Resident Raises Urgent Stormwater Concerns About Proposed School Development
StandOurGround is sharing the following letter from Russell resident Don Greer, who has raised urgent concerns about stormwater management associated with the proposed CEPEO school development at 963 North Russell Road. With site excavation now underway, Mr. Greer is asking the Township, the school board and the responsible engineering authorities to provide residents with access to the engineering reports, drainage plans and calculations used to determine how stormwater will be managed on the site. His letter includes calculations intended to illustrate the potential volume of water involved during significant rainfall events and outlines a series of questions about stormwater storage, discharge, emergency drainage routes and downstream capacity. We are publishing his concerns so that affected residents can review the information, consider the questions being raised, and determine whether further information or clarification is warranted.
August 25, 2026
I am following up on the letter I recently sent to the Mayor, Council and Township officials regarding the proposed CEPEO school development at 963 North Russell Road.
This matter is now urgent. I can hear and see a bulldozer working behind my house and excavating the property, yet residents still have not been provided with meaningful access to the approved stormwater-management report, grading plans, runoff calculations or downstream-capacity analysis.
I am providing the following calculations to give residents some perspective on the volume of water involved.
RAINFALL SYNOPSIS for RUSSELL, ONTARIO
Five acres (the rough size of the development in question) equals approximately 20,234 square metres.
Every 1 mm of rain falling on five acres represents:
- 20.23 cubic metres of water;
- 20,234 litres; or
- Approximately 5,346 US gallons
CURRENT AND FUTURE DAILY-RAINFALL SCENARIOS
Current Ottawa-area daily record:
- Rainfall: 118.4 mm
- Water falling on five acres: 2,396 cubic metres
- Total volume: 2.396 million litres
- Approximately 633,000 US gallons
- Approximately 4.7 million pounds of water
Climate-adjusted scenario incorporating a 14% increase:
- Rainfall: approximately 135 mm
- Water falling on five acres: 2,732 cubic metres
- Total volume: 2.732 million litres
- Approximately 722,000 US gallons
- Approximately 5.4 million pounds of water
The additional 16.6 mm alone represents another 336,000 litres of water falling on the property.
If the five acres were perfectly flat and unable to drain or absorb water:
- 118.4 mm would cover the entire property to a depth of 11.84 cm, or 4.66 inches.
- 135 mm would cover the property to a depth of 13.5 cm, or 5.31 inches.
Real property will absorb, store and discharge some water. However, once the soil is saturated, compacted or frozen and particularly when rooftops, parking areas, bus lanes, driveways and sidewalks replace absorbent ground—a much larger portion becomes immediate runoff.
If 60% of the five-acre site is effectively impervious, a single 135 mm rainfall could place approximately 1.64 million litres of water directly onto those hard surfaces.
That calculation does not include runoff entering the property from adjoining land or roads, snowmelt, overflowing municipal systems or additional rainfall arriving before the site has drained.
IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION
The 135 mm figure is a climate-adjusted planning scenario, not a prediction that the next rainfall record will be exactly 135 mm.
National Capital Region projections indicate that maximum daily precipitation could increase by approximately 14%. The regional study also projects the average annual maximum one-day precipitation rising from approximately 37 mm historically to as much as 44 mm by the 2080s.
These are 30-year averages. Individual extreme events can substantially exceed them.
THREE-DAY EXTREME-RAINFALL STRESS TEST
Three consecutive days at 135 mm per day would produce:
- 135 mm × 3 days = 405 mm
That is 40.5 cm or almost 16 inches of rain over three days.
The resulting volumes would be:
- Entire five-acre site: approximately 8.20 million litres
- Impervious 60% of the site: approximately 4.92 million litres
- Remaining 40% of the site: approximately 3.28 million litres
The rooftops, parking areas, bus lanes, driveways and other hard surfaces alone could therefore receive approximately:
- 4,917 cubic metres of water;
- 4.92 million litres;
- 1.30 million US gallons; or
- Approximately 4,917 tonnes of water.
This is a worst-case stress test, not a weather forecast. Its purpose is to ask what happens when a prolonged extreme event exceeds the normal design capacity and the remaining ground becomes saturated.
Depending on how much runoff came from the remaining 40% of the property, the potential total runoff would be approximately:
- 25% runoff from remaining ground: 5.74 million litres
- 50% runoff: 6.56 million litres
- 75% runoff: 7.38 million litres
- Fully saturated ground: as much as 8.20 million litres
Even if only the 4.92 million litres falling on hard surfaces were discharged evenly over 72 hours, the average flow would be approximately 19 litres per second.
