The recent approval by Council to establish a mandatory program to disconnect residential rain water downspouts attracted much attention. Those unfamiliar with decision making at City Hall might be surprised at the level of interest.  After all, most Torontonians agree on the fundamentals: we want a cleaner environment, fewer harmful discharges into our water and reduced basement flooding.  So if disconnecting downspouts accomplishes all of these goals, then you would think that Council could design a program to deliver the service without controversy.

 

Not a chance.

 

We start with the basic information anyone would want to know: how well would such a program accomplish its goals?

 

It’s embarrassing to say that Council did not see any statistics to determine by how much the water flow could be reduced.  Nor were there any figures on how much pollution would be diverted. Council ignored the inconvenient experience of St Catherines, which approved a mandatory disconnection program in 1991. After fifteen years of implementation, staff reported that there was “no significant reduction in runoff volumes.”

 

No matter, there was always a second objective, which was to prevent flooding in areas of poor drainage, mostly in the older sections of Toronto. The concern on this point, like on the environmental side, is that no figures were ever presented to show how the program prevented flooding since the voluntary program started in 1994.

 

Even without any proof of the idea’s effectiveness Councillors from flood prone areas demanded some action on the issue, so Council obliged by continuing the voluntary program. When pressed, Council even supported the idea of a mandatory program, but declined to fund it.

 

We now come to the muddle of decision making in November 2007.

 

Up for consideration was implementation decision to make the program mandatory.  Contrary to staff’s recommendations that  “the costs associated [with a mandatory program] do not justify the benefits,” Council was determined to go ahead. 

 

While there were no statistics on effectiveness, there was a legal opinion. City lawyers advised that if the downspout disconnect program became mandatory the City might have a liability for all basement flooding.  So although Council did not know whether a mandatory program could achieve environmental or flood reduction goals, Council did know that it would shift a new liability and cost onto the public.

 

Also missing was a history on the increasing costs for Toronto’s downspout disconnections.  Back in 1998 the program cost $395 per property. By 2004, the cost per disconnect had risen to $650. In November 2007 it was $1 300.

 

In their reports Councillors are usually treated to a survey on how other cities cope with similar programs. Not this time. If they checked other cities they would find that the vast majority have no mandatory program. Portland is a rare exception; upon proof of disconnection it pays property owners $53. Chicago advises its residents, “You can disconnect a downspout in approximately 30 minutes. The materials you need can be found at most hardware stores for about $20.”

 

Thanks to a postponed cutoff date for Toronto’s subsidized program and an orgy of mailings to constituents, 55 000 residents signed up to have the municipality do the disconnection for them at the new cost of $1 300. A program that had been humming along at about $3m per year suddenly had a backlog of about $70m.

 

It’s difficult to see how the public could feel proud of the decisions made on this issue by Council.  The objectives for the mandatory program were unclear, and its effectiveness doubtful.  City Staff recommended against Council’s direction. Although the cost of delivering this service went from $395 per property in 1998 to a cost three times more, the delivery model stayed the same. Waiting time went from months to a decade. A potentially huge liability was shifted on to the public. Council asked staff to report back on the mess it made in a leisurely three years without putting in place any new measures for costing or effectiveness. 

 

As a separate item, Council approved a water rate increase for the average homeowner of 9.4% It’s hard not to connect the dots.