Ottawa River Action Plan: What does it mean?
Meredith Brown, Executive Director and Riverkeeper - Wednesday, November 25, 2009
On Friday, November 20th the City of Ottawa announced the creation of the Ottawa River Action Plan; “a working plan to protect the health of the Ottawa River”. The Action Plan aims to address the issue of combined sewer overflows in the city and outlines 16 projects to ensure “cleaner water, safer beaches, and a better environment”. The City has launched a public website (http://ottawa.ca/riverplan) to provide a high-level overview of the plan and the three options available to partially or completely remediate our sewage woes. Through the website and series of whirlwind public consultations (to be held later this week), the City is requesting feedback from the public on the best way to proceed. This is an opportunity to have your voice heard, and I strongly encourage everyone to participate in this important consultation process.
Riverkeeper’s Overview 
Kudos to the City of Ottawa for bringing information to the public and opening up this issue for dialogue. The river belongs to each of us, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure its health in perpetuity. Last week I was invited to meet with city staff where I was briefed (for the first time) on the Action Plan and given an opportunity to ask questions. My quick analysis of the Ottawa River Action Plan casts a few serious questions and concerns, which I share in an effort to help others understand the importance and complexity of this project. It is through my Riverkeeper lens that I can say any plan is better than no plan. Now, it is of the utmost importance for us to ensure that the City moves forward with the best plan and commits to funding the implementation of each project.
I want to start by helping to clarify the following:
1. The title Ottawa River Action Plan is somewhat deceiving. Although I appreciate the City’s efforts to communicate the need for an overall watershed management plan, this plan alone does not ensure a “clean and healthy river” (as stated on the City of Ottawa website). Despite its “branding” and a hefty price tag, this project should not be confused with a holistic “Ottawa River Action Plan”, but rather a plan to reduce combined sewer overflows and improve stormwater management practices in the City of Ottawa. A more holistic plan would include plans to protect wetlands and small tributaries (nature’s “storage tanks”), floodplains and more.
2. Of the 16 projects proposed in the Ottawa River Action Plan, most are already underway. The City of Ottawa needs to embark on many of these projects to meet compliance (the bare minimum requirements set by the Province of Ontario). The City is only asking for public input on one issue – combined sewer overflows (CSO). We are being asked to choose from three options to reduce CSO, ranging in price from $40 million to $2 billion.
3. The 16 projects outlined in the Ottawa River Action Plan are largely “reactive”, solving yesterday’s problems or meeting today’s needs. When will we start to consider our future urban planning and development needs? These projects are large public investments and we should be planning and developing in a more sustainable fashion. Unless this way of thinking and building changes, we will always be stuck with decade old solutions that fail to meet the needs of our communities.
4. The Ottawa River Action Plan was announced to all of us on Friday, November 20th, and the first public consultation was held on Monday, November 23rd. These surprising timelines have sent everyone scrambling to understand the facts, conduct research and make educated decisions about which option best suits the needs of our city. With two (weekend) days in between the announcement and the first public meeting, it’s evident that the City is not looking to maximize public participation. Therefore, I need to emphasize again how important it is for each of us to participate in the upcoming public consultations. It is our responsibility to weigh in on these issues and prevent the City from streamlining more development projects – as they have so frequently done in the past.
What are the differences between options A, B and C?
Option A: “Achieving Provincial Combined Sewer Overflow Targets”
Estimated costs: $40-$60 million
Time to implement: 4-5 years
What we get: “Real time control” (automated devices to help make use of available storage in sewer pipes when rain or stormwater flows into the sewers), plus some sewer separation (sanitary sewage would travel independent of stormwater in some areas, reducing the risk of overflows during heavy rainfall) and one or more underground storage tanks to capture the sewage/stormwater cocktail in the downtown-core area. The downtown core would continue to be serviced by combined sewers.
Riverkeeper’s Analysis: Although this option is an improvement over what we have now, Option A is the solution to yesterday’s problems. It’s the bare minimum required to comply with provincial regulations (which some argue are not strict enough). There is also no guarantee that we will be 100% compliant by the end of the 4-5 year project, as surely the needs of our city and the burdens on our infrastructure will have changed over time (more buildings/homes/people in the downtown core, more hard or impervious surfaces, etc.). I also have concerns about the data used in the model that was developed to analyse this plan and give us estimates on the frequency of future overflows under Option A. The forecasts are based on rainfall data from past years. Given that climate modellers tell us that rainfall patterns are changing (up to 30% increase in precipitation for this area), it seems like a major oversight to not take more precipitation into consideration. The predictions the City gives for number of overflow events under Option A are likely underestimated.
In short, there’s no room to grow in Option A, and with increased urbanization and more intense rainfall ahead, we will likely continue to see many combined sewer overflow events each year that send significant volumes of untreated sewage into the Ottawa River.
