Ottawa’s Rural Summit was the city’s first attempt to talk about rural discontent. Talk should lead to action. The summit is over, and its time for the city to address the issue of wetland protection in Goulbourn Township.
Since amalgamation in 2001, rural residents have said they feel shut out of city council. The summit was meant to help us urbanites understand the concerns of our rural cousins, and why some of them made the shocking decision to destroy several acres of significant wetland over the summer.
The wetlands in question are 260 acres (about half the size of Centretown) of waterlogged grass and trees scattered around Goulbourn, southwest of Ottawa. Last year, the Ministry of Environment determined that these wetlands were provincially significant (read: important enough not to be ploughed under) and ordered Ottawa to change its zoning laws to restrict development in them.
This made many Goulbourn landowners mad — their property included most of those wetlands. According to provincial policy, if the city rezoned their property as significant wetland, the landowners would not be able to do anything with it that could affect the land’s ecological functions. Since wetlands are very sensitive to development, this meant the owners could potentially not even build a shed or deck without an environmental impact study. Property values plunged. Tempers soared.
Stuck with potentially worthless land, the residents demanded compensation. The city refused, saying it was carrying out the will of the province and so was not obligated to pay them. In response, many landowners bulldozed the plants, trees and soil on their property, hoping to avoid the wetland designation by destroying the wetland.
Why did this happen? The city’s demand that the landowners restrict use of their land without payment was de facto expropriation. The city and the province should have offered to buy the land as compensation, but did not, presumably because they didn’t want to spend the money.
Many of the Goulbourn landowners are farmers or retirees who would lose their livelihoods if their land was re-zoned. One farmer said his 30 acres of useable land will be cut back to 10 after the re-zoning. The owners had a choice: obey the city and lose everything, or destroy the wetlands and lose nothing. Out came the bulldozers.
Wetlands keep our rivers flowing in times of drought, act as habitat for fish and wildlife, and provide educational and recreational opportunities for people in and outside of Ottawa. They also purify our drinking water, which saves us money on treatment costs. If we are serious about protecting wetlands and water, we should treat rural residents as equals. We should make them a serious offer, and not ask them to accept expropriation without compensation.
We should start by offering them a tax credit for any wetlands on their property they agree to protect. In exchange for a promise not to plough the land under, the city would make those lands tax-free — we “pay” them with tax breaks for protecting wetlands. The tax credit would give the landowner an incentive to co-operate with the city, and partially compensate them for their lost land. Ducks Unlimited has made similar cash-for-wetland deals work in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
If the landowners want more, we could offer to buy the land at a fair market price. If the owners refuse to sell at any price, then and only then should we take the hard-line stance the city has taken and use extreme measures, such as expropriating the land.
City councillors said they would resolve the Goulbourn wetland issue after the Rural Summit.
It’s time for them to put their money where our wetland is by giving the people of Goulbourn a fair deal.