OSNABRUCK CENTRE — South Nation Conservation is taking South Stormont Township to court over Fly Creek drain, which has been a source of conflict between the two parties for the last couple of years.
Last year, the township removed illegal culverts from Fly Creek Drain in Newington without filling out an application to SNC under the Conservation Act Regulation 170/06, to which a $390 fee was attached.
The township had received permission from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and described the work as regular maintenance, not an alteration to a watercourse, requiring an application under Regulation 170. However, the conservation authority differed and insisted on the application.
On April 22, this year, Planning and Zoning administrator Hilton Cryderman told council the township had received a summons to appear in Cornwall Provincial Offenses Court on May 20 over the issue.
“We received a letter of support from the municipalities, associates and groups. We’ll wait to see how it fares out in court,” Cryderman said.
“A lot of people are supporting us, but South Nation still feels we should be taken to court over something as frivolous as two culverts,” Mayor Bryan McGillis said. “What really upsets me, I talked to him (SNC general manager Dennis O’Grady) in Toronto. He shook my hand, saying ‘we’re going to work together on this’. I can’t believe he’s going forward because he can. I think it’s appalling.”
In September, 2007, South Stormont circulated a resolution asking the DFO to shorten reviews of drain maintenance requests, and for a more flexible construction maintenance season. The township cited their opinion on routine maintenance and asked SNC to review the application fee with regards to consistency across the watershed. Some 76 municipalities supported South Stormont’s resolution, one did not support it, and 14 acknowledged receipt of the motion.
“They must have lots of money to spend if they’re going to be frivolous and take us to court like that. Obviously, their intention is not to get along with municipalities in the watershed. Maybe we don’t need conservation authorities and maybe we don’t need to pay any levies if that’s the type of treatment we’re going to get,” Councillor Tammy Hart said.
Deputy Mayor Ray Beauregard said he had talked to a SNC board member, “who had been trying to talk them out of it. They don’t all agree with him.”
“They won’t let us have representation on the Board. That’s what we’ve been advocating for so long now,” McGillis said.
Beauregard said there had been a discussion of representation on the SNC board at the April 20 meeting of SD&G United Counties, but no resolution or action was taken.
“There wasn’t a lot of support to have more than the three members the Counties have right now on the Board. We weren’t asking for a vote from the Counties, we want a representative from the township,” Beauregard said.
Cryderman pointed out the Conservation Authorities Act stipulated representation be from local municipalities, not the upper tier. And according to Section 14, the number of members may be confirmed by a resolution of all the participating municipalities.
“I tried to support South Stormont’s needs at the time,” South Dundas councillor and SNC Board member Steven Byvelds, told The Record. “But in the end, the Board decided (on court) and I won’t go against a board decision.”
In regards to representation, Byvelds noted the 1994 decision to have three SD&G representatives was based on a gentleman’s agreement, that appointments be based on the largest assessment. Those municipalities were South Dundas, North Dundas and North Stormont. “Any agreement should be in writing,” he said. “If it was on paper, there’d be no dispute.”
South Stormont has a small geographical area in the South Nation and paid $4,808.32 last year,while South and North Dundas Townships paid $52,000 in levies and each has one representative.
“We have proposed a simple solution and sent it to their lawyer,” said SNC general manager Dennis O’Grady regarding the pending court case. “It was up to council. I hope we hear back from them on our proposal. We’re in a position to settle as quickly as possible. This has been on the table since January or February. We’re caught up in municipal provincial regulations, but they can accept it at any time. As far as the provincial offenses date, nothing will happen at that time. It will be to establish a court date for events in the future.
“We’ve been trying to find a compromise. There’s been a lot of going forward and back regarding our proposal and counter proposal. No vote was required. It’s a piece of legislation like the Building Code Act,” O’Grady added.
“They have to work around the Drainage Act and we have to work around the Fisheries Act, the Conservation Act and so many pieces of legislation over water. We can’t as government agencies pick and choose which legislation we’d like to follow.”