I read Gary DeBock’s letter to the editor with interest, “Press releases don’t fix potholes or stop floods,” which related to Bobbi Ann Brady’s recent column entitled “Flooding isn’t just about rain – it’s about our choices.” He is absolutely correct about one thing – agricultural drainage matters.
Farmers depend on tile drainage and municipal drains; MPP Brady would never suggest otherwise. In fact, Ontario’s Ministry of Agriculture describes municipal drains as vital rural infrastructure, noting they reduce flooding, improve safety, and reduce property damage. But acknowledging the importance of agricultural drainage does not disprove the argument for protecting agricultural land. It reinforces the need to examine the entire watershed rather than reducing a complicated hydrological system to “Farm A, Farm B, and Farm C.”
Tile drainage removes excess water from agricultural land and commonly discharges into municipal drains and waterways. The question is not simply where the water goes, but how much water is generated, how quickly it moves, and what happens when we replace permeable land with impervious surfaces like roads and parking lots.
Ontario’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual states urban development increases impervious surfaces, decreases infiltration, and increases stormwater runoff. These are recognized consequences of urbanization. That is not a political slogan. It is hydrology.
Yes, modern developments have stormwater ponds and engineered systems, which are important. But the province describes stormwater management as a way to lessen the hydrological impacts of urbanization, not make them disappear.
I don’t believe MPP Brady ever suggested Bill 21 is a substitute for critical drainage infrastructure. It isn’t. Bill 21 is about land-use planning and protecting Ontario’s agricultural land base.
Good infrastructure and responsible land-use planning should go hand-in-hand. We need functioning drains, properly designed stormwater systems, and infrastructure investment. But we must also be thoughtful about how much agricultural land we convert to urban uses. These are not competing ideas.
Farmers invest heavily in drainage because managing water is essential to producing food. That does not mean the land above those drainage systems has no value in the broader hydrological system. Nor does a stormwater pond mean putting another subdivision on agricultural land has no consequences.
We can have a healthy agricultural economy, adequate drainage infrastructure, and responsible development. We need all three.
Protecting agricultural land is not about stopping development. It is about recognizing that once productive agricultural land is paved over, we cannot simply return it to its original state. When it comes to food production, flood resilience and the long-term health of our rural communities, this is a conversation worth having – without dismissing it as a “disingenuous fairy tale.”
Signed,
Pam Harwood,
Port Dover
