The numbers are startling: 77 percent of the Niagara Region’s water is delivered by three plants that are approximately 100 years old. Collectively, these plants have a backlog of more than $280 million in overdue investment for repairs and equipment that is in very poor condition.
Forty-four percent of the Region’s water facility assets are deemed to be in poor to very poor condition. Ninety percent of the wastewater capacity is delivered by plants more than 50 years old. Collectively, these plants have an investment backlog of more than $400 million.
Forty-nine percent of the Region’s wastewater facility assets are deemed to be in poor to very poor condition. Some of the equipment at the Region’s older water and wastewater facilities are “literally wooden paddles and leather belts.”
What the numbers and anecdotes, taken from a presentation by the Region’s Commissioner of Public Works Terry Ricketts, delivered to council on September 5, illustrate is a failure of successive administrations to adequately invest in the Region’s crucial water/wastewater system. The problem did not happen overnight, with annual increases in contributions to needed repairs and maintenance lagging behind recommended investment levels. If the Regional Council continues on its current investment path, the backlog will grow to $2 billion in ten years.
As asset condition decreases, the risk of system failure increases, which may have environmental impacts and have the Region running afoul with applicable federal and provincial legislation.
Systems failure should be top of mind for Canadian municipalities considering the recent events in Calgary.
This past June, the City of Calgary experienced what was described as “an extensive water main break”, an experience not uncommon in municipalities throughout the country. The situation in Calgary, however, turned out to be more substantial with a state of emergency declared ten days after the initial break and water restrictions imposed on the municipality’s approximately 1.7 million residents throughout the summer.
Just when the restrictions started to ease in early August, the City determined that more extensive repairs were necessary to the Bearspaw South Feeder Main. Currently, no outdoor potable water use is allowed, and residents and businesses have been asked to reduce indoor water use by 25 percent.
The Niagara Region has not been immune to events that call into question the state of its water and wastewater infrastructure. In August, councillors learned that since 2021, the Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (NFWWTP) has had 26 instances of CBOD (biochemical oxygen demand) exceedances, and 21 instances of TSS (suspended solids) exceedances.
CBOD is a way to measure organic pollution in water by looking at the rate at which micro-organisms in the water use up dissolved oxygen, while TSS measures the solids that remain in wastewater during the filtration process—solids such as fecal matter, waste, papers and plastic. If untreated, there may be environmental damage and harm to aquatic life.
On March 11, 2024, the Region reported an acute toxicity exceedance at the NFWWTP. The effluent is considered acutely toxic when more than 50 percent of rainbow trout tested in a laboratory setting die from the sampled waste. The Region’s testing reached 60 percent, warranting a formal written warning from the Enforcement Branch of the Environment and Climate Change Canada for contravention of the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act.
The related memo from staff attributed the CBOD and TSS exceedances to the frequent breakdowns and out-of-service equipment necessary for the secondary treatment process (CBOD) and the need to rehabilitate clarifiers to adapt to a new secondary treatment system being put into the 61-year-old facility. The result of the latter process is that the plant’s ability to remove waste is reduced by 25 percent until the new system is fully operational.
Staff had less certainty on the acute toxicity exceedance, indicating there was no “smoking gun”. Possible causes could include ammonia presence, poor effluent quality or chemicals used within the plant impacting toxicity levels.
The event in Calgary, the written warning in Niagara, and the recent sobering information delivered by Commissioner Ricketts at the Committee of the Whole session, raise numerous questions, especially with the likelihood that the burden to make up the “infrastructure gap” will fall on the backs of Niagara’s taxpayers.
What is being done as a result of the exceedances reported at the NFWWTP?
In an August memo to the Region’s Public Works Committee, staff noted that a capital project to replace the secondary treatment process was well underway. Nonetheless, the new equipment will not be operational until the second quarter of 2025. Staff assured councillors that the implementation was already on an expedited schedule.
Clarifiers currently under construction are expected to be done by the end of the year and hauled sewage to the facility is being limited to sources from Niagara Falls only, with winery waste being diverted elsewhere.
What are Regional Council and staff’s legal duties?
The municipality must abide by legislation such as the Safe Drinking Act, the Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act. Ricketts reported that Regional Council must meet the required standards for water and wastewater quality and ensure that the systems are maintained “in a fit state of repair” and she, as a professional engineer, has a legal duty to share specific information with council to help them make their decisions.
On the latter point, at the Public Works Committee, Regional Councillor Diana Huson (Pelham) questioned the delay in information provided to council. The acute toxicity reading was registered in early March, the written warning from the federal environment ministry was received in late May, but councillors were just finding out in mid-August.
