owners for losses to their properties when the laws come into effect. The three laws have potential to affect farmers and their property adversely. "It leaves me, for sure, with a bitter taste in my mouth, because of the two levels of treatment."

Otto says it's because of the stipulations in those laws that the OFA has asked for members to contribute $1 each to a legal fund to determine if an investigation can be made to see if the law can be challenged. "We want to find out what the legal interpretations are," Otto says.

"Our thought is that, until the legislation is tested, they can put whatever they want in the legislation and, until it is challenged, legally it will stay there," he adds. "During the lobbying and the workup to it, the OFA was led to believe that the stewardship program, the Clean Water Act and the endangered species laws would help anybody who was affected."

Because the programs haven't been completed, nobody knows how many farmers will be affected. It's possible that only those closest to municipal wells will stand to lose under source water protection.

Still, says Otto, if Source Water Protection is designed for areas using the precautionary principle, all sorts of farmers will be affected. "To put it right in the legislation that there's no compensation, that's not right, in my mind."

But the Petrie Island situation is no better. "To put a beach downstream from a sewage treatment plant and spend taxpayers' money to develop it doesn't make a lot of sense,"
Otto says. BF