The long-awaited "Third Party Review" by Greenland International Consulting Ltd. was released on April 9, 2009. It is available on the City web site and consists of two large pdf files, 126 pages in all.
Comments to staff were due by 9 a.m. on April 20. Here are some comments that were sent in. They are addressed to Carol Christensen, Manager - Environmental Sustainability at the City.
On 29 May, the draft Terms of Reference for a 3rd-party review of the studies supporting development in Kanata West (including building on the flood plain) became available on the City's web site, at http://ottawa.ca/carpriver, along with a number of FAQs .
Staff wants your comments by June 9 and the Terms will go to Planning Committee on June 24. You can e-mail your comments to staff to carpriver (at) ottawa.ca.
Here are some of the comments that were sent to staff today for their consideration:
- Especially remarkable is the input from Darlene Conway, water resources engineer at the City, who, on her own time, produced an excellent alternative Terms of Reference. She also has a cover note which highlights some of the main differences with the draft found on the City's web site. (For Darlene's witness statement at a February OMB hearing, look here.)
This matter is expected to be considered by Planning and Environment Committee on June 24. A few days before we'll find out what staff did with these and other comments. You then have five minutes to tell Committee what you think.
Also in the report is a letter from the Ministry of Environment which sets out the questions this independent review should cover. Having been received on June 13, staff said the letter had come in too late and they'll come back with amendments if need be!
Similarly, Darlene Conway's alternative Terms (which were submitted on time...) "will be reviewed in the context of the recently received ministry comments. A recommendation will be made on the appropriateness of further modifications to the Terms of reference at that point."
Other comments did not fare any better. In fact, the recommended Terms differ from the original ones by the addition of ... six (non-essential) words!
Left to their own devices, what do you think is the chance that further modifications will be deemed necessary?
The Carp River Coalition has sent an "open letter" to Council, with copies to the media, hoping that, on Tuesday, 24 June, at Planning and Environment Committee, consideration of this item will be deferred "with recommendations." We keep trying to have sanity return to this file.
Erwin reported to the Coalition and the GA Board on June 25:
I attended Planning and Environment Committee yesterday from 9:30 till past 4:00. The bulk of the time (from 11 to 4) was taken up by the matter of Terms of Reference (ToR) for the so-called Third Party Independent Review of the Carp River/Kanata West fiasco.
Before the item came on, file manager Rob MacKay distributed a revised ToR, with many changes from the version that was in the report for this meeting. Track changes were shown so one could see what was changed and what the source was: MOE's letter of June 13 (which had come in too late to be incorporated in staff's recommendations but was included in the staff report), "Public" or "other" -- the latter a reference (masked apparently at the request of the AG) to comments received from the Auditor General. The team had worked the previous evening to do this; they had also received letters from MTO and MNR; we were given to understand that the MTO letter asked for confirmation of the flood levels at the 417 bridges and otherwise expected the City to adhere to the requirements set out by MOE; and that the MNR letter said that Mississippi Valley Conservation was the agency with responsibility for flood plain policy and that MNR had no comment on the draft ToR. There was no explanation of why the changes sourced to "Public" were made only now, nor did anyone challenge staff on this. (The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority also sent a snarky letter to MOE, protesting about the inclusion of a requirement on flood plain policy.)
Naturally no-one had had an opportunity to review these amended terms. The AG (who did summarize the nature of his comments, dated June 18) refused to confirm on the spot that all had been incorporated. One significant change was that an Advisory Committee would assist the Third Party Reviewers; the Committee would consist of city staff, staff from four provincial agencies and "academic." Whatever other changes were made, staff held firm on not including some key points in the Terms: a policy review; investigating the implications if the Carp is confirmed to be a Municipal Drain; and an implementation plan that would guide "interim" development. Five firms have been pre-qualified and will have three weeks to prepare a bid. The work would start mid-August and be completed late November or early December. Cost: $300,000 (money taken out of a reserve fund).
All Committee members were in attendance, though Councillor Bellemare didn't return after the lunch break until just after the votes were taken. In addition, Councillors Legendre, Cullen, Wilkinson and El-Chantiri attended most or all of the time. (The Committee is chaired by Councillor Hume; its other members are Councilors Feltmate, Bellemare, Desroches, Doucet, Harder, Holmes, Hunter, Monette and Qadri. Non-members have no vote at Committee.)