Commissioner Ricketts stated because the violation was unique, she wanted to do her due diligence before reporting back to Regional Council. A week later, under similar questioning from Councillor Bob Gale (Niagara Falls), Ricketts conceded that in the future council will be notified promptly when staff learn of any exceedances, with the possibility of a subsequent staff report if warranted.
What are the ramifications of the written warning from Environment and Climate Change Canada?
Commissioner Ricketts assured Council that staff have a good rapport with Ministry officials, who are aware of the timing related to improvements at the NFWWTP.
What could the consequences be for the Region if it cannot meet its environmental obligations regarding water/wastewater quality?
Regional Chair Jim Bradley posed the above question to Commissioner Ricketts at the Committee of the Whole session. She responded that the Region could face a graduated set of sanctions, such as more warnings, written orders, fines and being compelled to take certain actions. Ricketts concluded that the accumulation of consequences could cause the Region reputational harm.
How does Niagara compare to other municipalities on water/wastewater infrastructure?
Commissioner Ricketts looked at comparable upper-tier municipalities in Waterloo and York. Like Niagara, those Regions have “shared” systems, where the upper tier oversees the plants, water and force mains (which move sewage from lower areas to higher ones), while the respective lower area municipalities oversee water distribution.
While the setup of the respective systems may be similar, Niagara has significantly more infrastructure than its comparators. Niagara has six water treatment plants, 11 wastewater treatment plants, and 135 pumping stations. Niagara has what are described as 13 large plants compared to seven total in York and Waterloo combined. Similarly, Niagara’s pumping stations are more than double than either of the two comparable regions.
Why does Niagara have so many more facilities than its comparables? Many of the facilities were, in essence, inherited with municipal amalgamation and the formation of the Niagara Region in 1970. In addition, Niagara covers a larger geographic area compared to the other two regions.
Is it time for consolidation and centralization of the Region’s water/wastewater infrastructure? At the Committee of the Whole session, Regional Councillor Michelle Seaborn (Grimsby) questioned the need for all the current water/wastewater facilities in Niagara. Commissioner Ricketts concurred that the Region did not need all the current plants but pointed out that the building of new facilities is a costly endeavour.
When asked whether the service delivery should rest solely at the Regional level, as opposed to the shared system with the lower area municipalities, Chief Administrative Officer Ron Tripp cautioned that such an analysis had not been completed and in his experience such consolidation (such as in the case of Niagara Transit) rarely means cost savings. He conceded that centralization was likely to be more efficient from a service-delivery perspective.
How does the “infrastructure gap” in Niagara compare? Commissioner Ricketts noted that Niagara is hampered by a lower population density, which means a smaller tax base to draw from. When coupling those demographic realities with the heavier capital burden, the result is a “more serious” infrastructure gap, than that faced by other municipalities.
The Commissioner concluded that despite having significantly more infrastructure than the comparators, Niagara has the lowest cost for water (and wastewater) operations.
“Our costs should be a lot higher, which suggests we are underinvesting as compared to where we should be investing to keep our assets functioning.” She recognized that previous decisions of council were made to keep rates affordable for water wastewater users, but it has led to challenges with declining assets.
Has the Region been investing appropriately in capital over the years? Simply put, no.
Capital investment has lagged despite the recommendations of the Region’s guiding documents. The 2021 Asset Management Plan calls for annual increase in contributions of 7.2 percent. In light of affordability challenges, a subsequent document, the 2023 Financial Plan, tempered the former goal and called for annual increases of 5.15 percent. The closest the Region came to achieving the goal was in 2023, which saw a five percent increase in capital spending, while in 2021, the increase was a mere one percent.
The Commissioner was candid in assessing that even if the Region was to follow the 5.15 percent increase per year, the current $680 million backlog would escalate to a $2 billion backlog in ten years.
(It should be noted that the figures noted apply to all capital investment at the Region, not just in the water/wastewater area.)
Has the Region committed funding for a new South Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant? Yes, in the Region’s 2021 and 2022 capital budgets approximately $400 million was committed to what is described as the largest infrastructure project in the Niagara Region’s 54-year history. In an April report, staff indicated that construction is slated to commence in 2026, with the plant operational in 2029. The project still requires additional funds to come to fruition.
At the August Public Works Committee meeting, Commissioner Ricketts indicated that the Region has yet to receive the necessary funding commitments from the federal and provincial levels of government for the project to be finalized, which caused some consternation for Regional Councillor and Mayor, Jim Diodati (Niagara Falls), who claimed the Province was completely committed to the project.
When Diodati’s declaration was challenged by Councillor Haley Bateman (St. Catharines), Daryl Barnhart, Chief of Staff to Chair Bradley characterized the provincial support as “in principle”.