Rainfall is rarely uniform. During the heaviest part of a storm, the instantaneous discharge could be many times greater. That peak flow, not merely the three-day total, is what could overwhelm catch basins, pipes, ditches, culverts and downstream residential drainage systems.
QUESTIONS REQUIRING ENGINEERING-SUPPORTED ANSWERS
- What design storm and climate-change allowance were used for this development?
- Was the site evaluated under consecutive rainfall and fully saturated-soil conditions?
- What are the calculated pre-development and post-development runoff rates and volumes?
- How much stormwater must be retained on the property, and where will it physically be stored?
- What is the storage system’s maximum capacity and permitted discharge rate?
- What happens when the pond, pipes, catch basins or outlet reach capacity or fail?
- What is the emergency overland-flow route?
- Could that route direct water toward Central Park Boulevard or existing homes?
- Has the downstream municipal drainage system been independently confirmed to have sufficient capacity?
- Were recent Ottawa-area flooding events and projected increases in extreme precipitation incorporated into the analysis?
- Which licensed professional engineer accepted responsibility for these calculations?
- Which public authority independently reviewed and approved the stormwater design?
- Has a downstream flood-risk and residential-property-impact assessment been completed?
DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED
Residents should be provided with:
- The approved stormwater-management report;
- Existing and proposed grading and drainage plans;
- Pre-development and post-development runoff calculations;
- Design-storm and climate-change assumptions;
- Stormwater-storage volume and discharge rate;
- Emergency overland-flow plan;
- Downstream-capacity assessment;
- Geotechnical and hydrogeological reports;
- South Nation Conservation review comments;
- Peer-review reports and engineering approvals; and
- All conditions imposed on the development.
This is not an objection based on speculation, nor is it opposition to the construction of a school. It is a request for the engineering evidence demonstrating that this substantial institutional development will not transfer additional flooding risk onto the established residential community beside it.
The issue is not whether the site can drain during an ordinary rainfall. The issue is where millions of litres of stormwater will go when the ground is saturated, the designed storage is full and the drainage system is operating at or beyond capacity.
The bulldozer is already working. Once the land has been excavated and construction has substantially advanced, correcting an inadequate drainage design will become far more difficult and expensive.
The Township, school board and responsible engineering authorities should be required to prove that this risk has been properly engineered and responsibly resolved. If they cannot do so, further site alteration and construction should be paused until it has been.
References:
I have an extensive background in project management, construction and project oversight. Since moving from the West Coast to Russell, Ontario, I have been deeply disappointed by the shortcomings I have observed in construction protocols, site and access safety, bylaw enforcement and municipal oversight.
I decided to address the proposed development in my own backyard because, in my judgment, the problems surrounding it go far beyond what residents should reasonably be expected to accept. I hope residents will pay close attention, ask questions and act accordingly.
I have also witnessed the aftermath of poor municipal management. In the end, residents always pay, through increased costs, avoidable disruption, damage to their properties or diminished confidence in their local government.
In this age of readily available information, transparency and established professional standards, these shortcomings should not be allowed to continue as the norm. When a mayor and councillors undertake to serve in public office, they should understand that residents have high expectations of them. We should not be expected to accept minimum standards, inadequate oversight or excuses for non-performance.
Regards,
Don Greer
Russell, Ontario
About us
Why did we start StandOurGround, and what are we worried about?
We started our group, StandOurGround, because many of us in the community are worried that our farmland and rural environment are fast disappearing. We all live here because, while accepting change, we want to preserve our basic rural way of life. If we don’t take action soon, we’ll lose the very things that make our township special.
Why is it important to save the farmland in Russell Township?
There are two key reasons.
- First, good farmland is disappearing quickly, with Ontario losing 319 acres every day. Only 5% of Ontario’s land is Prime Agricultural, and Russell holds a significant portion of this high-quality soil. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.
- Second, agriculture is Russell Township’s greatest asset. Canada’s agriculture sector could add $11 billion to the economy, more than auto manufacturing and aerospace combined. Sacrificing this potential for mega-warehouses and sprawling subdivisions is not only a missed opportunity; it’s a devastating setback.
What is our group trying to achieve?