This is certainly not a forward thinking plan and is not a plan I will support, as someone who has visions of a more sustainable city.
Option B: “Going Beyond Meeting Combined Sewer Overflow Targets”
Estimated costs: $95 – $140 million
Time to implement: 5-6 years
What we get: Same as above with different storage. The storage for Plan B is described as “linear storage” and will accommodate larger volumes of sewage/stormwater, thereby reducing the amount of overflow to the river.
Riverkeeper’s Analysis: This option gets us most of the way there. The additional storage seems like an effective measure for reducing the number of spills into the Ottawa River. This combination of sewer separation, real time controls and sufficient storage would allow the City to control the flow of stormwater during heavy rainfall events and as necessary, divert overflow to storage tanks until it can be safely released back into the sanitary sewer system. Although it may not eliminate 100% of overflows, it has the potential to reduce the number of overflow events to an insignificant amount. In my opinion, this option seems like good bang for the buck. Linear storage provides more storage capacity and a fall-back when old pipes in the downtown core fail, since sewage can be diverted to linear storage as needed.
The downside of Option A and B is that it leaves us with the aging, crippled infrastructure that has plagued the downtown-core for decades. In this plan, downtown sewer systems would not be separated, even when old pipes need to be replaced. Nonetheless, this option is far more proactive than Option A. It’s a forward thinking plan that leaves us with room to grow and improve.
One of the understated benefits of Option B (and A) is that collected stormwater from the downtown core would be treated at ROPEC, our wastewater treatment facility. Stormwater is far from benign and has been referred to as a silent killer since we rarely treat it – typically we dump it directly into our rivers and lakes. Stormwater carries a cocktail of contaminants including any substance found on roads and parking lots, pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, pet waste, salt and more. Treating our stormwater is where we need to go in the future, so this option is appealing for that reason.
Option C: “Virtual Elimination of Combined Sewer Overflows”
Estimated costs: $1.3 – $2.2 billion
Time to implement: 50–60 years
What we get: Real time control plus 100% sewer separation in entire region, including the downtown core.
Riverkeeper’s Analysis: I struggle with how to provide an educated and informed assessment of this option because there is a sizable amount of information missing. How rigid is the 50 year timeframe? Why are the costs so much higher than Option B since that also requires significant digging in the downtown core? Will these combined sewers in the downtown core eventually need to be separated (there may be a time in the near future when municipalities are legislated to separate all sewers)? If this is the case, the City of Ottawa will be left kicking themselves for not doing it right the first time. We should be provided with the opportunity to seriously consider that option now.
It does seem clear that the City is not taking this option seriously. Peter Hume has gone on public record stating exactly that (Ottawa Citizen, 23/11/09). It’s not a wise statement when the City is meant to be gathering meaningful public input into the plan. It doesn’t give much confidence in the public “consultation” process.
I would be interested in knowing how much money will need to be spent in the next 60 years repairing the aging combined sewers in the downtown core. I’m told some of these pipes are 100 years old! I think it will be important to look at projected maintenance costs so that we can get a true picture of the return on investment Option C will bring to the city.
Another consideration is the rate of infiltration we have in these old sewers in the downtown core. Sewage leaks from the pipes into the ground, but more of a problem is the rate at which groundwater enters the pipes, taking up precious volume in the pipes. It also means we are needlessly treating extra volumes of water at ROPEC – I’m not sure if this adds to our wastewater treatment costs.
On Thursday night (at Lakeside Gardens) I will be asking a long list of questions about Option C, including what our potential cost savings opportunities are and how the City plans on addressing aging infrastructure in the future. I also have many other questions (like why don’t we see any mention of sewer use bylaw enforcement in the list of projects to improve water quality?) and I look forward to learning more about the Water Environment Strategy that is apparently in the planning stage.
In closing I should make it clear that the City of Ottawa has the opportunity to be a real leader. A plan to practically eliminate CSOs and treat some stormwater is a major improvement and they would be setting a fine example for other municipalities in the Ottawa River watershed!
Next Steps
I will be providing a more detailed analysis with future recommendations following the next set of public consultations, scheduled November 26th to December 1st. In the mean time, I strongly encourage you to voice your opinion by attending one of the 3 upcoming consultations, or completing the online survey.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
6 PM – 8 PM (presentation at 6:30 PM)
November 26
Ron Kolbus Lakeside Centre
Britannia Park
November 30
Nepean Sportsplex
Hall C and D
1701 Woodroffe Avenue
December 1
Royal Canadian Legion
Orléans
800 Taylor Creek Drive
For more information, please visit: www.ottawariverkeeper.ca and www.ottawa.ca/riverplan