Hamilton’s proposed stormwater fee plan needs major rethink

At present, the wastewater management scheme is unfair to rural and urban residents alike.

The City of Hamilton is at a crossroads in terms of its sewer system and wastewater management plan. The existing infrastructure is clearly in sharp decline, with repeated environmental calamities over the last several years, including wastewater leaking into Chedoke Creek, Cootes Paradise, and Hamilton Harbour. Like it or not, the City must spend money to repair and maintain its disintegrating sewer system. Luckily, part of that solution will be the happy by-product of Hamilton’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) construction. The City will be able to repair the sewer and water system along the LRT route, taking advantage of reduced costs, as LRT construction will be funded by Metrolinx. It is estimated that the LRT construction will offset almost $200 million in costs that would otherwise fall to the city. As convenient as that all may be, there is much to be done all over Hamilton. As such, the City has debated a stormwater fee to help fund its looming crisis.

For background, the purpose of a stormwater fee is to target large commercial and industrial properties to contribute to stormwater management, commensurate with their development of land. For example, a large commercial property that has paved over significant space for parking or retail use, has created a vast amount of impermeable surface area, onto which water cannot be absorbed into the ground. The runoff therefore leads to extra pressure on Hamilton’s stormwater system and ultimately generates more incidents of flooding and environmental contamination. Stormwater and the flooding it causes, coupled with the growing need to treat the discharged water is driving the issue of needing to create a stormwater fee in Hamilton. The reality of climate change is simple, what used to be a “once-in-a-decade” storm, now occurs with much greater frequency. We need to face this matter head on. As such, a previous City Council decided to explore the creation of a stormwater fee and now we are reviewing the product of that effort.

Here’s the rub - the consultants who investigated the idea, ultimately recommended a fee structure that significantly deviated from this original vision. What came to Council recently was a fee proposal that treated all properties in Hamilton the exact same, that’s neither fair nor equitable. Clearly there is a stark difference in land use between a big box store with a massive parking lot, and a townhouse in Waterdown, or a rural property in Carlisle or Flamborough. While residential properties can cumulatively generate stormwater issues, those issues are minor compared to industrial/commercial properties. Every property is different in terms of water permeability and should be recognized as such. Our agriculture and rural properties are not contributing to wastewater management issues, quite the opposite in fact. Water is being absorbed by these properties. The measure of what is fair and equitable should be determined by the lack of permeability and available soil absorption. That was not happening via the consultants’ recommendations. Along with my Council colleagues representing rural areas of Hamilton, I am fighting against it.

What I found most offensive, was the lack of consultation with our agricultural community and rural property owners in the consultants’ work. Part of their argument to tag agricultural properties with an aggressive fee has to do with the clearance and maintenance of rural ditches and culverts. It’s a difficult and almost silly argument to make given the historic lack of effective ditch and culvert maintenance in these area by the City of Hamilton. 

At Council, during the recent debate of this matter, I specifically told my Council colleagues that it was distressing that the conversation was taking place in advance of consultation with City’s Agriculture & Rural Affairs Advisory Committee. Further, I motioned to defer the proceedings until such consultation could take place. Moreover, my rural Council colleagues and I have met with many representatives of our community’s agriculture sector, along with dozens of rural residents. We have facilitated meetings with senior City planners, helping to drive home the fact that the planning process on this issue has gone severely awry. Together, we are driving home the message that the stormwater proposal on the table boasts little understanding of how the agricultural/farm sector works, and major adjustments to the plan are needed.

The City has created a public feedback tool on this issue, it can be found here: https://engage.hamilton.ca/stormwaterincentives

At this point in time, the City is in the process of doing a ‘rethink’ on this issue - especially given the active advocacy of our rural Councillor cohort. Assurances have been given that the planned 2025 implementation date allows sufficient time to ‘time to get it right’. Going forward, I will not support any version of this fee that deviates from the principle of being fair and equitable. Treating all properties the same is neither fair nor equitable. I support this concept philosophically, as there is merit in commercial and industrial operations paying their fair share of wastewater infrastructure impact. But our rural and agricultural properties are helping us, not hurting. I will not stand by and watch residents of Ward 15 be unconscionably punished for their efforts in environment stewardship.