After the staff presentation, Darlene Conway spoke her piece; six Councillors asked questions. Three Councillors asked questions after my 5 minutes. (One was Councillor Harder, who said she wouldn't take it any more to hear staff criticized -- she had full confidence in Nancy Schepers [sitting next to chair Hume]). Five spoke up after Ted Cooper's input. Finally, Mike Green (project manager for KWOG) and John Riddell (working for the Fernbank developers) spoke briefly. Mike Green scored a new low by quoting one sentence out of the AG's Audit report, making it appear that the project was in conformity with provincial policy; Councillor Cullen reprimanded him by furnishing all the other quotes where the AG had expressed severe criticism. Throwing logic to the wind, Riddell said doing the Fernbank analysis was their job, it shouldn't be given to someone else.
After a half hour lunch break, there were more questions to staff (MacKay, the AG and Al Perks of R.V. Anderson who has been helping staff post-Audit). Clearly, even chair Hume struggled with the matter of some of MOE's requirements not being met (2-zone flood plain policy; phasing plan), given that, because of the outstanding Part II Order Requests, MOE is the final arbiter of the projects' acceptability. "Statements" by nine Councillors followed. Councillors Holmes and Doucet pointed to the increasing severity of storms. Holmes affirmed again that MOE has lost confidence in the ability of the City to manage its own affairs. Councillor Hunter again opposed the Third Party Review, saying that the real Third Party is MOE and that this Review will only cause further delay. Councillor Harder asserted that "some of the finest developers in the country are in this city" and that she didn't need to spend $300,000 to feel good. Councillor Hume heaped praise on MacKay for doing "an exceptionally good job."
It then came to voting on motions. Councillor Feltmate moved that 1) minor adjustments to the Terms following further consultation with MOE/MNR and the AG be delegated to the City Manager; and 2) letters be sent to MOE/MNR asking for clarification on the 2-zone flood plain policy. They were carried, with Councillor Holmes dissenting on 2).
Councillor Doucet had a 5-part motion to add elements to the Terms; these were voted on one by one. 1: whether the flood plain policy was properly applied -- voted down with only Councillors Doucet, Holmes and Feltmate in favour. 2: that the Third Party reviewer consult with the Auditor General and the Part II Order Requesters -- MacKay said they'd support it and it was carried, with Councillor Hunter dissenting. 3: to add an interim development plan -- voted down with only Doucet and Holmes in favour. 4: to add Fernbank urbanization in the post-development analysis -- voted down with only Doucet, Holmes and Feltmate in favour. 5: that the City's 2-zone policy would be reviewed as per the AG's report -- carried with only Desroches, Harder and Hunter dissenting. (It's not clear to me how this part relates to the ToR.) The main motion then carried, with Councillors Doucet, Holmes and Hunter dissenting.
To me, the major disappointment was that one of the Coalition's key points -- that you can't put the fox in charge of the henhouse -- was not heeded or even debated. Au contraire, Councillors Harder and Hume went out of their way to express confidence in staff. It would appear that Councillors, even our most sympathetic ones, are afraid to think on their own, without staff holding their hand.
The Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, February 16 (The Observer, page B7) carried an op-ed piece by Ted Cooper wherein he discusses his motivation for contesting decisions about development along the Carp River and why fellow engineers appear to neglect their prime duty: Safeguarding of public health and safety.
CBC TV News at Six yesterday carried a story about an unending row of trucks dumping huge amounts of fill on land owned by Richcraft at Maple Grove Road very near the Carp River. Ottawa Riverkeeper Meredith Brown was interviewed. See a story about this in the February issue of the ORK newsletter.
It turns out that the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority had issued a permit last April (which expires on March 15) for this so-called "pre-loading" activity, specifying that the fill must stay clear of the 1983 100-year flood line and that this line must be staked out first and silt barriers put in place.
Problem is: What good is the 1983 flood line today? Over the years, the MVCA has allowed many intrusions into the flood plain, causing the water to accumulate elsewhere.
