Council approves push for new storm water mitigation measures

Just over a week after a major summer storm caused flash flooding and damaged homes across Toronto, city council voted unanimously to examine a slew of new flood mitigation measures, including imposingcontroversial storm water charges.

Councillors have formally directed city staff to research storm water mitigation measures with an eye to fast-tracking anything that could be implemented quickly, in light of more regularly occurring severe weather events. A report is expected back by the end of the year.

But staff will also research and consult on the possible imposition of a storm water charge to businesses with large non-porous parking lots that contribute to flooding.

Storm water charges have been a political lightning rod in recent years, alternatively labeled a "roof tax" or a "rain tax" by opponents who slammed the proposed changes as a cash grab. Previous attempts to impose the fees have been unsuccessful even as the number of major storms that cause flooding increase.

"Well, whatever you want to call it," Chow said, alluding to the previous controversies. "We do have a lot of rain. We do need to deal with storm water. We need to deal with floods. And if we do nothing, that's irresponsible."

Staff not asked to consider charge for homeowners

Last Tuesday, parts of the city saw more than 100 millimetres of rainfall in a torrential downpour that flooded homes, streets and major highways including the Don Valley Parkway and Gardiner Expressway. At the height of the storm, 167,000 Toronto Hydro customers were without power. The city received over 3,000 calls to 311 related to the flooding, many requesting help to deal with sewer and catch basin blockages.

The city has a number of multi-billion dollar infrastructure programs designed to prevent flooding.But Toronto can only afford to do so much each year as it grapples with a capital budget funding gap in the billions.

Chow's motion asks staff to report back by the end of the year with an assessment of any previously consideredflood mitigation strategies for homeowners and businesses.City staff are not being asked to consider a storm water charge for homeowners, but instead look at creating incentives for them to take action to prevent flooding on their properties.

Chow expressed frustration at the slow pace of progress to address floodmitigation in Toronto.

"I read the Toronto Resiliency Strategy that came out in 2019," she said. "Lots and lots of good words. (Was) it implemented? No. I think we need to start acting. No more strategy reports. We've done all of those."

City needs 'polluter pay' storm water charge: Saxe

A portion of the city's current pay-as-you-go water system covers costs associated with managing storm water, including protecting against basement flooding. It's based on how much water each property owner uses, rather than how much runoff they generate, which can lead to an unfair system, Coun. Dianne Saxe said.

By creating a separate storm water charge in property owners' water bills, the city could base the amount they pay on the hard surface area, rather than water usage, she added.

"So, right now if you're taking your shower or washing your clothes, you're subsidizing a parking lot," she said. "And you're doing nothing to improve flooding."

Saxe, who is Ontario's former environmental commissioner, has long supported storm water charges as a way to pay for climate change adaptation and flood mitigation. She says a "polluter pays" system will chargelarge businesses for not managing their storm water run-off and encourage them to make changes.

"They are in many cases not paying their way," she said. "They're just sitting there paying nothing for the impacts that they put on everybody else and that needs to change."

Coun. Frances Nunziatasaid that despite the opposition to the charge, it's time to explore it again. Flooding has been a chronic problem in her ward's Rockcliffe neighbourhood.The city has to pay for the needed infrastructure and needs to find additional funding, she added.

"The public was concerned about a rain tax, additional taxes," she said. "But with the hundreds and thousands of people that have gone through this with the flooding, I think they understand now that this is so important."