How underfunded is water and wastewater? The presentation, which includes a chart that identifies annual funding versus the funding needs as of 2024, illustrates that investment in water is at about half (49.2 percent) of what it needs to be, while wastewater is even more underfunded at a rate of approximately 20 percent of the current need.
In speaking to the potential of a $2 billion backlog in 10 years, Commissioner Ricketts expressed her concern that such a backlog would place the Region in a “high risk situation”.
Is the Region currently in a high-risk situation? The Commissioner chose her words carefully, but concluded that there is currently no public safety risk and that the Region has a “many layered protection system” to make sure that drinking water is safe. Ricketts concluded that the Region would never “make bad water” but did not discount the possibility of scenarios comparable to what was recently witnessed in Calgary where the public was inconvenienced.
What are the other impacts of the aging infrastructure? Not surprisingly, it was noted, as asset condition decreases risk of system failure increases. As indicated in reference to the NFWWTP, older facilities are often being retrofitted, requiring complex pieces of infrastructure that often need to be custom made and take many months to be implemented. Ricketts reported that regularly planned maintenance is falling to the wayside as 80 percent of the maintenance team at NFWWTP deals with urgent matters.
The inability to undertake regular maintenance was described as “running assets to failure.” Analogies were presented such as not replacing shingles on the roof and then facing larger repairs when the roof caves in or failing to do regular oil changes on one’s car, leading to the engine blowing out.
In addition to water/wastewater asset replacement being underfunded, what about operations? In addition to emergency repairs taking precedence over planned maintenance, another operational challenge highlighted during the Committee of the Whole session was that capital project managers are overseeing roughly double the reports than is the industry standard, manifesting in higher legal claims and other increased costs.
Commissioner Ricketts indicated that while an internal review identified the need for 30 additional staff, she understands that there is no way practically or economically for that to happen. She plans any staffing increases to be incremental in nature, but she may recommend 24-hour coverage at all plants to better monitor and deal with unexpected issues.
Has Regional staff been appropriately informing council and has staff been candid with council on the infrastructure gap? Regional Councillor and Mayor, Wayne Redekop (Fort Erie), who also Chairs the Budget Committee, did not seem surprised by the dire situation.
“[T]his isn’t something new, we have been hearing about it (the infrastructure funding gap) for years.”
What may have changed from past staff warnings was the frankness from Commissioner Ricketts.
Ms. Ricketts, who came to the Niagara Region from Peel Region less than a year ago, set the context for her presentation and her due diligence over the last 12 months:
“What struck me (over the last year) is the gap between the perception of the water and wastewater services and the reality of the state of our infrastructure.”
Regional Councillor and Mayor, Sandra Easton (Lincoln) placed the blame on past councils that had been “happy not raising taxes, meanwhile the system has been falling apart.”
What is staff recommending regarding the water/wastewater infrastructure gap? The Commissioner’s presentation at the Committee of the Whole Meeting was not associated with a recommendation report. Ricketts indicated that the goal of the session was to provide up-to-date information to help inform the upcoming budget discussions.
Nonetheless, Ricketts did indicate that the Asset Management Plan guidance of an increase to capital of 7.22 percent would likely be recommended, the result of which would be an increased cost to the customer of $0.14 per day or $4.44 per month per household.
In response to councillor questioning, she clarified that the guidance applies to all regional capital projects and that the increase in the water/wastewater area needs to be closer to 12.2 percent to achieve the needed impact on the infrastructure gap. In addition, the 14 cents per day would only relate to the Region’s portion of the water/wastewater charges, not considering the charges from the local area municipality.
Commissioner Ricketts did indicate that 2025 budget recommendations would be premised on how to best contain costs while managing risks, prioritizing funds to address high-risk assets and incremental changes in staffing.
Will Regional Council deal with the issue in the 2025 budget? Each municipal budget is a balance of competing priorities and interests, including ratepayer affordability. Budget Chair Councillor Wayne Redekop outlined his current thinking, noting that “we need to deal with this.” He suggested that perhaps the Region could moderate any tax levy increase to emphasize a possible increase in the water and wastewater billings in the interest of the taxpayer.
Was there any silver lining in the presentation? Regional Councillor and Mayor, Mat Siscoe (St. Catharines) tried to find a “silver lining” in the grim details of the presentation. When he asked if certain statistics indicated a greater resiliency in the Region's operation, compared to Calgary, he was met by a firm “no” from Commissioner Ricketts, but she offered the following:
“The silver lining is that we have a clear picture of where we stand now, while we still have runway to do something about it.” To which the Councillor retorted, “It feels like the runway on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It’s very short and the plane’s going to pop off into the ocean if it’s not going fast enough when it gets to the end.”
Dean Iorfida is a Local Journalism Initiative Reporter based at The Pointer.