We want thoughtful, controlled growth. Looking to towns like Port Hope, Uxbridge, and Caledon—places that have prioritized preserving farmland, natural beauty, and their unique character. These are examples of towns that actively involve residents in planning for growth, something we’re not seeing enough of here in Russell. It’s another missed opportunity. Based on their examples, we know it is possible to exist near a large urban centre like Ottawa without morphing into just another congested suburb.
Aren’t more homes needed as the population grows?
Yes, we fully support the dream of affordable home ownership here in Russell Township. Hundreds of new homes have been built here in the last several years and more to come. Unfortunately, new home construction is blindly absorbing hundreds of acres of our prime farmland. Mature forests are being randomly chopped down. Wetlands are being irretrievably destroyed. We want growth planned in a way that doesn’t cleanse the rural aspects that make Russell special.
How has development changed life in Russell Township?
Almost month-by-month, Russell has become a busier, noisier and less safe place to live. There’s more traffic, a higher number of road accidents, including fatalities. Life-giving trees are disappearing at a time when their preservation is more important than ever. Deer, certain hawks, other wildlife have all but disappeared. On a more insidious note, methane emissions from the burning of natural gas in more and more homes and industries is increasingly polluting our air. The rural environment that we cherish is being swept away at an alarming rate. This isn’t thoughtful development; it’s reckless sprawl.
What do we think about the Township’s approach to development?
The Township seems to give developers a free pass to do whatever they want. The people who live here and have helped build the township’s communities have no say. When we raise our concerns at meetings, council appears to listen but doesn’t hear. Communication with residents is at an all-time low. Decisions appear to be made in advance behind closed doors and simply rubber-stamped at council meetings. The meetings are held in a rigid, clinical atmosphere where taxpayer input is strictly limited. Council has no clear understanding of deeply-held community values.
What is our response to the Township's recent draft of the Official Plan, particularly regarding the new proposed special study areas for settlement and industrial development?
The special study areas in the Township's draft Official Plan are an insult to residents. They deprive the township of even more farmland for yet more housing construction and massive expansion of the industrial park. The more alarming aspect is that the areas were designated in the plan without allowing even a single resident’s feedback. Tellingly, the areas were rejected by the United Counties of Prescott and by the township’s own planners. This behaviour by council is dictatorial and undemocratic. The persistent push for development without community input suggests that council has a hidden agenda; that is, rampant growth first, taxpayers’ views second. We believe that any plans for growth should involve the voices of those who live here as the best way to preserve our community's values and rural character. Ignoring local input not only undermines trust but threatens the very essence of what makes our township special. We demand a planning process that gives taxpayers their rightful say and guarantees a balanced existence.
How do we respond to those who say development is progress?
Controlled change can be good. But change that goes too far, too fast is reckless. With extreme change comes higher crime rates, increased pressure on policing, excessive traffic congestion, greater pollution, erosion of wildlife habitat, need for more medical clinics, increased maintenance of sewers, water and roads and the list goes on and on. Take recreational facilities. The township is bulldozing ahead with a mega, multi-arena sports project at a cost of well over $100 million. Council continues to be vague on where the final dollars and cents will come from. We suspect council is considering hefty tax increases to help pay for it but has yet to let us know. We are a township of under 20,000 residents. To us, real progress means balancing growth with preservation of what we value — limited growth at a reasonable pace where people come first. Unthinking, headlong growth is a recipe for disaster.
What solutions are we proposing?
We’re demanding that the township council pause its development plans and take a reality check. We want to prioritize quality over quantity and focus on thoughtful growth that aligns with residents’ values. We want reasonable limits on development, more attention to residents’ concerns and strict protection for farmland and the environment. We also want to see more support for agriculture as a key part of our local economy.
Who is involved, or how can people get involved with our group?
Our group, Stand Our Ground, is just getting started. We are inviting like-residents to join us in achieving our goal of a community based on a blend of careful growth and protection of rural values. To help spread the word, our new lawn signs are now on sale. The $15 covers the cost of printing. Our website carries a questionnaire to help us gauge where you stand on the future of our township. We urge you to stay involved by regularly visiting our website, attending Russell Township Council meetings and, most important, by speaking out.
Together, let’s Stand Our Ground!
We urge all concerned citizens of Russell Township to attend this announcement and express their worries to Ontario politicians, the media, and Russell Council regarding the manner and pace of Russell's expansion, as well as the concerning lack of information provided to nearby residents of the Industrial Park prior to this announcement.
Productive Russell Township farmland on the verge of urban development.