Distribution 200,000 copies Watershed Report · 2016. 2. 2. · Distribution 200,000 copies GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2003 FALL REPORT News for Brantford, Cambridge, Guelph,

Distribution 200,000 copies

G R A N D R I V E R

C O N S E R V A T I O N

A U T H O R I T Y

2 0 0 3 F A L L R E P O R T

News for Brantford, Cambridge, Guelph, Kitchener, Waterloo and other communities in the Grand River Watershed WatershedReport

T H E G R A N DR I V E R

– A C a n a d i a n H e r i t a g e R i v e r

Along theGrand

Water quantityWater quantityissues take manyforms. How do weuse water? Whathas been done toreduce flood dam-ages? How do wecope with drought?

Pages 8-12

Water qualityA great deal ofprogress has beenmade in improvingwater quality inthe Grand Riversystem, but moreremains to bedone.

Pages 4-7

Land resourcesThe health of ourwater is closely con-nected to the way weuse the land.Reforestation effortshave helped returnsome natural balanceto the watershed.

Pages 13-15

The Grand River through Dunnville as it nears the end of its journey to Lake Erie. This photo was taken by Waterloo photographer Carl Hiebert from his ultralight plane as he shotpictures for his new book, The Grand River – An Aerial Journey. See more about the book on Page 16.

The Grand River flows through the heart of oneof the richest, most diverse regions in Canada.

Our economic vitality was built on the naturalresources of the Grand River watershed.

Are we managing those resources to ensurethat our environment and our communities willprosper and be healthy in the future?

WatershedReport

WatershedReport

From the time of European settlement until today, the Grand Riverwatershed has become one of the richest, most productive andmost heavily developed regions of the country.

In the 1800s our ancestors put in a tremendous effort to clear anddrain the land to make it suitable for agriculture. Soon, settlements grewup along the rivers and creeks, drawn there by all that they offered:water, transportation and power.

Over the years, that solid agricultural base became the foundation forthe dramatic growth of Kitchener, Waterloo, Guelph, Cambridge,Brantford and the many surrounding towns and villages.

But as the agricultural and urban communities grew and prospered,there were severe disruptions to the natural ecosystem. Groundwatersystems were disrupted and wells went dry. Native species of trees,plants, animals, birds and fish were pushed into remote corners of thewatershed or eliminated altogether.

The natural rise and fall in water levels became more pronounced,with rivers overtopping their banks more frequently in the spring, anddrying up in the summer. At their worst, floods and droughts threatenedthe future growth and well-being of the communities along the river.

By the 1930s many people in the Grand River watershed realized thatthings needed to change. People began to realize that they had to takea look at their watershed and take action

They banded together to create what became the Grand RiverConservation Authority. They built dams, planted trees, preserved envi-ronmentally sensitive land and took other steps to protect their commu-nities from flood and drought.

They set in motion a process that continues to unfold today, as thepeople of the Grand River watershed continue to work to restore somebalance to the natural system.

This brings us to this document, our first Watershed Report to thepeople of the Grand River valley.

It is our attempt to provide watershed residents with some informa-tion about the state of the watershed and answer some important ques-tions.

Are we making progress in our efforts to revitalize the river? Are wecleaning up the water? Are we protecting the forests? Are we restoringnatural habitats? Are we making our communities safer? Are we makingour communities healthier?

In this report we want to establish some benchmarks and measurehow far we have progressed in certain areas. Because of the incrediblecomplexity of the natural system, we have decided to focus on three

key areas of concern in this first edition: water quality,water quantity and land resources.

We hope to give the people of the Grand River a better understand-ing of what some of the issues are in each of those areas, what stepshave been taken to deal with them, and what issues lie ahead.

This report does not address every issue of concern in the GrandRiver watershed. Our goal this year is to focus on a selected number ofkey indicators of watershed health. In coming years we will be branch-ing out into other areas of study and analysis to provide a more com-plete picture.

By understanding where we have been and where we are today, wecan collectively map out a plan of where we need to go in the future toprotect the natural system of this watershed.

For all of the changes that have taken place in the Grand River water-shed since the 1930s, there is one fact that remains the same: it was apartnership of watershed municipalities that got things going then, andit is a partnership that keeps things moving today.

The Grand River Conservation Authority is a partnership of the 38municipalities of the watershed. The municipalities appoint the GRCA’sboard of directors and contribute a significant amount of money towardour water quality, flood protection and other programs.

Part of the GRCA’s responsibility as a watershed agency is to collectand analyze information so that municipalities, businesses, residents andother levels of government can make informed decisions about thewatershed and its resources.

This document is our first attempt to take some of that data and pres-ent it to you, the people of the watershed.

We hope you find it useful and informative. If you have any sugges-tions and comments, we’d like to hear them so we can make next year’sWatershed Report even more useful and more informative.

G R A N D R I V E R C O N S E R V A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

Paul Emerson, Chief Administrative OfficerKeith Murch, Assistant CAO, Secretary Treasurer

By Mail: GRCA400 Clyde Road, Box 729Cambridge, OntarioN1R 5W6

By Phone: 519-621-2761 or,Direct Line: 519-621-2763 + ext. By Fax: 519-621-4844Internet: www.grandriver.ca

E-Mail General Inquiries:[email protected]

Outside Business Hours:519-621-2761 and leave message (8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Monday to Friday, excluding holidays)

River Information Line:519-621-2763 ext. 519

Fishing Information Line:519-621-2763 ext. 512

Planning and Permits:519-621-2763 ext. 230

Conservation Areas: 519-621-2763 ext. 250Belwood Lake (Fergus) 519-843-2979Brant (Brantford) 519-752-2040Byng Island (Dunnville) 905-774-5755Conestogo Lake (Drayton) 519-638-2873Elora Gorge (Elora) 519-846-9742Guelph Lake (Guelph) 519-824-5061Laurel Creek (Waterloo) 519-884-6620Luther Marsh (Grand Valley) 519-928-2832Pinehurst Lake (Paris) 519-442-4721Rockwood (Rockwood) 519-856-9543Shade’s Mills (Cambridge) 519-621-3697

Reserve a campsite:By phone 1-866-ONT-CAMP

Online www.grandriver.ca

Nature Centres:Apps’ Mill (Brantford) 519-752-0655Guelph Lake 519-836-7860Laurel Creek (Waterloo) 519-885-1368Shade’s Mills (Cambridge) 519-623-5573

Grand River Conservation FoundationPhone: 519-621-2763 ext. 271

1-877-29-GRANDE-mail: [email protected]

THE GRANDis published twice a year by the GRCA, anddistributed in newspapers to households in theGrand River watershed.Additional copies are available.

Letters and comments to:Dave Schultz, GRCA400 Clyde Road, Box 729Cambridge, Ontario,N1R 5W6(519) 621-2763, Ext. [email protected]

A Message FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND THE CAOThe GRCA

How To Reach Us

THE GRAND: A CANADIAN

HERITAGE RIVER

PA G E 2 – T H E G R A N D

Peter KrauseChairman

Paul EmersonChief AdministrativeOfficer

The municipality where you live appoints arepresentative to the Grand RiverConservation Authority (GRCA) board tooversee the budget and activities of theConservation Authority. These appointedmembers, who have often been elected in yourmunicipality, speak on your behalf at theGRCA.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO

(including Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo,and Townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmotand Woolwich)Doug Bergman, Jane Brewer, Kim Denouden, TedFairless, Jean Haalboom, Peter Krause (GRCAChairman), Ralph Shantz, William Strauss, SeanStrickland, Lynne Woolstencroft

HALDIMAND AND NORFOLK COUNTIES

Lorraine Bergstrand, (GRCA 1st Vice-Chairman),Lorne Boyko

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON(including Towns of Halton Hills, Milton)Barry Lee

CITY OF HAMILTONJeanette Jamieson

COUNTY OF OXFORD(including Townships of Blandford-Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, Norwich)Alan Dale

CITY OF BRANTFORDRobert Hillier, Vic Prendergast (GRCA 2nd Vice-Chairman)

CITY OF GUELPHDavid Birtwistle, Bill McAdamsTOWNSHIPS OF AMARANTH, EAST GARAFRAXA,EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLEY, MELANCTHON,SOUTHGATEPaul Chantree

TOWNSHIPS OF WELLINGTON NORTHAND MAPLETONPat Salter

TOWN OF NORTH PERTH, TOWNSHIP OFPERTH EASTGeorge Wicke

TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTONShawn Watters

TOWN OF ERIN, TOWNSHIPS OF GUELPH/ERAMOSAAND PUSLINCHArchie MacRobbie

COUNTY OF BRANTGord Moore, Robert VanSickle

YOU?WHO SPEAKS FOR

The Salamander FoundationThe GRCA and Grand River Conservation Foundation wish to

thank the Salamander Foundation for their generous donationwhich assisted in printing The Grand – Watershed Report.

It has been said that you can never stepinto the same river twice. As you put onefoot in, and then the second, the waters

pass you by, the river changes forever.That’s certainly true of the Grand River.

