Protecting Agriculture Means Investing in the Infrastructure That Makes Farming Possible

We talk a lot in Niagara-on-the-Lake about protecting agricultural land.

But protecting farmland on a map is only part of the job.

If we want agriculture to remain viable for future generations, our growers need the infrastructure necessary to actually farm that land with reliable access to water, functioning drainage, maintained ditches and drains, pumping stations, siphons and an irrigation system capable of responding to both drought and extreme rainfall.

Niagara-on-the-Lake has a unique agricultural irrigation system.

And its story has been decades in the making.

What is PR 88?

In 1990, Ontario passed special legislation for Niagara-on-the-Lake commonly referred to as PR 88.

This legislation established the framework allowing the Town to operate its agricultural irrigation system.

That is important because our rural water infrastructure isn’t simply about getting stormwater off agricultural properties.

Under NOTL’s unique irrigation framework, water can also be introduced into creeks, ditches and municipal drains and moved through agricultural areas so growers can access water for their crops.

In simple terms, our agricultural water system has to perform two very different jobs:

When we have too much water, we need to get water out.

When we don’t have enough water, we need to get water in.

That’s one of the reasons maintaining our drains, ditches, channels, pumps, siphons and outlets is so important.

The Drainage Act is another important part of the system

Ontario’s Drainage Act provides the broader legislative framework for municipal drains and drainage works, including processes through which landowners can petition for drainage infrastructure.

Under the legislation today, a petition can qualify through a majority of affected owners or through owners representing at least 60% of the land area requiring drainage.

There is also an important piece of Niagara-on-the-Lake’s history here.

I have been advised directly by a member of our Irrigation Committee (has worked on this for almost 30 years) that when the irrigation system was being expanded decades ago, he went out to gather signatures and achieved 65% of growers agreeing to participate in that expansion.

That 65% historical figure comes from information provided to me firsthand by the member of the Irrigation Committee.

The current Drainage Act contains a 60% land-area threshold, so I don’t want to confuse the two or suggest they are necessarily the same statutory test.

But that history tells us something important.

Our growers were participants in creating and expanding this system.

They supported it.

They invested in it.

And they have continued financially supporting it for decades.

Growers pay into the system

This is another part of the irrigation story that sometimes gets overlooked.

The irrigation system isn’t simply infrastructure being provided to agriculture without growers contributing toward it.

Growers pay into it.

The Town’s irrigation charges include both operating and capital components.

For applicable agricultural properties, those charges currently amount to roughly $42 per acre.

Those contributions help support the operation, maintenance and capital requirements of the system.

That means our agricultural community has a direct financial stake in maintaining and improving this infrastructure.

This is much more than a network of ditches

When people hear the word “irrigation,” they may picture water running through a roadside ditch.

The actual system is considerably more complex.

Niagara-on-the-Lake’s agricultural infrastructure includes major pumping stations, transfer pumps, siphons, intake infrastructure, creeks, channels, municipal drains and control structures that work together to move water across thousands of acres of agricultural land.

The Town’s agricultural infrastructure mapping identifies three major pumping-station locations, in addition to transfer infrastructure within the system.

ABL Pumping Station

The ABL Pumping Station, associated with the Airport, Bright and Lavigne system, serves agricultural lands in the western portion of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

It is one of the major components responsible for getting irrigation water into that part of the agricultural system.

Dee Road Pumping Station

The Dee Road Pumping Station, near the Niagara River, is another significant irrigation water-supply point.

This isn’t simply one little pump sitting beside a ditch.

Historical Irrigation Committee records have documented significant rehabilitation requirements at Dee Road, including work involving two pumps and approximately $1 million in repairs and enhancements.

Grower irrigation fees were increased at the time to help fund those improvements.

That is another example of growers directly investing in the infrastructure they depend upon.

Four Mile Creek/Whirlpool Pumping Station

The Four Mile Creek/Whirlpool Pumping

Station is associated with the Four Mile Creek irrigation system and provides another important connection between a major water source and our agricultural irrigation network.

Three Mile Creek Transfer Pump

There is also the Three Mile Creek Transfer Pump, historically referred to in Irrigation Committee documentation as the Hunter Transfer Pump.

Its function is somewhat different from the major intake pumping stations.

Rather than simply bringing water into the overall system, transfer infrastructure helps move water between portions of the irrigation network so it can reach the agricultural areas where it is required.

And then there are the siphons

The system also relies on important siphon infrastructure.