One of the Carp River Coalition members commented to John Price, Watershed Management Coordinator at the MVCA:
"I'm surprised that you can justify the filling based on the 1983 floodline? With all the development over the past 25 years with little or no SWM control one has to assume the 2008 flood level is likely higher than the 1983 level. Also, with so much current discussion on the reliability of the hydrological data wouldn't it have been prudent to hold off until an updated and correct data set has been determined?"
That is also the point made by Ted Cooper in a letter to Councillors. He points further to a March 2007 decision by the Mining and Lands Commissioner which clearly states that Planning Act approvals must come beforeConservation Authorities Act approvals. A fill permit is issued under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Approval of Richcraft's Plan of Subdivision is under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Erwin Dreessen
Updates (Feb 14):
- Councillor Qadri wrote to Ted Cooper on February 13: "Mr. Cooper, just to let you that staff have had discussions with Richcraft and they have agreed to stop work on the site for the time being. The staff will monitor the situation and have further discussions with Richcraft and the MVC."
- The Ottawa Citizen carried a story on this on February 14, page B3.
(Letter to the Editor of The Citizen, published on February 8)
Search for truth Feb. 8, 2008
Re: Sweet vindication for crusading engineer, Feb.5.
Hats off to Ted Cooper. He selflessly committed himself to the greater public good in his fight against the ill-conceived plans to fill and develop the Carp River floodplain. It is greatly appreciated that Citizen reporter Patrick Dare and columnist Randall Denley brought Ted Cooper's story to the people of Ottawa since he has been silently working under difficult conditions on their behalf.
Ted Cooper's actions highlight the importance for each us to search for the truth and not be afraid to speak up when you believe something is fundamentally flawed.
There was a follow-up story by Patrick Dare in The Ottawa Citizen of February 8 (read the earlier web version here; it had two informative sentences that were deleted in the print version). It reports that Ted Cooper wrote to the Ministry of Natural Resources last fall, requesting an investigation into a possible conflict of interest involving a Ministry official who reviewed and advised on consulting engineering work done for Kanata West. Having been rebuffed at first, on December 18 he wrote to the Deputy Minister of MNR, requesting as per protocol that the matter be turned over to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Read Ted Cooper's letter here.
The article omits any mention of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Instead, prominence is given to the wife of the MNR official who is said to be "offended' by suggestion of conflict" (headline on the second page of the print version). Ted Cooper made no allegations against the spouse.
The article, as well as the CBC Radio morning news report on this story the same day, also let MNR spokespersons say without challenge that the Ministry is investigating. I.e., MNR backtracked because they had done their investigation and had denied that their former employee had violated the Public Service Act. At this point the request for an investigation should be handed over to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Officials investigating themselves, hmmm, where have I heard that before? It's behaviour akin to what Patrick Dare's piece helpfully reported on at the end: Mayor O'Brien got together yesterday with Minto's Jack Sterling, Michael Green (Kanata West Owners Group) and Susan Murphy, the former City official who was very much front and centre when the Kanata West file moved through the city approval process. Councillor Peggy Feltmate also attended. Dare says that the developers have put out a statement yesterday (which I can't find on the web), saying they expect any changes to be minor and to have revised results ready in a few days. Making up to a metre higher flood level go away? It'll be interesting to see how they accomplish that feat.
It seems to me that the diversion and cover-up efforts are out in full force. When will the media catch on to what the real story is here, namely the complete failure of the development review process? Kanata West is a spectacular example but, sadly, far from unique in this city. Any chance that our politicians will grab this by the horns?
Carp: Third Party Report released
The long-awaited "Third Party Review" by Greenland International Consulting Ltd. was released on April 9, 2009. It is available on the City web site and consists of two large pdf files, 126 pages in all.
Comments to staff were due by 9 a.m. on April 20. Here are some comments that were sent in. They are addressed to Carol Christensen, Manager - Environmental Sustainability at the City.
From Ted Cooper -- comment and earlier presentation to the review committee (952 KB)
From Darlene Conway -- cover letter and comment
From John Almstedt
From Mikelis Svilans
From Erwin Dreessen
E. D. (21 April 2009)
Draft Terms of Reference for Third Party Review - Carp River
On 29 May, the draft Terms of Reference for a 3rd-party review of the studies supporting development in Kanata West (including building on the flood plain) became available on the City's web site, at http://ottawa.ca/carpriver, along with a number of FAQs .