Over the years, it has undergone remarkabletransformations. It was a pristine waterway200 years ago, but declined to become an“open sewer” just 75 years ago.

During the past two generations the Grandhas gone through a remarkable rebirth, onceagain becoming a river worthy of its name.

It required the concerted effort of the peo-ple of the Grand, exercising their willthrough local government and agencies suchas the GRCA, to bring about the changes.

The Grand of today is certainly not theriver it was in the 1930s. Nor is it the river itwas in the 1830s.

The question is: What kind of river will itbe in 2030 and beyond?

The Grand River watershed faces tremen-dous pressures.

Almost all of the watershed has been putto use. About 93 per cent of the watershed isrural and most of that is intensively farmed.

The other seven per cent is urban area,made up of burgeoning cities and thrivingtowns, with growth rates among the highestin the province.

The population is expected to grow by 37per cent – about 300,000 people — over thenext 20 years, along with their associatedindustry and commerce. That’s the equivalentof a new city the size of Cambridge, Guelphand Brantford combined.

Agricultural practices are growing moreintensive as farmers work harder to maximizewhat they can produce on a limited amountof land to meet the needs of an expandingpopulation in a global marketplace.

As great as these pressure are, though, thepeople of the Grand River watershed have

shown they understand that growth comeswith a responsibility to protect the environ-ment.

They have enthusiastically supported refor-estation projects. Their municipalities haveenacted bylaws to protect woodlands andwetlands. Farmers and businesses have adopt-ed water protection and water conservationprograms. Environmental groups, universities,scientists, citizens – all of them have appliedthemselves to changing the Grand River forthe better.

This report is intended to document someof those changes, and to give watershed resi-dents a reference point they can use to followissues as they unfold over the coming years.

The Grand River watershed is an incredi-bly diverse region and it would be impossibleto describe completely all of the issues facingit in a publication this size.

So in this issue of the report we areaddressing three broad themes. Then, withineach theme, attention is focussed on a groupof key issues that provide some indication ofthe health of the watershed. The goal is toprovide a broad overview of some of the fac-tors responsible for the state of the water-shed.

Water quality issuesThe steady improvement in water quality

over the past 75 years is one of the suc-cess stories of the Grand River watershed.While there remains much to be done, theadvances in water quality have made the riversystem a more hospitable place for all crea-tures, from insects to birds, from fish to peo-ple.

The Watershed Report addresses severalkey indicators relating to water quality:❑ the presence of nutrients, such as phospho-rus and nitrates, in surface water, and stepsbeing taken to reduce their presence.❑ dissolved oxygen levels at various locationsthroughout the watershed❑ the growing issues relating to the presenceof chlorides, mostly from road salt, in oursurface and groundwater❑ the presence of sport fish and insects asindicators of water quality.

Other work is being done to better under-stand the impact of the presence of heavymetals, biological contaminants and otherpollutants. As understanding of these issuesgrows, they will be highlighted in futurewatershed reports.

Water quantity issuesWater supply, flooding, droughts – all of

these issues relating to water quantity

have been a focus of municipal and GRCAendeavours for decades.

Water supply: Most people in the GrandRiver watershed depend on the river and theregion’s groundwater system for their drink-ing water. To highlight some of the issuesrelating to water supply the watershed reportexamines:❑ who is using water and how much❑ how does our water use compare to wateruse in Canada and around the world❑ what kind of water conservation efforts arein place and how are they working❑ the potential impact of growth on impor-tant water source areas such as moraines

Flooding: Over the years, floods havecaused millions of dollars in damagesthroughout the Grand River watershed. Dikesand dams have been built to control flooding,and land use restrictions have been imposedin floodplains to limit damages.

To explain flooding issues, the watershedreport outlines:❑ the factors which contribute to flooding❑ the location and function of flood controlstructures and the impact they have had onreducing damages❑ the potential for future flood damages

Drought: The Grand River watershed haslived through several drought cycles in thepast century – the 1930s, the 1960s and thelatest, which began about 1997.

The watershed report examines watershortage issues by explaining:❑ how flows are augmented by the GRCA’sreservoir network❑ the level of drought conditions in differentareas of the watershed in 2002❑ conservation efforts in place to share avail-able water during drought periods

Land resource issuesWater quality is intimately connected to

the quality of land resources. Forestsand wetlands help moderate floods, raisewater quality and provide an incredibly richand diverse habitat.

In the report, land resource issues areaddressed by looking at:❑ how forest cover has changed over theyears and the extent of forest cover today❑ the presence of “big block” tracts of forestand their significance as a habitat❑ the importance of “riparian vegetation,”which is vegetation along the banks of a riveror stream❑ the number of at-risk species in the water-shed, which is an indicator of the overallstate of forest, wetland and other types ofhabitat


WAT E R S H E D R E P O R T 2 0 0 3 PA G E 3 – T H E G R A N DIntroduction

Watershed facts❑ The Grand River is the longest river in

southern Ontario. It is about 298 kilo-metres long, from Dundalk in thenorth to Lake Erie in the south.

❑ The Grand River watershed takes inabout 6,800 square kilometres.

❑ Major tributaries of the Grand includethe Nith River, Speed River andConestogo River.

❑ About 93 per cent of the land is rural,and most of that is farmed.

❑ About seven per cent of the land isurban.

❑ The population of the watershed ismore than 800,000 and is expectedto grow by 37 per cent – 300,000people – over the next 20 years.

❑ The watershed takes in all or part of38 municipalities and two First Nationterritories.

❑ A network of reservoirs operated bythe GRCA ensure minimum flows inthe Grand and several tributarieseven during drought.

❑ The watershed is part of two forestzones, the Great Lakes (orAlleghenian) in the northern half andthe Carolinian in the southern half

❑ The Grand River system was declareda Canadian Heritage River in 1994.

The Watershed Report: measuringprogress in revitalizing the Grand

The Grand on the webHere are some web sites which provide

more information on the issues dis-cussed in this report:❑ GRCA: www.grandriver.ca❑ Conservation Ontario:www.conservation-ontario.on.ca❑ Canadian Heritage RiversSystem:www.chrs.ca❑ Carolinian Canada: www.carolinian.org❑ Wetlands Research Centre:www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/research/wetlands/❑ Guelph Water Management Group:www.uoguelph.ca/gwmg/

PA G E 4 – T H E G R A N D WAT E R S H E D R E P O R T 2 0 0 3


We expect a lot from the Grand Riversystem.

We expect it to be a source ofdrinking water for our rapidly expandingpopulation. More than 800,000 residents ofthe watershed depend on the river and thewatershed’s rich groundwater sources for theirdrinking water.

We expect it to be a place where we canput our waste. The river system receives theoutflow of 26 sewage treatment plants andthe runoff from fields, lawns, streets andhighways.

We expect it to provide a home for allmanner of creatures — fish, birds, plants andinsects.

And we expect it to be a place where wecan enjoy a pleasant Sunday walk, a stimulat-ing kayak paddle or a day’s fishing.

All of these activities — human and natural— have an impact on the quality of the waterin the rivers and the groundwater system. Ariver system has an ability to accommodate

these activities — up to a certain point. Butbeyond that point, water quality starts todrop, with serious consequences for all of theinhabitants of a watershed — human andother.

When water quality declines, communitiessuch as Waterloo Region, Brantford andOhsweken that rely on the Grand for all orpart of their water supply have to put moreeffort — and more money — into treatingtheir drinking water. The river becomes a lessinviting place for the people who enjoy usingit for recreation. And last, but not least, aswater quality drops, so does the quality ofthe habitat for the hundreds of species thatlive in or near the water.

Water quality issues go deeper, too. Highlevels of nutrients, chloride and other con-taminants can also affect the quality ofgroundwater. That’s a particularly importantissue in the Grand River watershed becausemore than 600,000 people — 80 per cent ofthe watershed’s residents — get their drink-

ing water from wells, either through munici-pal systems (such as Guelph, Cambridge andGrand Valley) or from private wells.

Given the importance of surface andgroundwater to the health and economicvitality of the watershed, it is no wonder thatthe people of the Grand River have taken akeen interest in protecting water quality.

There were times, in the past, when thedemands on the river system exceeded itsability to cope. In the 1930s and 1940s theriver was accurately described as an “opensewer,” especially in summer when flows were

low and what little water there was in theGrand consisted mostly of the outflow fromsewage treatment plants.

Since then, though, the communities ofthe Grand River watershed have invested alot of effort and money to revive the riversystem.

Millions have been spent on new and bet-ter sewage treatment plants. Farmers haveadopted new techniques to lessen the impactof their operations on the environment.Changes in the way storm sewer systems aredesigned have reduced the impact of urbanWater quality facts

Water quality:the Grand hascome a long way

Falling rain and melting snow help to restore water levels to surface and groundwatersystems. But the runoff can also carry pollutants with it, which can have an impact onriver water and groundwater quality.

❑ More than 600,000 watershed resi-dents get their water from wells, eitherfrom municipal systems or privatewells.

