R: The engineer's report identified that it was to be done and if it wasn't, then the report should not have been accepted by the municipality in the 1970's.

R: The municipality should pay benefit for the road.

R: Natural water courses, private drains and municipal drains treat obstructions on a channel differently but all recognize a legal liability up and downstream.

R: The abandoned drain becomes a private ditch or a watercourse; it is up to the landowner to arrange to legally remove any beaver dams. There is no mechanism to force a landowner to remove a beaver dam and there is no mechanism to share the costs of beaver dam removal.

R: It would require a new petition, follow the sections of the Act & a new engineer's report and would be considered as a new drain. It may have funding considerations if the abandonment and a new drain occurred in a short time frame.

R: It would not likely proceed due to Conservation Authority concerns. That a consideration would be the extent of channel work proposed through the swamp.

R: Good question, but unfortunately, only a judge can provide a definite answer. In the opinion of the Provincial Drainage Coordinator, it cannot have the status of "natural watercourse" because the channel has been worked on (engineered) in the past. It depends on several issues and should be specified in the council's abandonment resolution.

R: It is not stated in the Act, one way or another, in the opinion of the Provincial Drainage Co-ordinator he did NOT think it should be allowed.

R: An existing report can not be altered for the design without a new engineer's report. New minor requirements (ie: environmental improvements) may be allowed. Assessments can be changed by an engineer altering the assessments by a new engineer's report and accepted by council in a by-law.

R: The cost of the report will not be eligible for grant, costs would normally be charged equally against the owners of property in the area of abandonment.

R: Although you may not get a direct benefit, you do get an indirect benefit. For example, the lower outlet end for this drain goes through a huge rock outcrop, everyone in the watershed gains a benefit because of the excavated lower channel (some direct benefits and some indirect benefits).

R: Benefit is assessed on the land and its potential not on the existing use of the land.

R: The potential of the property itself is considered in the original engineer's report for benefit and NOT how the property is used today. Keep in mind this is a thirty year old engineer's report, maintenance was not considered a major issue at the time of construction. Since that time maintenance programmes have become more important and new engineer's reports often have different assessment schedules developed to charge benefit & outlet for a section of maintenance work to the immediate property owners, and all upstream property owners just pay outlet costs.

R: It could range from zero, if no request for an engineer's report is required within the ten day limit, to infinity high if all decisions are appealed under the sections of the drainage act that are available. An abandonment report from a few years ago was about $ 16,000 for the petitioners to pay.

R: Yes, that is true, it may not go smoothly and it can become quite expensive. The present petition is NOT legally valid, although it could become valid with a few extra spousal signatures. Once a petition has received the necessary signatures, council has little choice for a reversal and eventually it would be approved after all appeals have been launched and executed.

R: Without being a consulting engineer, it is difficult to estimate. However, the Ausable River Drainage Scheme recently undertook a new maintenance schedule which included eight municipalities. The Ausable watershed is three to four times the size of the CPD and the cost of the new assessment schedule was about $40,000.

R: Approximately 250.

R: It may not work out quite that simply because charges may be on a per acre basis, but it still would be a reasonable charge.

R: The land use by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law shows the land as Agriculture or Open Space. The Drain itself, which is designated Environmental Protection Area (EPA) is due to the flood potential of the ditch, and a warning with appropriate restrictions to prevent development, buildings or filling in the low hazard land area.

R: R. It is allowed if the landowner(s) apply to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) for an approval to do so and abides by the conditions of the permit. Fines for not doing so are under the Fisheries Act and may be quite onerous.

R: Yes, the CRCA charges a fee for an application to be processed.

R: Not necessarily, abandonment only relieves the municipality of the responsibility to maintain the drain. The assessment costs must be dealt with separately by council. In fact if council did NOT deal with the assessment issue and only abandoned a portion of the drain, future maintenance work undertaken downstream would continue to be charged upstream at the same rate as it is now. If a total drain is abandoned then of course there would be no costs due since the municipality would not be undertaking any maintenance.

Regardless of the outcome of the abandonment petition, a new engineer's report addressing maintenance assessments and scheduling costs should be undertaken for the whole drain.

R: Beaver and the dam obstructions can be removed under the Drainage Act and often are on the CPD as a routine matter. In the case of a natural watercourse you as landowner need to apply for approvals. You also are responsible to ensure no damage to downstream property owners due to flooding. In the case of a private drain you can undertake the work but again you are legally liable for flooding a downstream landowner. In both cases you may be liable for flooding if a beaver dam floods an upstream landowner, but in the case of both a natural watercourse and a private ditch you may go to court over the issue.

R: Yes, they will but only at their convenience, we were not successful in having them remove the beaver in a timely manner.

For more information contact Jim English at the Midland office telephone number 384-1770 ext. 3138.

The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

CONTACT US