Staff wants your comments by June 9 and the Terms will go to Planning Committee on June 24. You can e-mail your comments to staff to carpriver (at) ottawa.ca.
Comments to staff on the Terms of Reference - Carp
Here are some of the comments that were sent to staff today for their consideration:
- Especially remarkable is the input from Darlene Conway, water resources engineer at the City, who, on her own time, produced an excellent alternative Terms of Reference. She also has a cover note which highlights some of the main differences with the draft found on the City's web site. (For Darlene's witness statement at a February OMB hearing, look here.)
- Comments from Ted Cooper.
- Comments from John Almstedt.
- Comments from Erwin Dreessen
This matter is expected to be considered by Planning and Environment Committee on June 24. A few days before we'll find out what staff did with these and other comments. You then have five minutes to tell Committee what you think.
Erwin
9 June 2008
Open letter to Council on the Terms of Reference - Carp
20 June 2008
Staff's report (including all of the comments received) and recommended Terms were posted to the City's web site earlier this week:
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2008/06-24/ACS2008-PTE-ECO-0018.htm
Also in the report is a letter from the Ministry of Environment which sets out the questions this independent review should cover. Having been received on June 13, staff said the letter had come in too late and they'll come back with amendments if need be!
Similarly, Darlene Conway's alternative Terms (which were submitted on time...) "will be reviewed in the context of the recently received ministry comments. A recommendation will be made on the appropriateness of further modifications to the Terms of reference at that point."
Other comments did not fare any better. In fact, the recommended Terms differ from the original ones by the addition of ... six (non-essential) words!
Left to their own devices, what do you think is the chance that further modifications will be deemed necessary?
The Carp River Coalition has sent an "open letter" to Council, with copies to the media, hoping that, on Tuesday, 24 June, at Planning and Environment Committee, consideration of this item will be deferred "with recommendations." We keep trying to have sanity return to this file.
Erwin
Terms of Reference (Carp) at Planning Comittee, June 24
Erwin reported to the Coalition and the GA Board on June 25:
I attended Planning and Environment Committee yesterday from 9:30 till past 4:00. The bulk of the time (from 11 to 4) was taken up by the matter of Terms of Reference (ToR) for the so-called Third Party Independent Review of the Carp River/Kanata West fiasco.
Before the item came on, file manager Rob MacKay distributed a revised ToR, with many changes from the version that was in the report for this meeting. Track changes were shown so one could see what was changed and what the source was: MOE's letter of June 13 (which had come in too late to be incorporated in staff's recommendations but was included in the staff report), "Public" or "other" -- the latter a reference (masked apparently at the request of the AG) to comments received from the Auditor General. The team had worked the previous evening to do this; they had also received letters from MTO and MNR; we were given to understand that the MTO letter asked for confirmation of the flood levels at the 417 bridges and otherwise expected the City to adhere to the requirements set out by MOE; and that the MNR letter said that Mississippi Valley Conservation was the agency with responsibility for flood plain policy and that MNR had no comment on the draft ToR. There was no explanation of why the changes sourced to "Public" were made only now, nor did anyone challenge staff on this. (The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority also sent a snarky letter to MOE, protesting about the inclusion of a requirement on flood plain policy.)
Naturally no-one had had an opportunity to review these amended terms. The AG (who did summarize the nature of his comments, dated June 18) refused to confirm on the spot that all had been incorporated. One significant change was that an Advisory Committee would assist the Third Party Reviewers; the Committee would consist of city staff, staff from four provincial agencies and "academic." Whatever other changes were made, staff held firm on not including some key points in the Terms: a policy review; investigating the implications if the Carp is confirmed to be a Municipal Drain; and an implementation plan that would guide "interim" development. Five firms have been pre-qualified and will have three weeks to prepare a bid. The work would start mid-August and be completed late November or early December. Cost: $300,000 (money taken out of a reserve fund).
