CANFIELD—Haldimand Council has sent back an engineer’s report related to the construction of a new municipal drain in Canfield following resident and Ministry of Transportation (MTO) concerns.
The project is driven by the MTO, who first petitioned Haldimand for the drain in 2014 to help improve drainage at the intersection of Highway 3 and Haldimand Rd. 56. This required Haldimand to commission a report, which was brought to Council earlier this month with a plan for the new drain.
“Council’s role today will be to either adopt the report or refer it back to the engineer based on the technical soundness and accuracy of the report. Any property owner assessed will be given the opportunity to comment, however any concern with individual assessments will be heard at the court of revision,” explained Municipal Drains Project Manager John Van Rooy at that meeting.
The report was prepared by Spriett Associates Engineers and Architects (SAEA). Engineer Brendan Widner spoke about the plan at Council. Following a tributary and emptying into Oswego Creek, the drain covers 420 hectares and multiple properties.
SAEA received several requests from the impacted property owners, who are all responsible for paying a proportionate amount of the overall cost based on their land size.
“Those requests ranged from culvert installations to, because this is a new drain and it’s open channel, we had a number of owners request the drain be moved to a location more suitable for their land,” said Widner. “There’s a fair amount of work here … (as) a large project with lots of entities.”
The drain would begin just east of Junction Rd., progressing past CN tracks toward the creek along Highway 56. It will require 3,100 metres of ditching and a number of new culverts.
The total estimated cost for the project, including work already completed by the MTO, is $833,500. Of that, approximately $343,943 will be shouldered by the landowners who will access the drain when it’s complete. Agricultural property owners are eligible for a grant to cover a portion of their costs.
The schedule of assessment shows some of those owners, even after any grants, are facing a substantial bill. The two highest assessments – after grants have been applied – sit at a net amount over $19,500, while the majority are facing a bill ranging from roughly $500 to $5,000.
Councillor Rob Shirton asked Widner where the water flowed before this new drain was considered.
Widner noted that changes to the intersection at 3 and 56 by the MTO, which saw the addition of new streetlights, are ultimately what pushed their request forward: “The intersection has been flooded for many years.… I’m guessing when they improved it, they deepened the ditches at the highway, they maybe raised the road some.”
Councillor John Metcalfe shared his belief that the MTO has some culpability in creating the issue: “For years it was never really a huge issue, but travelling through there now you can see the water…. Water doesn’t flow up hill. This has impacted a lot of neighbours and residences; just my two cents worth is they’ve created an issue here that’s impacting taxpayers.”
Councillor Patrick O’Neill questioned why residents should have to pay such a large portion of the bill.
Councillor Dan Lawrence agreed, adding, “The province created this problem in that area…. If they created the problem, they should be paying for the problem to be fixed.”
Widner noted that such drains are “a user pay community project” and ultimately “there were problems I would say before the MTO put all this stuff in.”
“The drain didn’t have adequate depth…. There’s a number of culverts installed that are blocking flow from upstream lands…. It’s not just the MTO requesting the work,” he noted, indicating four owner submitted petitions as his cited example.
Once a design is finalized and assessments completed, property owners would be notified of their final amount owing and offered options to pay, including an extended five-year repayment plan with 6% interest per term.
Local farmer Mark Vaarkamp, who faces the highest bill, spoke at the meeting: “If this goes through now as is, I can’t afford to pay that even over 10 or 20 years – because at 20 years there’s maintenance costs, so I would have to sell the farm. There’s just no way about it…. I’m pretty desperate.”
Vaarkamp is among those who signed their name to a petition advocating for the drain, but he maintains that his signature was not an endorsement of the project and was only part of the required process to request that the drain be re-routed to the edge of his property instead of the middle. Vaarkamp contended that he was told “that it’s going to happen regardless”, and felt this move was required to lower the impact of the drain on his agricultural lands. He said in addition to the large bill, he would lose 20 acres of land use for “about two years” due to the needed excavation work for the drain.
“MTO got themselves in this situation, they petitioned for it, I’m going to be out more than I can afford with no benefit to me, so I’m going to request that they reassess the cost portion to me,” he concluded.
County Engineering Service Manager Kris Franklin confirmed that Vaarkamp’s signature on the petition was required to request any changes, and should he remove his name from the petition and the report be sent back, his requested changes would not be considered in the report.
Following Vaarkamp, other impacted property owners shared their thoughts on the proposed drain.
H. Benemeer, speaking on behalf of owner R. Ruigrok, asked SAEA to take a closer look at replacing existing culverts as it could cost Ruigrock thousands, adding, “He gets no grant because it’s not agricultural land.”
Owner and petition signer Melissa Lingan added, “We’re not signing a petition because we want to be a part of this, we’re signing a petition because we have no choice. Our land is far less usable.… Why is this being put on us when the MTO created the problem?”
Further, the MTO itself issued a letter to Haldimand County requesting the report be returned to SAEA for further review.
“They’re requesting additional review by the drainage engineer, including some archaeological review, environmental review. They have some concerns with portions of the design of the drain,” said Franklin.
Council voted unanimously to send the report back to review the concerns.