OPG Siphon and the St. Davids area

One particularly important component is the infrastructure associated with the OPG canal/reservoir system near St. Davids.

Water associated with the OPG system can be moved through siphon, pumping and conveyance infrastructure into the agricultural irrigation network.

This is an important water source for the St. Davids-area agricultural system and demonstrates just how interconnected our irrigation network actually is.

The OPG-related infrastructure is also important when discussing future capital investment because pumps, siphons and the infrastructure connecting those water sources to our agricultural lands require maintenance, engineering and eventually replacement or expansion.

Carlton Siphon

The Carlton Siphon is another important component of the agricultural infrastructure system, helping convey irrigation water through the network.

So when we talk about agricultural irrigation infrastructure, we’re talking about a sophisticated system of:

Pumping stations.

Multiple individual pumps.

Transfer pumps.

Siphons.

Intakes.

Pipelines and channels.

Municipal drains.

Creeks and ditches.

Control structures.

And all of those pieces have to work together.

NOTL developed an Irrigation Master Plan

Recognizing that this infrastructure required long-term planning, the Town commissioned Associated Engineering to develop the Irrigation System Strategy and Master Plan, which Council endorsed in 2021.

The Master Plan looked at the condition and operation of the existing system, irrigation demand, levels of service, asset renewal, recommended improvements, financial requirements and long-term capital needs.

But producing a Master Plan doesn’t

automatically mean the municipality has the money to build everything identified within it.

That requires another critical piece of municipal government:

Advocacy.

This has taken decades of advocacy

I think this is one of the most important parts of this story.

The progress we’re seeing today did not happen because of one Council.

It didn’t happen because of one Mayor.

It didn’t happen because of one Councillor.

And it certainly didn’t happen because of one meeting with the Province.

This has been decades in the making.

Growers, Irrigation Committee members, agricultural organizations, Town staff, Regional staff and successive Councils have continued advocating for Niagara-on-the-Lake’s irrigation system.

That includes delegations at the annual Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) conference over many years.

At the 2021 AMO Conference, for example, Niagara-on-the-Lake specifically advocated for agricultural irrigation systems to be recognized as municipal infrastructure so they could become eligible for infrastructure funding opportunities.

Think about what municipal advocacy actually looks like.

You meet with ministers.

You explain the problem.

You bring the engineering reports.

You bring the Master Plan.

You demonstrate the economic importance of agriculture.

You make the funding request.

You come home.

And sometimes the answer isn’t immediate.

So the following year, you do it again.

And the next Council continues the work.

Municipal advocacy can sometimes feel repetitive.

But irrigation is a perfect example of why municipalities keep doing it.

Eventually, sustained advocacy can produce results.

Then came a major provincial investment

In 2025, the Province announced a significant $41-million investment in Niagara irrigation infrastructure, supporting irrigation initiatives involving Niagara-on-the-Lake, Lincoln and St. Catharines.

That was an important turning point.

We are moving beyond simply identifying the problem and toward engineering and implementing solutions.

Niagara Region subsequently selected AECOM to undertake specialized engineering work associated with the irrigation initiative.

For Niagara-on-the-Lake, that work includes updating and consolidating engineering reports for our irrigation systems, examining pumping and conveyance requirements, advancing detailed design and ultimately preparing engineering drawings and tender documents necessary to move projects toward construction.

That last part is incredibly important.

A funding announcement alone doesn’t build infrastructure.

A project has to be identified.

It has to be engineered.

It has to be designed.

It needs environmental and other approvals where required.

It needs costing.

It needs drawings.

And ultimately, it needs to become tender-ready.

That’s why having projects already moving through the engineering and design process matters.

When funding becomes available, you want projects ready to go.

Approximately $25 million over a 25-year horizon

I understand that the long-term outlook identifies approximately $25 million in irrigation infrastructure needs over roughly a 25-year planning horizon.

That is significant.

But it’s also important to understand what that number represents.

We’re not talking about spending $25 million simply cleaning roadside ditches.

We’re talking about long-term investment across a sophisticated agricultural water network involving pumps, pumping stations, siphons, channels, control structures, municipal drains, intake infrastructure and other major assets.

Some priority projects are already moving through the engineering and design process with AECOM, which positions them to proceed as funding and approvals become available.

This is how responsible long-term infrastructure planning is supposed to work.

Identify the assets.

Understand their condition.

Determine future demand.

Prioritize the work.

Complete the engineering.

