Working NEAR WATER:
a cautionary tale

Are you planning some landscaping work on or near a creek, pond, or wetland? Be aware that the work will likely require a permit from your Conservation Authority. Depending on your proposal, the work may not be allowed, or, will be permitted only with strict environmental conditions.

I regularly get calls from panicked landowners who, for one reason or another, elected to work near water without permits. They’ve been caught “redhanded” and now require emergency assistance in dealing with stop work orders, violation notices, fines, and remediation requirements from their C.A.
Neglecting to obtain permits can have dire consequences, as witnessed in the following true cautionary tale.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

John (not his real name) owns a large tract of land on the Oak Ridges Moraine in King Township. It’s a “postcard-pretty” property that typifies the King landscape, a bucolic tract of gently rolling meadows backing onto forest and framed by ancient hedgerows, with long views across green hills and valleys.

A small, slow moving and meandering creek runs along the northern edge of the property, next to a busy concession road. It wasn’t much to look at, a natural ditch with eroded banks and overhanging grasses, hardly noticeable as it wound its way through the fields.

A few years ago, John had a vision for his property. Wishing to recreate a naturalistic, Romantic-era, rural British landscape of his childhood, he embarked on an ambitious landscape project. John considers himself environment- friendly, and he had good intentions. While protecting all existing trees, he seeded some lawn and planted new native trees and shrubs. And, he
decided to “improve” his creek to complement the landscape.

John was vaguely aware that there are rules and regulations - and sometimes permits to be had - when it comes to working near water, but since he had no desire to alter the creek’s alignment, or to interfere with water flows, he assumed he was in the clear. His project, so he thought, would actually
improve the environment.

A retired builder, John coordinated the whole operation. He purchased many truckloads of stone and boulders, hired excavation and landscape contractors, and set out to “rehabilitate” his creek. Over several weeks, John stripped the tangled, wild riparian vegetation off the banks along a 150 metres of the creek. The banks were then lined with an artistic, naturalistic, and colourful array of stones and boulders, accented by hundreds of trees and ornamental shrubs.

The results were strikingly beautiful – and very much illegal.

On the final day of the project, as the last trucks were rolling off the property, a Toronto Region C.A. Enforcement Officer, acting on a tip from a concerned passer-by, paid John a visit, and it wasn’t a courtesy call.

John’s creek is actually a “cold-water” tributary of the Humber River, and more importantly, it has been identified as a habitat of the Redside Dace, an endangered fish species subject to a recovery program administered by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The creek may not be much to look at,
but it’s a diamond in the eyes of ecologists. That wild riparian vegetation overhanging the creek - so valiantly stripped away by John - was actually integral to Redside Dace habitat.

Had John sought a permit, he would have been advised of the creek’s ecological significance. The work would not have been permitted, and he would have avoided a whole lot of grief.

John’s offences included working near water without a permit, failure to implement sediment controls during the work, and filling within a regional floodplain. These offences paled in comparison to violations under both the Federal Fisheries Act and the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA). The habitat
damage was considered “massive”, and under the ESA, first-time violators are subject to fines of up to $1,000,000 and/or one year imprisonment.

John’s way out of this mess was to voluntarily agree to undertake a complex multi-year riparian habitat remediation and restoration project coordinated by professional biologists, engineers, and restoration contractors. The work cost John five times what he originally paid to “improve” his creek. Fortunately,
no formal charges were laid, no fines were imposed, and the riparian habitat is now on the mend.

For John, this was a frightening and expensive lesson. Hopefully, sharing his bad experience will help prevent others from following his footsteps. The moral of the story is clear and simple: if you plan to work anywhere near water, consult first with your conservation authority, and for heaven’s sake, get a permit!