❑ There are 26 sewage treatment plantshandling the sewage of 680,000 peo-ple

❑ All sewage receives what is known as“secondary” treatment, which lessensthe impact of the effluent by 95 percent. About 19 per cent of the sewagegets a higher degree, or “tertiary,”level of treatment.

❑ Agriculture is a major industry in thewatershed, with more than 75 percent of the land in production.

❑ More than 825 projects worth than$8 million have been completedunder the Rural Water QualityProgram which is designed to helpfarmers improve water quality.

❑ Under the Rural Water Quality

Program 115 fences have been builtalong 55 kilometres of watercourse,keeping 4,000 livestock out of streamsand rivers.

❑ The GRCA maintains seven automat-ed water quality monitoring stationswhich measure dissolved oxygen lev-els, pH level, temperature and con-ductivity. The GRCA and the OntarioMinistry of the Environment do waterquality sampling at 28 sites through-out the watershed.

❑ The presence of certain species of fishis an indication of rising water quality.Various species, such as bass, thatwere missing from large parts of thewatershed a few decades ago, arestaging a comeback.

❑ Sixty per cent of the classified streamsin the watershed are coldwater ormixed.

A healthier habitatDecades of effort have improved water quality in the Grand River system, making it abetter habitat for fish, such as this golden redhorse sucker found near Brantford.

The water cycle

Water Quality Issues

WAT E R S H E D R E P O R T 2 0 0 3 PA G E 5 – T H E G R A N D


runoff. The construction of a network ofdams and reservoirs, such as Guelph Lake,Belwood Lake, Luther Lake and ConestogoLake, allows water to be added to the riverduring dry months to maintain minimumflows, which helps deal with pollutants.

But the pressures of growth — urban andrural — continue to put the Grand River sys-tem under stress and the battle to hold, if notimprove, water quality is a constant one. Atpresent, the watershed’s sewage treatmentplants serve about 680,000 people but by2021 that number is predicted to rise to900,000.

There are two key, long-standing waterquality issues in the Grand River system. Thetwo issues are interconnected — high nutri-ent levels and low levels of dissolved oxygen.

Nutrients are chemicals such as phospho-rus, ammonia and nitrate. When these nutri-ents get into the water, they act as fertilizersfor algae and other plant life. If the nutrientlevels are too high, excessive plant growthcan result in low oxygen levels in a river,leaving fish fighting to breathe. In the worstcases, low oxygen can result in the death oflife in the stream.

The landscape of the Grand River water-

shed is naturally rich in nutrients, particularlythe till plains of the northern and westernsides of the watershed, and the clay soils ofthe southern section. However, intensiverural and urban land use has contributed sub-stantially to the nutrient content of the rivers,streams and groundwater.

Agriculture is a major industry in thewatershed and more than 75 per cent of thewatershed land is used for agricultural pro-duction.

As melting snow and rainwater drain offthe land, nutrients from cattle manure or fer-tilizers are washed into rivers and streams.Some pollutants also get into the groundwa-ter system and over time nitrates can build upin aquifers.

Rural septic tanks, particularly if they arefaulty, can also contribute nutrients togroundwater and eventually to surface watersystems.

Better treatmentmeans better waterMunicipal wastewater treatment plants are

another significant source of nutrients.There was a time when sewage treatmentplants did little actual treatment beyondscreening and settling the waste, a processknown as “primary” treatment.

Over the last few decades, however, mostplants have been upgraded and now providehigher levels of treatment, which have result-ed in a significant improvement in waterquality. In fact, treatment standards are gen-erally higher in the Grand River watershedthan other places in Ontario because theeffluent is being placed into relatively smallwatercourses.

Today, all watershed sewage plants providewhat is known as “secondary treatment,”which means that the sewage has been treat-ed to reduce the impact on the receiving

stream by about 95 per cent.Some sewage treatment

plans have a third, or “tertiary,”level of treatment, which goeseven further to cut down theamount of nutrients and otherpollutants making their wayinto the rivers. About 19 percent of the urban population isserved by sewage plants offer-ing tertiary treatment.

But even though the sewageplants of today remove most ofthe nutrients from the waste-water they treat, the cumula-tive impact of the outflow from26 plants, treating the sewageof about 680,000 people, is stillsignificant.

Runoff from urban areas —lawns, streets, parks and park-ing lots — is also a source ofnutrients from lawn fertilizers,suspended sediments and chlo-ride (road salt). The fertilizerswe apply to our lawns, and thedroppings from birds and pets

all contribute to nutrient levels in the river.When these nutrients reach the rivers,

streams and ponds of the watershed, theypromote the growth of aquatic plants.Aquatic plants, such as algae, are the basicbuilding blocks in the aquatic food chain,therefore a certain amount of these nutrientsare required for a healthy, balanced ecosys-tem.

But too much of a good thing can be bad

for a river.A river can assimilate, or use up, a certain

amount of these nutrients through naturalbiological processes. As water moves down-stream, some of these chemicals will breakdown and dissipate.

The ability of a river to cope with pollu-tants is called its “assimilative capacity.”When the demands on a river exceed itsassimilative capacity, water quality drops and

Water quality and nutrientsWater quality is affected by nutrient levels. In the Grand River watershed, the impact ofnutrients is less in the headwater areas so the water is rated “good.” However, as yougo downstream, through farmland and past urban areas, nutrient levels rise and waterquality declines. Water quality is rated “fair” in most places, but falls into the “poor”category in areas of intensive agriculture and downstream of urban areas.Areas where water quality is considered “poor” because of high nutrient levels are:

❑ the Grand River, downstream of Kitchener❑ the Speed River, downstream of Guelph❑ Canagagigue Creek❑ the upper Nith River❑ the Grand River at Dunnville

Meeting a targetFish require a minimum level of dissolved oxygen inorder to breathe and survive. The target for dissolvedoxygen is to make sure it does not drop below fourmilligrams of oxygen in each litre of water more thanfive per cent of the time during the summer months.The target was missed about eight per cent of the timeat Blair, downstream of Kitchener, and about six percent of the time at Wellington Road 32, downstream ofGuelph on the Speed River

0.44

8.11

1.95

5.98

Occasions when dissolved oxygen guidelines are not met

% o

f the

tim

e D

O d

oes

not m

eet g

uide

lines

Bridgeport Blair

StationGlen Morris Downstream

of Guelph

Target

Level of sewage treatment

Secondarytreatment

81%

Secondary andtertiary treatment

19%




affects all of the creatures, frominsects to people, who depend onit.

A system, called the WaterQuality Index, has been developedto rate water quality in relation tonutrient content. The GRCA andthe provincial Ministry ofEnvironment maintain a network of28 water-sampling sites on therivers and creeks of the GrandRiver system.

According to information gath-ered between 1999 and 2002, theheadwaters of the Grand and itstributaries are rated “good,” usingthe Water Quality Index adoptedby the Canadian Council ofMinisters of the Environment.

However, as the waters movedownstream, taking in rural andurban runoff and the outflow fromsewage treatment plants, the waterquality declines into the “fair” cate-gory.

Then, as it passes by the majorcities, water quality falls into the“poor” category because of thepresence of high levels of phospho-rus and nitrogen and the frequencythat water quality targets aremissed.

Major upgrades to sewage treat-ment plants, such as those inGuelph in 2002 and Elmira, alongwith others planned for WaterlooRegion, should address problems insome of these areas.

As would be expected, several ofthese areas also show low levels ofdissolved oxygen, which can have aserious impact on many aquaticorganisms, particularly fish.

The GRCA continuously moni-tors dissolved oxygen levels atseven locations in the watershed.Two locations — on the Granddownstream of Kitchener and onthe Speed downstream of Guelph— exceed the objective most fre-quently. At Blair, the objective wasmissed about eight per cent of thetime during 1997 and 1999. On theSpeed, the objective was missedabout six per cent of the time. Thatmeans that these two stretches ofriver can be stressful for aquaticlife.

Many of the occurrences of lowdissolved oxygen levels took placein very hot summers and duringperiods of low flow when the vol-ume of pollutants in the river ismore concentrated. When riverflows are higher and temperaturesare cooler, there were few instancesof low oxygen levels.

The low water response programin Guelph, which aims to reducewater use in dry periods, also helpsaddress this issue.

Other water quality monitoringstations, including those atBridgeport and Glen Morris,recorded relatively few violations ofthe objective.

Healthy fishin a healthy riverWhile much of the scientific

investigation into water qual-ity involves analysing water sam-ples, another way to judge waterquality is to look at the health ofthe creatures living in and near thewater.

A healthy river will supportmany different types of organisms,from small insects to prize-winninggame fish. Different species of fishand other aquatic life require differ-ent types of environments.Whether the water is warm or cool,murky or clear, will determine what

kind of organisms can survive in it.For example, brown trout prefer

oxygen-rich cold water. Carp andchannel cats can tolerate low dis-solved oxygen and turbid water.Therefore, the presence or absenceof certain types of fish will tell a lotabout the water quality in a particu-lar stretch of the river.