All Committee members were in attendance, though Councillor Bellemare didn't return after the lunch break until just after the votes were taken. In addition, Councillors Legendre, Cullen, Wilkinson and El-Chantiri attended most or all of the time. (The Committee is chaired by Councillor Hume; its other members are Councilors Feltmate, Bellemare, Desroches, Doucet, Harder, Holmes, Hunter, Monette and Qadri. Non-members have no vote at Committee.)
After the staff presentation, Darlene Conway spoke her piece; six Councillors asked questions. Three Councillors asked questions after my 5 minutes. (One was Councillor Harder, who said she wouldn't take it any more to hear staff criticized -- she had full confidence in Nancy Schepers [sitting next to chair Hume]). Five spoke up after Ted Cooper's input. Finally, Mike Green (project manager for KWOG) and John Riddell (working for the Fernbank developers) spoke briefly. Mike Green scored a new low by quoting one sentence out of the AG's Audit report, making it appear that the project was in conformity with provincial policy; Councillor Cullen reprimanded him by furnishing all the other quotes where the AG had expressed severe criticism. Throwing logic to the wind, Riddell said doing the Fernbank analysis was their job, it shouldn't be given to someone else.
After a half hour lunch break, there were more questions to staff (MacKay, the AG and Al Perks of R.V. Anderson who has been helping staff post-Audit). Clearly, even chair Hume struggled with the matter of some of MOE's requirements not being met (2-zone flood plain policy; phasing plan), given that, because of the outstanding Part II Order Requests, MOE is the final arbiter of the projects' acceptability. "Statements" by nine Councillors followed. Councillors Holmes and Doucet pointed to the increasing severity of storms. Holmes affirmed again that MOE has lost confidence in the ability of the City to manage its own affairs. Councillor Hunter again opposed the Third Party Review, saying that the real Third Party is MOE and that this Review will only cause further delay. Councillor Harder asserted that "some of the finest developers in the country are in this city" and that she didn't need to spend $300,000 to feel good. Councillor Hume heaped praise on MacKay for doing "an exceptionally good job."
It then came to voting on motions. Councillor Feltmate moved that 1) minor adjustments to the Terms following further consultation with MOE/MNR and the AG be delegated to the City Manager; and 2) letters be sent to MOE/MNR asking for clarification on the 2-zone flood plain policy. They were carried, with Councillor Holmes dissenting on 2).
Councillor Doucet had a 5-part motion to add elements to the Terms; these were voted on one by one. 1: whether the flood plain policy was properly applied -- voted down with only Councillors Doucet, Holmes and Feltmate in favour. 2: that the Third Party reviewer consult with the Auditor General and the Part II Order Requesters -- MacKay said they'd support it and it was carried, with Councillor Hunter dissenting. 3: to add an interim development plan -- voted down with only Doucet and Holmes in favour. 4: to add Fernbank urbanization in the post-development analysis -- voted down with only Doucet, Holmes and Feltmate in favour. 5: that the City's 2-zone policy would be reviewed as per the AG's report -- carried with only Desroches, Harder and Hunter dissenting. (It's not clear to me how this part relates to the ToR.) The main motion then carried, with Councillors Doucet, Holmes and Hunter dissenting.
To me, the major disappointment was that one of the Coalition's key points -- that you can't put the fox in charge of the henhouse -- was not heeded or even debated. Au contraire, Councillors Harder and Hume went out of their way to express confidence in staff. It would appear that Councillors, even our most sympathetic ones, are afraid to think on their own, without staff holding their hand.
Here is the Disposition by Council, the following day.
Prepared comments by Conway, the Coalition and Cooper (all slightly different from actual delivery in light of developments during the meeting):
Darlene Conway Carp River Coalition Ted Cooper
Erwin
5 July 2008
Ted Cooper - in his own words
The Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, February 16 (The Observer, page B7) carried an op-ed piece by Ted Cooper wherein he discusses his motivation for contesting decisions about development along the Carp River and why fellow engineers appear to neglect their prime duty: Safeguarding of public health and safety.
Erwin Dreessen
Richcraft dumping fill at Carp River
13 February 2008
CBC TV News at Six yesterday carried a story about an unending row of trucks dumping huge amounts of fill on land owned by Richcraft at Maple Grove Road very near the Carp River. Ottawa Riverkeeper Meredith Brown was interviewed. See a story about this in the February issue of the ORK newsletter.
