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

1. What design storm and climate-change allowance were used for this development?
   
2. Was the site evaluated under consecutive rainfall and fully saturated-soil conditions?
   
3. What are the calculated pre-development and post-development runoff rates and volumes?
   
4. How much stormwater must be retained on the property, and where will it physically be stored?
   
5. What is the storage system’s maximum capacity and permitted discharge rate?
   
6. What happens when the pond, pipes, catch basins or outlet reach capacity or fail?
   
7. What is the emergency overland-flow route?
   
8. Could that route direct water toward Central Park Boulevard or existing homes?
   
9. Has the downstream municipal drainage system been independently confirmed to have sufficient capacity?
   
10. Were recent Ottawa-area flooding events and projected increases in extreme precipitation incorporated into the analysis?
    
11. Which licensed professional engineer accepted responsibility for these calculations?
    
12. Which public authority independently reviewed and approved the stormwater design?
    
13. 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:

• National Capital Region climate projections
• National Capital Commission Climate Adaptation Plan
  

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