Many insects and other inverte-brate species behave in the sameway. A river that supports a richvariety of species is generally onethat is in good health.

A survey of aquatic insects donein 1999-2001 shows that theimpact of pollution on insects ismoderate.

The hard data on water quality isalso confirmed by the experience ofanglers and fish experts who haveseen a dramatic improvement in thenumber and range of high qualitysport fish in the past 20 years.

An emerging issue in theGrand River watershed is the

increase in chloride – salt – lev-els in the river and groundwatersystems.

Some chloride is in the waternaturally, but key sources ofchloride are road salt and watersofteners

Chloride levels in the GrandRiver watershed are generallyhigher downstream of urbanareas and they have been steadilyincreasing over the past 25 years.

Research by the Region ofWaterloo also shows higher lev-els of salt in groundwater, whichmakes its way into some of theregion’s wells. There is evidencethat it may take years, evendecades, for salt spread on the

surface to show up in the wells,therefore, the higher concentra-tions of chloride today reflectactivities that took place severalyears ago.

High concentrations of saltcan affect the taste of water.However, Waterloo Regionblends water from several wells,which serves to cut the concen-tration of the salt and eliminatetaste problems.

Many municipalities arechanging their procedures toreduce the amount of road saltthey use.

And the federal governmenthas declared road salt to be atoxic material, which meansfuture regulations will also curtailits use.

Going on a low-salt diet

The amount of chloride (salt) tends to increase downstream ofurban areas.

Oxygen, plants and fishThis graph shows the rise and fall of oxygen levels over three days inthe Grand River near Kitchener. Bridgeport is upstream of theKitchener sewage treatment plant and Blair is downstream. The efflu-ent contains nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrates, which act likefertilizers, encouraging plant and algae growth. Plants produce oxy-gen during the day, but consume it at night. High plant growthmeans lower oxygen levels. When oxygen levels get too low – belowfour milligrams per litre of water – fish can find it hard to findenough oxygen to survive.

Average chloride concentrations

Chl

orid

e co

ncen

tratio

n (m

g/L)

79.88

29.24

Region of Waterloo Elmira City of Guelph

26.54

84.64

22.41

101.50

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream

Bridgeport Blair Dissolved Oxygen Target

Dissolved oxygen

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n (m

g/L)




A study of the Grand River in1967 reported no smallmouth bassupstream of Brantford. Today, theyhave recolonized the Middle GrandRiver, between Brantford and WestMontrose, suggesting significantimprovements in water quality. Thesame is true of the world-classbrown trout fishery that has beenestablished in the Fergus-WestMontrose area.

Pike and smallmouth bass aredoing well in Belwood, Conestogoand Guelph lakes. They’re alsofinding homes in the upper GrandRiver headwaters in Wellington andDufferin counties. An emergingrainbow trout population in thesouthern Grand, in Haldimand andBrant counties, also points to betterwater quality.

However, there are still somequestions about the suitability ofsome stretches of the river as ahabitat for higher quality fish. Thesouthern Grand, near Dunnvilleand Port Maitland should be a

prime place for walleye, but popu-lations are not as high as would beexpected.

The rebirth of the fishery is justone sign of the rebirth of the riveritself. The Grand has come a longway since it was dismissed as an“open sewer” but faced with theprospect of high population growthand more intensive farming, it willbe a constant job to stay on top ofthe water quality issues facing theGrand River watershed.

Hundreds of farmers involvedin rural water quality projects

One of the best ways to ensure surface water andgroundwater is clean, is to attack pollution

problems right at the source.That’s the goal of the Rural Water Quality

Program, which provides financial assistance andtechnical advice to help rural landowners adoptfarming practices that protect water.

With proper best management practices in place,agriculture can be a source of clean water for allwater users, both rural and urban.

The program started as an initiative of WaterlooRegion and the GRCA in 1998. The region providedthe financial resources and the GRCA providedtechnical and administrative support.

Since then the program has spread to Guelph-Wellington and Brant-Brantford. Across the water-shed, all three levels of government plus two privatefoundations provide funding to rural water qualityprograms.

The program offers farmers partial grants to planttrees and build fences to establish buffer strips alongstreams, and construct manure storage tanks and fer-tilizer and fuel storage facilities. Farmers can also get

help with developing nutrient management plans,protecting wellheads and retiring environmentallyfragile lands. The grants range from 50 per cent to100 per cent of the cost, depending on the project.The landowner is expected to contribute the balanceby providing money, materials and labour.

Projects are developed by the farmers in conjunc-tion with technical advisers from the GRCA andthen must be approved by a peer review committee.

More than $6 million has been committed by vari-ous levels of government to the Rural Water QualityProgram since it first started in 1998. Major contri-butions have come from the Healthy Futures pro-gram of the Ontario government.

So far, about $3 million of government money hasbeen spent, with farmers contributing another $5million for a total of $8 million spent on more than825 water quality programs.

The projects include the construction of morethan 100 manure storage facilities and 115 fencesalong 55 kilometres of watercourse. The fences keepabout 4,000 livestock out of streams and rivers.Farmers have also planted trees on more than 460acres of streamside buffers and in groundwaterrecharge areas.

All of these activities help to keep nutrients, bac-teria and other contaminants out of the Grand Riverand its tributaries.

These photos show a farm stream before and after the construction of fencing to keep livestock out ofthe stream. Changes such as this produce real improvements in water quality and aquatic habitat.

A mussel-bound river is a good thingFreshwater mussels like clean

water, so a good way to deter-mine the health of a river is tocount mussels.

That’s what scientists at theNational Water Research Instituteand the University of Guelph dida few years ago. They studied thediversity and distribution offreshwater mussels and then com-

pared the information to datagathered about 30 years ago. (J.L.Metcalfe-Smith et al 2000)

They found that the musselpopulation has rebounded signifi-cantly since the 1970s when theGrand River was more seriouslyaffected by the effluent fromsewage treatment plants.

But plant upgrades since then

have led to a significant improve-ment in water quality, making theGrand a more hospitable placefor mussels.

Still, the researchers are con-cerned that the growing pressuresof urbanization and agriculturemay slow or stop the improve-ment in water quality that hastaken place in recent years.

Counting insectsSome species of aquatic insects are sensitive to water pollution, so ahigh diversity of insect species in a location is an indication of highwater quality.

Water quality improvementsmake the Grand a better placefor recreation.

Farmers help improve water




The riches of the Grand Rivervalley were obvious to thepioneers when they settled

here in the early 1800s.One of the greatest of its bless-

ings was the abundant water supplyprovided by the Grand River andthe aquifers below the surface.

The surface and groundwaterresources of the Grand River sup-port a population of more than800,000 people, thriving businessesand a farm community called an“agricultural nirvana” because of thequality of the soil, the favorable cli-mate and the access to market.

In fact, it is rare in Ontario for somany people to be so dependent onan inland river and groundwater.Most major cities in the province,such as Toronto, Hamilton, Londonand Windsor, rely on water fromthe Great Lakes.

Overall, about 80 per cent of thewater used in the Grand Riverwatershed comes from municipaland private wells. The remaining 20

per cent comes from surface water,principally the Grand River.(Cayuga and Caledonia get theirmunicipal water from Lake Ontario,while Dunnville gets its water fromLake Erie.)

In most cases, a municipality,business or individual who wants touse a large amount of ground orsurface water must get a permitfrom the Ontario Ministry ofEnvironment. This is called aPermit To Take Water.

In the Grand River watershedthere are more than 800 active per-mits allowing the holders to take atotal of about three million litres ofwater each day. (Not every permitholder takes the maximum amountall of the time. Consumption isaffected by weather, the season andother factors.)

Municipal systemstop water usersMunicipal water systems

account for the largest singleuse — about 43 per cent of thewater takings. Most of this isgroundwater, taken by Guelph,Waterloo Region and the townsand villages throughout the water-shed. Two communities –Brantford and Ohsweken in the SixNations Territory – take their watersolely from the Grand River.

There are thousands of privatewells throughout the watershedserving individual homes, farms andbusinesses. Permits are not neededfor residences or for watering live-stock.

Industrial uses, such as gravel pitoperations and factories with theirown water supply, account for 16

per cent of water use. Golf coursesare the largest commercial user,with water bottlers and other busi-nesses also fitting into this catego-ry; total commercial use is about 14per cent.

Agricultural uses for irrigationadd up to about 12 per cent of thewater used.

However, there are two impor-tant points about irrigation. First,much of the irrigation is concen-trated in the sandy regions of Brant,Oxford and Norfolk counties in thesouthwestern portion of the water-shed. Second, most of the irrigationtends to take place during July andAugust, so that can put a heavydemand on the aquifers and streams(such as Whiteman’s and McKenzieCreeks) that flow through the sandplain. At its peak, agricultural usecan occasionally be as great asmunicipal use.

While the water resources of theGrand River watershed have servedus well, two critical issues have tobe addressed if we are going tocontinue to count on them.

Water supply: enough to go around

Big water usersCanadians use more waterthan residents of almost allother industrialized countries.

