We don’t need any kind of probe to tell us businesses didn’t cause Calgary’s current water woes. So why are they being treated unfairly?
Article content
It’s been more than two months since a massive water main broke in northwest Calgary, bringing to light the fragility of one of the city’s most essential pieces of infrastructure.
Advertisement 2
Article content
For four weeks after this engineering failure on June 5, all those in Calgary and beyond who rely on this city’s treated water supply were asked to severely curtail their consumption as crews worked to fix the water main, which typically supplies 60 per cent of the system’s users.
After a summertime reprieve, we’re being asked to do it all over again starting Aug. 26 so crews can repair 16 more trouble spots found along the 10.4-kilometre Bearspaw South feeder main.
While residents mentally prepare themselves for the renewed inconvenience of strict outdoor water restrictions and indoor water conservation, a number of Calgary businesses are going to feel the brunt of the rules when water consumption will ramp down and streets will close to allow for the essential work.
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
For all the mixed messaging from City of Calgary officials, they have been very consistent about one thing: there would be no compensation offered to those whose livelihoods have been directly threatened by the fallout from this disastrous water main failure.
Mayor Jyoti Gondek and others were quite right to encourage Calgarians to frequent businesses along streets affected by the initial boil-water advisory and the subsequent weeks-long construction.
But at one of many news conferences in June, officials glibly suggested compensation wouldn’t be required because future water bills would be much lower due to reduced water use.
That was surely cold comfort for anyone whose living depends on public access to storefronts, or on a consistent supply of city water.
Advertisement 4
Article content
And while it appears the next round of repairs will mainly be affecting residential homes, there are a number of businesses in or near the projected construction zones on 33rd Ave. N.W. in Bowness and Parkdale Blvd. N.W. in Parkdale.
It’s not just an issue for those with frontage on affected streets. At a news conference Friday, officials said they’ve begun conversations with businesses needing large volumes of water as part of their activities.
For business who endured the disruption in June and who will face it by month’s end, the city is wrong to deny them compensation.
One would assume the massive utility bills we pay don’t just cover water use, but also provides funds to maintain the system that carries the water.
Advertisement 5
Article content
And yet, despite repeated assurances from city officials that the water main crippled in June had been carefully monitored, they somehow missed what we now know to be a litany of issues: the structural failure at the site of the initial water main break, the five “hot spots” found in the days following the rupture, the estimated 16 more areas of concern identified more recently to be fixed starting at the end of August, plus yet more areas targeted for medium-term repair.
And while we wait for an independent investigation to tell us how the Bearspaw South feeder main got to its precarious state, we don’t need any kind of probe to tell us businesses didn’t cause Calgary’s current water woes. So why are they being treated unfairly?
Advertisement 6
Article content
As we gird for Round 2 of this mess at the end of August, businesses have been told to grin and bear it, just as it was when we went through Round 1 in June.
The city must surely know many businesses face economic harm due to Calgary’s protracted water crisis.
Those directly affected by the water main repairs and water restrictions deserve compensation — especially small- and medium-sized enterprises whose bottom line face an outsized hit as a result of the prolonged crisis.
The promise of lower water bills due to lower usage is not good enough.
Recommended from Editorial
Article content