It turns out that the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority had issued a permit last April (which expires on March 15) for this so-called "pre-loading" activity, specifying that the fill must stay clear of the 1983 100-year flood line and that this line must be staked out first and silt barriers put in place.
Problem is: What good is the 1983 flood line today? Over the years, the MVCA has allowed many intrusions into the flood plain, causing the water to accumulate elsewhere.
One of the Carp River Coalition members commented to John Price, Watershed Management Coordinator at the MVCA:
"I'm surprised that you can justify the filling based on the 1983 floodline? With all the development over the past 25 years with little or no SWM control one has to assume the 2008 flood level is likely higher than the 1983 level. Also, with so much current discussion on the reliability of the hydrological data wouldn't it have been prudent to hold off until an updated and correct data set has been determined?"
That is also the point made by Ted Cooper in a letter to Councillors. He points further to a March 2007 decision by the Mining and Lands Commissioner which clearly states that Planning Act approvals must come before Conservation Authorities Act approvals. A fill permit is issued under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Approval of Richcraft's Plan of Subdivision is under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Erwin Dreessen
Updates (Feb 14):
- Councillor Qadri wrote to Ted Cooper on February 13: "Mr. Cooper, just to let you that staff have had discussions with Richcraft and they have agreed to stop work on the site for the time being. The staff will monitor the situation and have further discussions with Richcraft and the MVC."
- The Ottawa Citizen carried a story on this on February 14, page B3.
Carp River Flood Plain: Search for truth
(Letter to the Editor of The Citizen, published on February 8)
Search for truth
Feb. 8, 2008
Re: Sweet vindication for crusading engineer, Feb.5.
Hats off to Ted Cooper. He selflessly committed himself to the greater public good in his fight against the ill-conceived plans to fill and develop the Carp River floodplain. It is greatly appreciated that Citizen reporter Patrick Dare and columnist Randall Denley brought Ted Cooper's story to the people of Ottawa since he has been silently working under difficult conditions on their behalf.
Ted Cooper's actions highlight the importance for each us to search for the truth and not be afraid to speak up when you believe something is fundamentally flawed.
Cheryl Doran, Ottawa,
Chair, Ottawa Greenspace Alliance
Newspaper misses key point in conflict of interest story
There was a follow-up story by Patrick Dare in The Ottawa Citizen of February 8 (read the earlier web version here; it had two informative sentences that were deleted in the print version). It reports that Ted Cooper wrote to the Ministry of Natural Resources last fall, requesting an investigation into a possible conflict of interest involving a Ministry official who reviewed and advised on consulting engineering work done for Kanata West. Having been rebuffed at first, on December 18 he wrote to the Deputy Minister of MNR, requesting as per protocol that the matter be turned over to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Read Ted Cooper's letter here.
The article omits any mention of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Instead, prominence is given to the wife of the MNR official who is said to be "offended' by suggestion of conflict" (headline on the second page of the print version). Ted Cooper made no allegations against the spouse.
The article, as well as the CBC Radio morning news report on this story the same day, also let MNR spokespersons say without challenge that the Ministry is investigating. I.e., MNR backtracked because they had done their investigation and had denied that their former employee had violated the Public Service Act. At this point the request for an investigation should be handed over to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Officials investigating themselves, hmmm, where have I heard that before? It's behaviour akin to what Patrick Dare's piece helpfully reported on at the end: Mayor O'Brien got together yesterday with Minto's Jack Sterling, Michael Green (Kanata West Owners Group) and Susan Murphy, the former City official who was very much front and centre when the Kanata West file moved through the city approval process. Councillor Peggy Feltmate also attended. Dare says that the developers have put out a statement yesterday (which I can't find on the web), saying they expect any changes to be minor and to have revised results ready in a few days. Making up to a metre higher flood level go away? It'll be interesting to see how they accomplish that feat.
It seems to me that the diversion and cover-up efforts are out in full force. When will the media catch on to what the real story is here, namely the complete failure of the development review process? Kanata West is a spectacular example but, sadly, far from unique in this city. Any chance that our politicians will grab this by the horns?
Erwin Dreessen