Water Quantity Issues

Water Supply

❑ About 80 per cent of thewater used in the Grand Riverwatershed comes from wells.

❑ Canadians are among thegreatest users of water in theworld: 343 litres per person aday.

❑ Domestic water use in Canadarose five per cent between1996 and 1999.

❑ Many municipalities in theGrand watershed have waterconservation and outsidewater use programs.

❑ In the City of Waterloo, partof Waterloo Region, conserva-tion efforts cut domestic wateruse by 13 per cent between1991 and 1999.

❑ Surface water enters theground through loose orsandy soils to rechargegroundwater systems. In theGrand River watershed about80 per cent of the rechargetakes place in 30 per cent ofthe territory.

Flooding

❑ Many cities and towns in theGrand River watershed arelocated in the floodplain, mak-ing them susceptible to highwater.

❑ A series of floods in the early1900s led to the constructionof a network of reservoirs tohold back spring runoff andreduce flood damages.

❑ The urrent value of all thereservoirs, dikes and otherflood control structures is esti-mated to be about $250 mil-lion.

❑ Flood control structures, floodforecasting and warning pro-grams have reduced annualflood damages by about $5million a year.

❑ There are about 8,800 struc-tures in the floodplain of theGrand river and its tributaries,which means there is still ahigh potential for damageduring a flood.

Drought

❑ During a drought in the1930s, the flow of the GrandRiver through Kitchener wasabout one cubic metre persecond.

❑ Using water from its reser-voirs, the GRCA is able tomaintain a flow of about 10cubic metres per secondthrough Kitchener. It maintainsa flow of 17 cubic metres persecond through Brantford,which gets all of its drinkingwater from the Grand.

❑ In 2002, when conditionswere similar to the 1930s,there were times when 95 percent of the water flowing inthe Grand at Kitchener wascoming from GRCA reservoirs.

❑ Conservation measures torespond to the low water situ-ation in 2002 were adoptedby farmers, golf course opera-tors, gravel pit operators andmunicipalities.

Water quantity facts



First is the amount of waterwe use. Second is copingwith issues raised by the highrate of population growth andagricultural intensification.

Canadians are among thegreatest users of water in theworld. In fact, only the U.S.uses more water per person,than Canada.

One reason is thatCanadians pay less for theirwater than residents in mostother industrialized countries,says a report by researchers atthe University of Victoria inBritish Columbia. (“Flushingthe future? Examining UrbanWater Use in Canada,” OliverM. Brandes with KeithFerguson)

The report says the aver-age Canadian served by amunicipal water system usesabout 343 litres of water aday. That’s double the rate inmost of Europe where con-sumption is about 150 to 200litres per day.

And while water use issteady, or even shrinking, inmany countries, it has beenrising in Canada. The studyfound that domestic water userose five per cent per capitain Canada between 1996 and1999.

However, there is goodnews from the Grand Riverwatershed. Perhaps becausethe urban and rural communi-ties of the watershed rely ona limited supply of water,there has been a greateremphasis on water conserva-tion here.

Several municipalities haveimplemented water conserva-tion programs targeting out-door water use and to encour-age use of low-flush toilets.

For example, the Region ofWaterloo, which is heavilydependent on groundwater,has a program to reducewater consumption by about10 per cent by 2009.

It has promoted toilet-replacement programs forseveral years.

Most recently it targetedthe village of Ayr whereabout 700 new toilets wereinstalled, which save as muchas the total water used by 100households.

Conservation efforts haveproduced significant results inanother part of WaterlooRegion, too. The Universityof Victoria study ranked 20

Canadian cities on their wateruse and found that the Cityof Waterloo is one of themost efficient in the country.

In Waterloo, residentialwater use totals just 215 litresper person per day, whichputs the city seventh from thetop on the national list. Thatcompares to the Ontarioaverage of 290 litres per dayand a national average of 343litres per day. (By compari-son, the average residentialconsumption in the top cityin the survey wasCharlottetown at 156 litresper person. At the other endof the scale, residential wateruse in St. John’s, Nfld. was659 litres per person per day.)

The study also found thatdomestic consumption in theCity of Waterloo droppedabout 13 per cent between1991 and 1999.

In Guelph, a water conser-vation program has resultedin savings of almost 50 litresper person per day as a resultof reductions in residential,industrial and institutationalsettings.

Reducingwater useMost urban areas in the

watershed are coveredby outdoor water use bylawsgoverning lawn watering, carwashing and other uses.Waterloo Region, Guelph,Guelph-Eramosa Township,Brantford, Brant County,Fergus, Elora, Oxford County,Haldimand County andHamilton all have bylaws.

These programs can pro-duce dramatic results. During2002, amid a dry spell thatlasted about two months, theCity of Guelph imposed a banon lawn watering. The cityfound that water consumptiondropped about 30 per centduring that time.

One reason that conserva-tion is so important in theGrand River watershed isbecause of its high rate ofgrowth.

The watershed has a popu-lation of more than 800,000people and is adding another100,000 every decade, withmost of the growth concen-trated in the major cities ofGuelph, Waterloo, Kitchener,Cambridge and Brantford.

These cities also happen to

be located near the richestgroundwater sources in thewatershed.

The central part of thewatershed is covered withmoraines – hills made up ofloose soils with high levels ofsand and gravel.

When snow melts or rainfalls, the water soaks into theground, which feeds, or“recharges” the aquifers belowground.

Some of the water feedsshallow aquifers and eventual-ly feeds coldwater springs, orseeps directly into rivers andstreams, providing them witha source of cold, clear water,even in summertime.

The rest of the water makesits way into deeper aquifers,where it feeds the municipalwells serving Guelph,Kitchener, Waterloo,Cambridge and many othercommunities.

In fact, about 80 per cent ofthe groundwater recharge

takes place in just 30 per centof the land area of the water-shed. Thus, it is importantthat the functions of thesemoraines and sand plains bepreserved in the future if thegroundwater and surface watersystems are to be protected.

Each of the major cities ofthe watershed is growing intoa major recharge area. Howdo we deal with this, with allof the pavement and drainageassociated with urban devel-opment?

We can either learn how tobuild our communities so thatthe water continues to enterthe ground and that it goes inas clean as it can be. Or wecan develop our cities inanother direction.

The water resources of theGrand River watershed havemade this region one of therichest, most dynamic parts ofCanada.

If that is to continue, theywill have to be used wisely.

Keeping the rivers flowingThese pie charts show the proportion of natural flow andreservoir water in the Grand and Speed Rivers at keylocations in the watershed during recent drought years.

Watertaking permitsThere are more than 800 active watertakings in thewatershed. They include municipalities, farm irrigators,golf courses, aggregate producers and industry.

Groundwater rechargeWhen snow melts or rain falls, some of the water makesits way into the ground where it recharges wells andfeeds coldwater springs. Soils that are loose and sandylet more water into the ground. The areas marked in redon this map are the places that are the most importantwhen it comes to groundwater recharge. In the GrandRiver watershed, about 80 per cent of the groundwaterrecharge takes place in 30 per cent of the territory.


Doon

Guelph

Brantford

Grand Valley

Every spring, residents of theGrand River watershed turn acautious eye to the closest

river or stream, watching and won-dering if this will be the year whenthere’s another big flood.

The Grand River system is proneto flooding. The size and shape ofthe watershed, its soil types, thesize of the cities, the amount offarmed land, the loss of wetlands –all of these make flooding a possi-bility every year.

Floods in the Grand River water-shed always carry with them thethreat of significant danger to peo-ple and property.

That’s because many of ourlargest communities were built inthe floodplain of the Grand and itstributaries. The founders of Elora,Cambridge, Brantford, NewHamburg, Dunnville and othercommunities picked their town sitesbecause they were close to riversproviding water, transportation andpower for industry.

Over the years, other humanactivity has made the problemworse. We have so transformed theGrand River watershed that manyof the natural systems, which wouldhave moderated the frequency andseverity of floods, no longer exist.

Before the watershed was opened

to European settlement two cen-turies ago, it was a land of forestsand wetlands. However, within afew generations, the forests werecut down, many of the wetlandsdrained or filled, with cities andfarm fields covering the land.

The impact has been dramatic.The lack of forest cover means thewinter snows melt sooner, allowingthe water to rush off the land in ashorter period of time. Summer rainfalls directly onto the ground,rather than onto a canopy of leaves.

Rural drains carry water off thefields, so it no longer sits in lowspots or soaks into the ground.Most of the marshes and swampsare gone and so is their function asnatural reservoirs.

Urban growthadds to floodingLast, but not least, there is the

impact of urban development.Water rushes off paved streets intostorm sewers and then into theriver. Our cities have crowded theriver, reducing the number of placeswhere it can safely overspill itsbanks.

The effects of these changes inthe landscape started to be felt inthe late 1800s and early 1900s.

Floods occurred more often and thefloodwaters would rise higher andhigher. Some cities were visited bydevastating floods every couple ofyears.

