Ottawa River Action Plan – Recommendations
Meredith Brown, Executive Director and Riverkeeper - Monday, December 14, 2009
Following public consultation sessions (held at various locations throughout the city), meetings with city staff, and a more detailed review of the 16 projects proposed in the Ottawa River Action Plan, I am pleased to provide Ottawa Riverkeeper’s recommendation on the best option to reduce combined sewer overflow’s (CSOs) and measurably improve the health of the Ottawa River.
In the following brief summary I will detail the reasoning behind my selection of OPTION B. In addition, I will provide some insight into why our organization thinks options A and C are not the best long-term solutions for the city and its residents.
For background information and a more detailed review of the Ottawa River Action Plan, please read Ottawa River Action Plan: What does it mean?
Ottawa River Action Plan – Phase 1
Combined Sewer Overflow Control is one of 16 projects tabled in Phase 1 of the Ottawa River Action Plan. The city has sought public consultation through in-person meetings and an online survey, asking residents to choose from three options to reduce the number of combined sewer overflow (CSO) incidents (A, B and C). It is fantastic and commendable that the city is planning projects to reduce the amount of untreated sewage entering our river. If these projects are carried out, I can proudly stand alongside my Waterkeeper colleagues and state “our city is working to practically eliminate combined sewer overflows from entering our river!”. Addressing this issue fast-forwards the City of Ottawa past any other municipality in the region, and could serve as a nation-wide case study for eliminating combined sewer overflows. Congratulations to the City of Ottawa for tabling such a plan. Now, it is up to each of us to ensure that the city follows through – not just on resolving CSOs, but on completing all 16 projects.
OPTION B – The best choice
Option B is not just an infrastructure investment; it’s an investment in the future of our river. By reducing the amount of pollution entering the river, we are increasing the value of the river itself. In an average rainfall year, Option B will reduce combined sewer overflow events significantly (only the really big, intense storms cannot be handled by the infrastructure proposed in this option) Option B will also allow the city to collect and treat polluted stormwater from the urban core, and for these reasons it’s my top pick. I weighed the pros and cons of each option thoughtfully and based my decision on the same three criteria used by the city in their summary of evaluation results; environmental, social and financial/economic.
Fortunately, my analysis of option C allowed me to quickly narrow down my choice. I have ruled out option C based on a high probability of risk to the environment, overall disruption within our city core and costs vs. long-term benefit. According to city engineers, option C is expected to take a “lifetime” to complete. Some city staff estimate that the 30-50 year timeline could in fact be grossly understated. Most of us agree that we need to reduce overflows sooner, rather than later. We can’t wait 50 years to solve this problem. Timelines aside, I have concerns about other elements of the plan – financial and environmental impacts. By separating all storm and sewer pipes in the downtown core, infrastructure maintenance costs are doubled, adding to the multi-billion dollar price tag for the project. Option C would also see 60,000 private properties gutted to make room for new laterals and foundation drains (requirements for separated storm and sewer). Separating the pipes in the downtown core would also equate to a lot more untreated stormwater sent directly to the river. As mentioned in my report Ottawa River Action Plan: What does it mean?, stormwater is the silent killer; a cocktail of toxic waste and chemicals. Sending increased amounts of untreated stormwater to the river in an effort to reduce sewage overflows is a very dangerous trade-off. In my opinion, Option C is not the most effective way to solve our urban wastewater and stormwater problems.
In most years, Option A would allow more raw sewage to flow into the Ottawa River than option B. Modelling data for option A predicts increased incidents of combined sewer overflows and an increased amount of raw sewage released per incident. Our extensive research on wastewater management shows a direct correlation between untreated sewage and impacts on river and ecosystem health. Since we know that the key to improving the health of our natural water systems is to prevent pollution (including municipal waste) from entering our rivers and lakes, option A is not one we are willing to consider. We should also bear in mind that option A is largely based on compliance, or the “status quo”. For such a large-scale project, I would suggest that meeting “bare minimum” requirements is not acceptable. The City of Ottawa has an opportunity to become leaders in infrastructure planning and sustainability, and we have a responsibility to tell our municipal leaders that we expect this from them.
When considering all criteria to the finest degree – environment, social, financial – there is no perfect solution. We have all been asked to select from three options for “combined sewer overflow control”. In option B, we have a solution that meets our immediate need to reduce the number of overflows. Linear storage tanks would give more control over when and where wastewater is diverted, and provides redundancy in the event of major infrastructure failure (underground pipes). Option B allows for some room to grow (current and future development projects), unlike its near sighted rival, option A. The less raw sewage that enters our river in the downtown core, the better. We benefit individually from a human health perspective and our community benefits from having a cleaner river that attracts tourism and makes our city proud. Last but certainly not least, our natural environment will benefit from the control measures outlined in this plan. Option B is the smartest pick, and we mustn’t get caught up thinking about the money we could save if we go for Option A.
Additional Observations
1. The public consultation period for CSO control happened in a blink. Poor communication and no advanced notice resulted in under attended public consultations and therefore, an inaccurate representation of public interests. It’s unfortunate that the city wasn’t able to maximize public input on this project. An education campaign would have gone a long way to guide interested citizens through the three options presented. In this case, the city fell down on its responsibility to communicate clearly with the public. After all, few of us speak Engineese – the secret language of engineers. I hope consultation for the long term Ottawa River Action Plan will start well before projects are being implemented.
2. We found the questionnaire (online public input) very challenging. Some of the questions seem out of place (or entirely irrelevant), some seem to be lacking in choice, and others are nearly impossible to answer without in-depth understanding or subject expertise. Based on all of the above, we expect that the online form will not yield great feedback.
To review my questionnaire and comments, please click here
3. I still take issue with the modelling data used in the evaluation of all three options. As discussed in my last report, estimated amounts of precipitation are used to calculate the number of overflow incidents for each option. However, these estimates are based on past precipitation data and do not take climate change into consideration. Future models show an increase in the amount of rain (up to 30%) and intensity of storms for this region. Past precipitation data is an unreliable indicator of future patterns.
4. We need to start thinking “beyond e-coli”. The modelling data for environmental impacts of sewage overflows is based exclusively on amounts of e-coli. Sewage and stormwater carries with it a wide range of industrial and household toxins – some of which have been linked to sex changes in frogs and fish. Measuring bacterial pathogens is not the exclusive indicator for human and environmental health risks.
Due diligence to protect our watercourses means spending money. The argument to choose the least expensive option to “save money” for other projects is both weak and misleading. There is no guarantee that money saved on CSO control will be used for other high-priority projects. The city has submitted a 16 project short-term “action plan” and moving forward on CSOs should not come at the expense of any of the other 15 projects. I challenge this type of opportunity spending and suggest that instead, city council should balance priorities across all spending (not just within a wastewater budget). It’s difficult to put a price tag on the health of a river, and until the city has reviewed and prioritized projects across all departments, we shouldn’t have to.
TAKE ACTION
The city has asked specifically for your input on one of 16 projects in the Ottawa River Action Plan. Don’t stop at providing your input on CSOs. Tell the city what you think of the overall plan and their methods of evaluation. Tell them you want to see follow through on all 16 projects. Tell them you need more information and want to be consulted on such a large investment of tax payers dollars. Tell them in your language what you want and what the river means to you.
Send an email now – don’t forget to CC your city councillor .
Sincerely,
Meredith Brown
Riverkeeper and Executive Director
Print this page - Email this page