Floodwaters in 1929 damagedbridges and flooded a mile ofWater Street in Cambridge (Galt).Damage to industrial buildings inGuelph was set at hundreds ofthousands of dollars. The Penmanfactory in Paris was flooded and ahouse demolished. In Brantford icefloes were scattered through thelower parts of the city and thewaterworks were damaged.

The costs of the floods and thecost of building dikes and otherprotective works rose year afteryear. In the 1930s, the people ofthe watershed looked for betterways to deal with the problem.

The increasing frequency andseverity of flooding led to the cre-ation of the Grand RiverConservation Commission in 1938.One of its first major projects wasthe construction of the Shand Dam,upstream of Fergus. This dam wasdesigned with two functions inmind: first, to hold back the springfloodwaters and reduce damagesand, second, to store that wateruntil the summer so it could bereleased slowly to keep the riverflowing.

However, spring isn’t the only

season for floods. Hurricane Hazelswept through southern Ontario inOctober 1954. Hundreds of housesand businesses in the Grand Riverwatershed were inundated.

Following Hurricane Hazel, theconstruction of dams and reservoirstook on a new urgency. LutherDam, near Grand Valley, was com-pleted in 1952, followed byConestogo Dam, near Drayton, in1958. The program continued withWoolwich Dam (Elmira) in 1974and Guelph Dam in 1976. Severalother smaller reservoirs were addednear Damascus, Waterloo andCambridge during the 1960s and1970s.

The reservoirs were strategicallysited in the areas which contribute

most of the floodwaters.The landscape of the northern

and western side of the watershedis marked by dense, clay soils.During spring runoff and rain-storms, water runs off this landquickly, feeding the Conestogo,Upper Grand and Speed Rivers.

By the time all of these riversconverge in Kitchener andCambridge, flows in the main chan-nel of the Grand can rise a greatdeal in a very short period of time.

The reservoir network plays acritical role in protecting the GrandRiver watershed. During the spring,the reservoirs are filled up withsnowmelt and rainwater. In somecases, floods can be avoided alto-gether; in others, damages and the

PA G E 1 0 – T H E G R A N D WAT E R S H E D R E P O R T 2 0 0 3


Floods: constanteffort requiredto reduce impact

Galt in the 1930sFlooding was so common in the first half of the 20th century thatmany people took the small ones in stride.

Brantford in May 1974Much of Brantford was inundated in May 1974, one of the worst floods to hit the watershed. This area, inthe Eagle Place neighbourhood of Brantford, is now protected by dikes.

The floodplainMany communities in the Grand River watershed are built in thefloodplain, making them vulnerable to high water.


extent of flooding can be reduced.Over the summer, the water is

gradually released to maintain mini-mum flows in the river. By the fall,they again have plenty of storagecapacity available to deal with ahurricane or other major storm.

Dikes play an important role inlimiting flood damages, too. Somecommunities started building dikesin the 1800s and early 1900s. Manyof the older dikes do a good job ofdealing with the normal rise ofwater in the spring, though theyare not high enough to deal withfloods of the magnitude that wouldaccompany a hurricane.

New dike systems, such as thosebuild in Brantford and Cambridge(Galt) during the 1970s and 1980swere designed to withstand a stormof that size, which is called a“regional storm.” In some cases,river channelization projects, whichallow the river to carry more water,are done in conjunction with dikeconstruction.

Other waysto limit damagesDikes and dams are the “structur-

al” answers to flood protection.In addition, there are “non-structur-al” ways of dealing with flooding.

First, there are limitations onconstruction in the flood plain,which is defined as the area thatwould be flooded in the event of a“regional storm” of the magnitudeof Hurricane Hazel.

About 10 per cent of the landarea of the watershed is in thefloodplain. In most places, con-struction of new buildings in theflood plain is banned, and there aresome limitations on renovations toold ones. In cities where new dikesystems have been built in recentyears, some construction is allowedin protected areas.

Second, the GRCA has devel-oped a sophisticated flood forecast-ing system. Every day of the year,the GRCA gathers information

from weather forecasts, seven man-ual and 14 automated weather sta-tions, 36 river level stations andregular field surveys of snowbuildup and soil conditions. Thisinformation is fed into a computermodel of the watershed and used topredict when, where and how highthe rivers will get.

With that information, theGRCA can issue flood warnings towatershed residents and municipali-ties, who can then take appropriateaction to protect themselves andtheir property.

Annual savingstotal $5 millionOver the years, the investment

in flood protection works, theforecasting model and the warningsystem have been considerable. Thevalue of all the river works —dams, dikes, channelization proj-ects, etc. — is about $250 millionin current dollars.

However, the investment paysoff every year in reduced propertydamage and reduced threat tohuman life. In property damagealone, the GRCA estimates that theflood protection system reducesannual property damages by morethan $5 million. And that’s to saynothing about the potential loss oflife and health risks to entire com-munities that could accompany amajor flood.

Although planning controls limitthe number of new buildings thatcan be constructed in the floodplain, there are more than 8,800older buildings that remain vulnera-ble.

There are new issues to dealwith, too. A new complication is

the nubmer of seasonal and recre-ational facilities that have beendeveloped in the floodplain.

As the Grand has been revital-ized over the past decades, it hasbecome a more inviting place tovisit and play. That means there aremore seasonal and recreationalfacilities, such as trailer parks, golfcourses and playgrounds in thefloodplain.

For all that has been done overthe generations to cope with flood-ing, the threat is – and always willbe – a concern in the Grand Riverwatershed.

First, there are watercourses thatdo not have reservoirs, such as theNith and Eramosa Rivers. Indeed,some smaller watercourses can bebrought to flood conditions bylocal, isolated summer storms.

Second, ice jams are a threatthroughout the watershed. A majorice jam in Brantford in 1996brought the Grand River to withina foot (0.3 metre) of the top of thedike. About 5,000 people were

preparing to evacuate when the icejam receded.

Third, there is always the riskthat something could break down.Most of the older dikes in theGrand River watershed have failedat one time or another and there isalways the possibility it could hap-pen again.

Finally, there is always theunknown. The best flood protec-tion works in the watershed arebuilt to handle the kind of stormsthat hit every 100 years or so. Butwhat if a storm of even greatermagnitude were to strike?

The residents of the Grand Riverwatershed have wrestled withflooding issues for more than a cen-tury. The dikes, dams and forecast-ing systems offer a high degree ofprotection to the people and theirproperty.

But the risk of flooding willalways remain and so too will thejobs of predicting, warning andprotecting.

WAT E R S H E D R E P O R T 2 0 0 3 PA G E 1 1 – T H E G R A N D


Keeping back the watersReservoirs and dikes are some of the tools used to control flood dam-ages in the Grand River watershed. The reservoirs capture the watercoming from the areas shaded in green.

At riskAlmost every corner of the watershed has experienced floods overthe years. The areas marked in grey are areas with dense soils,which contribute a lot of runoff to the Grand River system.

Flood plain structuresThere are more than 8,800structures in the flood plain ofthe Grand River and its tribu-taries, which means the poten-tial for damage in a majorflood remains high.


Guelph Dam

Shand Dam

Luther Dam

Conestogo Dam

Woolwich Dam

Laurel CreekDam

Shades MIlls Dam

There were days, during thelong hot summer of 2002,when it seemed like it might

never rain again.July and August of last year were

among the driest months on recordin most of the Grand River water-shed. During the last two weeks ofAugust, GRCA weather stationsnear Fergus, Elmira, Waterloo andCambridge recorded only a fewmillimetres of rain — hardlyenough to wet down the dust.

And the dry summer of 2002 wasjust one in a string stretching backto 1997. During that time, precipi-tation across the watershed wasdown considerably. At Shand Dam,near Fergus, total precipitation overthat period was down about 11 percent, which translates into about

600 mm (two feet) of rain. Thatshortfall is equivalent to abouteight months worth of rain.

The recent drought has had animpact on watershed residents andbusinesses.

Most cities have imposed con-trols on outside water use, such aslawn watering and car washing.Businesses such as gravel pits andgolf courses have reduced theirwater use. Farmers, particularlythose working the sandy soils ofBrant and Oxford counties, wereasked to reduce the amount ofwater they were using for irrigation.Anglers were asked to stop fishingin coldwater streams such as MillCreek (Cambridge) andWhiteman’s Creek (Brant).

This wasn’t the first time the

Grand River watershed has been hitby a drought of this length andseverity. There were similardroughts in the 1930s and the1960s.

But what sets the latest episodeapart from the earlier ones is thatthe GRCA and the people of theGrand River watershed were farbetter prepared to deal with themost serious implications of watershortages.

The Grand River never stoppedflowing in 2002, in contrast to the1930s when that’s exactly whathappened.

Hugh Templin wrote about thedrought of the 1930s in an articlepublished in Maclean’s Magazineon Jan. 1, 1937.

The Grand River itself stoppedflowing between its source, nearDundalk, to Fergus, about 80 kilo-metres.

In Kitchener, the flow wasreduced to less than one cubicmetre per second, compared tospringtime flows hundreds of timeshigher.

Reservoirs builtto store waterThe drought of the 1930s

inspired the residents of theGrand River watershed to takeaction.

The Grand River ConservationCommission (the forerunner oftoday’s GRCA) was formed in 1938.As its first major project it built theShand Dam near Fergus, creatingBelwood Lake which was designedto store spring runoff for releasegradually over the summer months.

From the 1950s to the 1970smajor reservoirs were built atLuther Marsh, Conestogo Lake andGuelph Lake. Smaller reservoirs wasalso added in Waterloo, Elmira, andCambridge.

The reservoirs are operated toensure that minimum flow targetsare met at key spots.

One goal is to ensure there isenough water in the river to prop-erly receive the effluent frommunicipal sewage treatment plants.The other goal is to make surethere is enough water to allowBrantford and Ohsweken to takethe water they need for their com-munities.

The network was put to the testin 2002. At times during the sum-mer, about 95 per cent of the waterflowing through the Grand atKitchener came from GRCA reser-voirs. At Brantford, reservoir wateraccounted for more than 80 of theGrand River’s flow. In Guelph, thereservoir produced 75 per cent ofthe flow in the Speed River.

The GRCA was able to maintainflows of about 10 cubic metres persecond through Kitchener during2002. (That is about 10 times theflow in the river noted by Templinduring the drought of the 1930s.)

Other steps were taken in 2002to respond to the recent drought.For example, farmers in theWhiteman’s Creek area, nearBrantford, formed an irrigationadvisory committee to make bestuse of the available water. Golfcourse operators, gravel pit ownersand others adapted their water usestrategies to share the burden.

Although the drought was mostnoticeable in low flows in the rivers

and streams, it is important toinvolve well users in droughtresponse plans, because there is astrong relationship between thesurface water and groundwater sys-tems of the watershed. Somegroundwater leaves the groundthrough springs that feed rivers andstreams helping to maintain baseflows in the watercourses. Lowstreamflos are a good indicator oflow groundwater levels.

This year, 2003, has been wetterthan 2002, but that doesn’t meanthe effects of the drought are over.

Much of the rainfall in the sum-mer of 2003 came from short, local-ized cloudbursts. In these kinds ofstorms, water will run off quickly,raising river levels but not con-tributing much to the groundwatersystem.

And given the deficit of the lastfive years, it may take months oreven a few years of wet weather torestore some groundwater systemsto normal levels.



Ready for summerGuelph Lake reservoir is part of the network of reservoirs maintainedby the GRCA to store water in the spring for release during dry peri-ods of the summer.

Paris in the summerThe Grand River dried up to a trickle along much of its length in1936. Although 2002 was equally dry, the rivers continued to flowwith water from GRCA reservoirs.

Drought: watershed is readyto handle low water conditions

Low water conditionsMost parts of the Grand River watershed were affected by low flowconditions in 2002. This map shows the conditions in different sub-watersheds.




❑ Early settlers cleared awaymost of the Grand River forest.By the end of the 19th centuryonly about five or six per centof the forest remained.

❑ About 65 per cent of the wet-lands across the watershedwere eliminated. In someareas, wetland loss reached85 per cent.

❑ The loss of forest cover result-ed in the loss of some species,such as wolf, black bear,cougar, bobcat and lynx.

❑ The Grand River watershedmakes up less than one percent of the land area ofOntario but is home to 37 percent (80 species) of the at-riskspecies in the province.

❑ The shortage of “big block”

forests in the watershedaccounts for some of thethreats to plant and animalspecies that need lots of terri-tory and the cooler, darkerand more remote area of aforest interior.

❑ The GRCA has planted morethan 26 million trees in areforestation effort dating back60 years.

❑ The GRCA owns 4,115hectares of naturally forestedproperty and has assisted withthe reforestation of 8,500hectares, including 5,500hectares of GRCA land and3,000 hectares of privateland.

❑ Less than three per cent of thewatershed consists of publiclyowned forest. Another seven

per cent of environmentallysensitive land, much of it pri-vate, is protected by municipalregulations.

❑ As a result of reforestationefforts and natural regenera-tion about 19 per cent of thewatershed is now forested.Environment Canada recom-mends that a healthy water-shed have 30 per cent forestcover.

❑ Vegetation along a river orstream helps water quality butonly about 26 per cent of theriver banks in the Grandwatershed are vegetated.

❑ Urban trees are recognized asa way to combat pollution,cool neighbourhoods andkeep cities quieter.

Land resources: key to healthy watershedThere is more to a watershed

than water. Much more. Thehealth of a river is intimately

tied to the health of the naturalareas surrounding it – the forests,wetlands, hills and fields that shapethe river, define it and give it direc-tion.

The characteristics of the landalso determine, to a large extent,the amount and quality of the waterin the river.

We have learned in the GrandRiver watershed what can happento a river when the landscape isradically reshaped. Unless we guardthe land, we have little chance ofprotecting the river.

When the first European settlers

arrived in the Grand River valleyabout 200 years ago, they found alandscape that had been sparselysettled.

Forests and wetlands coveredmost of the watershed. In the mid-dle regions — Waterloo, Brant,Norfolk and Haldimand — stretch-es of savannah and prairie grasslandinterrupted the deciduous forest.

It was a particularly rich and var-ied landscape. The Grand Riverwatershed is long enough that itstretches through two major forestzones.

The northern half, aboveCambridge, is part of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence zone. Here canbe found plant and animals species

that have reached the southernlimit of their range with forests fea-turing sugar maple, white ash, east-ern hemlock, white pine and east-ern white cedar.

South of Cambridge, the moder-ating effect of the Great Lakesallow species to thrive that are typi-cally found in the Carolinas in theU.S. In the Carolinian zone, alongwith maples and ash, can be foundCarolinian species such as blackwalnut, oaks, hickories and evenuncommon species such as sassafrasand sycamore.

However, when the settlerslooked at the highly productiveland they understandably saw theforests and wetlands as a source of

raw materials to be harvested or ahindrance to their plans to farm theland. They struggled over genera-tions to clear the forests and drainthe wetlands.

By the end of the 19th century,the transformation from forest tofarmland was virtually complete.Only an estimated five or six per

cent of the watershed remainedunder forest cover. It had beenpushed back from all sides, leavinga patchwork of thousands of small,isolated woodlots and fencerows.The only large blocks of forestremaining were in those areas thatwere too wet, too hilly or too rockyto farm.

Land resource facts

The changing landscape of the Grand River watershed

These two photos show some of the changes that have taken place in the Grand River watershed over the past century. These picturesshow a road intersection east of Rockwood. The picture on the left shows a relatively treeless area and was taken about a century ago.The one on the right, taken during the 1990s, shows the new tree growth that has taken place as a result of reforestation and naturalregeneration. (Photo at right courtesy of Virgil Martin)

Land Resource Issues



In most places, trees and vegeta-tion were cut down right to thewater’s edge – an area known as the“riparian zone” – eliminating animportant buffer between field andstream. Riverside trees shelter wateragainst the hot summer sun, keep-ing the water cooler. Vegetationsoaks up nutrients, preventing themfrom entering the water. Trees andbushes also hold the soil in place,reducing erosion. When the naturalvegetation in the riparian zone isreduced, it can lead to warmer, silti-er and more polluted water.

The loss of wetlands was dramat-ic, too. Wetlands are an especiallyrich environment, supporting awide variety of plant and animalspecies. They also play an impor-tant role in watershed health, byfiltering polluted water and byholding back water that would oth-erwise fill the river in the spring.Since settlement began, about 65per cent of the watershed’s wetlandshave disappeared, with the figurerising as high as 85 per cent insome areas.

Loss of habitataffects speciesWith the loss of forest and wet-

land habitat in the 1800s,many wildlife species requiringlarge expanses of forest disap-peared, including the timber wolf,black bear, cougar, bobcat and lynx.Other species survived, but justbarely – southern flying squirrel,eastern mole, Jefferson’s salamander,and a whole group of forest birdssuch as the Acadian flycatcher andthe prothonotary warbler. Tree andplant species that were already rare,became more so.

The effects were felt by thehuman inhabitants of the water-shed, too. Fresh coldwater springsthat had been a reliable source ofwater soon dried up after forestclearing. As the frontier expandednorthward into the swampy head-water areas, flow in the tributariesof the Grand was drastically affect-ed.

Spring floods grew more menac-

ing and more frequent and duringsummer the river was often reducedto a trickle.

By the 1930s, it was no longerpossible to count on the river formuch, except as a place to dumpbarely-treated sewage. This led tohealth concerns in river communi-ties, particularly those, such asBrantford, which draw water fromthe river.

The effects of water shortagesand soil erosion were felt on water-shed farms. Some farmers aban-doned their properties, which weresoon taken over by local municipal-ities where they became the site ofreforestation efforts.

In the 1930s and 1940s seriousefforts began to be made toincrease forest cover through activereforestation. In addition, theGrand River ConservationCommission – a forerunner of theGRCA – was created to addresswater supply issues.

It also became involved in refor-estation programs as one way torestore some natural balance to theriver system.

Over the years, the GRCA hasplayed a significant role in thereestablishment and management of

forested areas. The GRCA owns4,115 hectares of naturally forestedproperty and has assisted with thereforestation of 8,500 hectares,including 5,500 hectares of GRCA

land and more than 3,000 hectaresof private land.

The GRCA has planted morethan 26 million trees over the years.Municipal government, provincialagencies (notably the Ministry ofNatural Resources), private indus-try, service clubs, communitygroups and individual landownershave all participated in the reforest-ing of parts of the watershed.

Public role criticalin reforestation

In fact, public involvement is akey element of reforestation effortsin the Grand River watershed. Lessthan three per cent of the water-shed consists of publicly-ownedforestland. An additional seven percent, much of it privately owned, isprotected by municipal regulations.

That means that continuing thereforestation of the watersheddepends a great deal on theinvolvement of landowners whoown unprotected land.

Overall, the extent of forestcover over the past 70 years hasincreased rather dramatically, dueprimarily to natural regrowth onabandoned or marginal farmland.

The Back 40In most of the watershed, theonly remaining stands of treesare the woodlots often foundalong the back edges of farmproperties. The pattern showsclearly in this map of theConestogo Lake region.

Because of its size and location, the Grand Riverwatershed is home to a large number of species-at-

risk.It makes up less than one per cent of Ontario yet is

home to 37 per cent (80 species) of the at-riskspecies in the province.

Here are some of them.

Mammal - American badgerLocation: Brant,

Haldimand, NorfolkCauses for concern:

Habitat fragmentation,reduction in prey,increase in agriculture,isolated from otherpopulations.

Population: Up to 200 individuals in southwesternOntario.

Amphibian - Jefferson SalamanderLocation: Most of the

Grand watershedCauses for concern:

Loss of wetlands anddestruction of forests;killed on roads dur-ing migration

Population: Unknown

Bird - Acadian flycatcherLocation: Brant, Haldimand,

Norfolk, Hamilton,Oxford, Waterloo

Causes for concern: Loss ofhabitat due to urban andrural development

Population: About 20 to 30pairs

Fish - Eastern sand darterLocation: Brant, Haldimand, Norfolk, OxfordCauses for concern: Siltation, dams preventing

migrationPopulation: Small number

Plant - Red mulberryLocation: HaltonCauses for concern: Habitat loss, small popula-

tions, hybridization with white mulberry, twigblight

Population: 200 trees

Reptile - Black rat snakeLocation: Brant, Haldimand,

Norfolk, WentworthCauses for concern: disturbance

of winter hibernation areasPopulation: Unknown

A shortage of big blocksWhen the Grand River watershed was cleared in the 1800s, few bigblocks of forest remained. This had a significant impact on waterquality and flows, and also on wildlife that need interior forest spacethat is at least 100 metres from the outside edge.

Species at risk in the Grand watershed




At present, about 19 per cent ofthe Grand River watershed isforested, an increase of three timesfrom what it was in the early 20thcentury.

That doesn’t include what iscalled the “urban forest,” the treesthat line city streets and fill yardsand parks. The size and importanceof the urban forest is a newer areaof scientific investigation, but thereis no doubt that trees make citiesmore livable by moderating waterflows, cleaning the air, bufferingnoise, keeping houses cooler andproviding wildlife habitat.

Still, for all of the efforts under-taken in the past century, the forestcover of the Grand River watershedremains far below the 30 per centforest coverage, which Environ-ment Canada suggests is necessaryfor a healthy watershed. The rec-ommended level is reached in someparts of the watershed, notably in

the Eramosa River region east ofGuelph; but in other parts of thewatershed, notably along the west-ern side, the amount of forest coverremains far below the watershedaverage.

Generally, the watershed forest ishighly fragmented, with manysmall forests and too few linkagesbetween them. In some parts of thewatershed, natural forests are con-fined to low-lying areas, meaningthat swamps may be well represent-ed in that area, but upland forestsare not.

Only a small number of savannahand prairie areas exist.

Also under-represented are “bigblock forests” which are defined asforests with an interior that is atleast 100 metres from the edge.There are only about 12 forests inthe entire watershed of more than32 hectares, and only one greaterthan 72 hectares.

There is also a shortage of “ripar-ian” forest cover, which refers tothe forest lining rivers and streams.These play an important role inkeeping water cool, preventing ero-sion and soaking up nutrientsbefore they get into the water.

The Grand River and all of itstributaries have a total of about22,650 kilometres of shoreline(counting both banks of each riverand stream). Of that shoreline, onlyabout 26 per cent is vegetated, andin some areas, the figure is farlower.

The pattern for shoreline vegeta-tion is quite similar to general for-est cover. The east side of thewatershed, along the Eramosa andsections of the Speed, has retainedmuch of its forest cover, althoughmuch of it was pastured up to themid-1900s. About 52 per cent ofthe Speed-Eramosa riverbank is stillcovered with vegetation. (Thoseareas of the Speed and Eramosaalso rate in the “good” category forwater quality.)

But the amount of vegetatedshoreline is quite low in the west-ern and southern portions. Only 15per cent of the Conestogo Rivershoreline is vegetated, and only 21per cent of the Lower Grand hascover.

Urban growthaffects forestsAs our cities grow they continue

to affect remaining, large foresttracts on their outskirts. In addi-tion, the practice of cutting housingbuilding lots out of forests hasresulted in a loss of “interior” forest,threatening those species that needthe space, isolation and cooler tem-peratures associated with a largeblock of forest. The result is anincrease in the proportion of “edge”space – the place where forestmeets the field – further favouringspecies that are already abundant.

For example, red-shoulderedhawks, which require interior space,

are now rare visitors to the GrandRiver watershed. In their place canbe found red-tailed hawks, whichprefer living in an edge habitat.This loss of diversity, in both plantand animal life, has affected virtual-ly every corner of the watershed.

In fact, the Grand River water-shed makes up less than one percent of Ontario yet is home to 37per cent (80 species) of the at-riskspecies in the province.

The woodlots being lost todayare often high quality, older forests.New, more recently planted forests,are probably decades away fromproviding the same kind of habitatas those being lost.

Thus, given current trends, rem-nants of original forest can onlyhold their ground, at best; morerealistically, we can expect they willcontinue to diminish in area.

Plants that are native to thewatershed also face competitionfrom species that have been intro-duced, deliberately or accidentally,over the past two centuries. TheNorway maple, for example, iscommonly planted in parks, streetsand backyards. In a forest setting,

though, the dense shade it providescan block others species from sur-viving, including native sugarmaples and woodland plants.Similarly, garlic mustard, intro-duced for culinary use, is now aserious weed in open forests andhas taken space away from nativespring wildflowers.

More protectionfor wetlandsWetlands have been given

more protection in recentyears by provincial and municipallegislation, as well as a new wetlandpolicy approved by the GRCA in2002.

However, some wetlands are notcovered by legislation or regula-tions, so wetlands are still beinglost, and along with them theimportant functions they have incleaning water, reducing floodingand acting as a habitat to numerousplant and animal species.

The watershed forest has made aremarkable recovery during the lasttwo generations, and wetlands nowhave a greater measure of protec-tion than ever before.

The magnitude of the recovery iseven more dramatic when measuredagainst the clearcutting and landuse conversion which took placeduring the 1800s.

From that point of a view, thestory is one of success.

But the amount of forest andwetlands we have is not enough tomaintain a healthy watershed intothe future. From that point of view,the story is one of a great challengeand opportunity for coming generations.

Shady river, better waterA line of trees and vegetation along the edge of a river, known asthe riparian zone, shelters the water to keep it cool, reduces erosionand intercepts runoff from adjacent fields. All of these help to keepriver water healthy.

Forests face new threats and oldDisease and insects: Several species have been hit hard by these

predators, such as the American elm and the sweet chestnut. (One ofthe last remaining stands of chestnut is near the GRCA tree nursery inBurford which is re-introducing the trees throughout the watershed.)

Drought: the last five years of drought have caused some direct loss-es and weakened other trees, leaving them vulnerable to disease andinsects.

Urban pressures: Road salt, excessive ground-level ozone, highnitrogen levels, compacted soil, altered drainage and acid rain caninjure trees or leave them open to attack from insects and disease.

Riparian watercoursesThis map shows the extent of “riparian vegetation” in the watershed,which means vegetation along a river or stream. There is little ripari-an vegetation in the Conestogo River valley and along creeks east ofBrantford, creating problems with erosion and runoff. Areas northand east of Guelph still have strong riparian cover, which helps keepthe Eramosa and Speed Rivers cool and clean.


L e a r n m o r e a b o u t t h e G r a n d R i v e r C o n s e r v a t i o n F o u n d a t i o n a t w w w . g r a n d r i v e r . c a

Documents

Distribution 200,000 copies Watershed Report · 2016. 2. 2. · Distribution 200,000 copies GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2003 FALL REPORT News for Brantford, Cambridge, Guelph,