Get projects designed.

Seek funding.

And systematically work through the capital program.

Why drainage and irrigation have to be discussed together

Recent extreme rainfall events have also reminded us why the drainage side of this system matters just as much as irrigation.

During drought conditions, we need infrastructure capable of bringing water into our agricultural areas.

During major rainfall events, we need functioning drains, culverts, channels and outlets capable of moving water out.

Those aren’t contradictory goals.

They are two functions of an agricultural water-management system.

A ditch or municipal drain that is important for moving excess water during a major storm may also form part of the network used to deliver irrigation water during dry conditions.

That’s one of the reasons maintenance matters.

Obstructions matter.

Culverts matter.

Pumps matter.

Outlets matter.

And long-term infrastructure planning matters.

My involvement this term

I’ve been proud to support this work during my first term on Council, while also recognizing that the progress we’re seeing today rests on decades of work by the people who came before us.

On May 23, 2023, Councillor Erwin Wiens brought forward a motion concerning water access along East-West Line from Creek Road to Lakeshore Road.

I seconded that motion.

The motion recognized concerns surrounding wells and water quality and specifically acknowledged the importance of clean water for local farms and fruit production.

It directed Town Operations staff to work with Niagara Region to investigate the feasibility, costs, logistics, benefits and potential funding opportunities associated with extending municipal water infrastructure.

The motion passed Council unanimously.

Then, in March 2024, when Council received information concerning Canada Infrastructure Bank irrigation funding, I moved the motion for Council to receive that information, seconded by Councillor Wiens.

These aren’t necessarily the motions that make headlines.

But they matter.

Because municipal infrastructure often moves forward through dozens of seemingly small decisions before anyone ever sees construction equipment arrive.

This is what long-term municipal advocacy actually looks like

There is a much bigger lesson in the irrigation story.

Major municipal infrastructure projects rarely begin and end within a four-year Council term.

Look at the timeline.

PR 88 goes back to 1990.

Growers supported and invested in the irrigation system decades ago.

Growers continue paying into the system today.

Irrigation Committees have continued pushing improvements forward.

Successive Councils have advocated for funding.

Town staff and engineers have developed reports and plans.

Council endorsed an Irrigation Master Plan.

Delegations continued going to AMO.

Niagara Region became increasingly involved.

The Province eventually announced a major investment.

AECOM is now advancing engineering and design.

And priority projects can increasingly move toward becoming construction-ready.

That is decades of work.

No single person and no single Council can take credit for that entire journey.

The progress we’re seeing today is the result of persistence by generations of Niagara-on-the-Lake growers, Irrigation Committee members, agricultural organizations, Town and Regional staff, engineers, elected representatives and other partners.

Everyone who helped move the file forward contributed another piece.

Preserving farmland is only half the job

As a farmer’s granddaughter, I have always believed strongly in protecting Niagara-on-the-Lake’s agricultural land.

But there is something we need to remember when we talk about preserving agriculture.

Protecting farmland on a planning map doesn’t automatically protect farming.

The next generation still needs to be able to successfully farm that land.

They need reliable access to water.

They need functioning drainage.

They need maintained ditches and municipal drains.

They need adequate culverts and outlets.

They need pumps and siphons that work.

They need infrastructure capable of bringing water into agricultural areas during drought.

And they need infrastructure capable of moving excess water away during significant rainfall events.

That’s why this work matters.

PR 88 gave Niagara-on-the-Lake a unique irrigation framework.

Our growers helped establish and expand the system.

Growers continue paying into it.

Our system includes major pumping stations, transfer pumps, siphons, drains, channels and control structures stretching across our agricultural community.

The Town developed a long-term Irrigation Master Plan.

Successive Councils, growers and agricultural representatives spent decades advocating at AMO and directly with senior governments.

The Province has now made a significant investment in Niagara’s irrigation infrastructure.

AECOM is advancing engineering and design work so priority projects can move closer to construction.

We’re looking ahead at approximately $25 million in needs over a 25-year horizon.

That’s what long-term infrastructure planning looks like.

It doesn’t happen because of one meeting.

It doesn’t happen because of one motion.

It doesn’t happen because of one delegation.

And it doesn’t happen within one term of Council.

It happens because generation after generation keeps doing the work.

Protecting agricultural land is important.

But if we truly want to protect agriculture in Niagara-on-the-Lake, we also have to invest in the water, drainage and irrigation infrastructure that makes farming that land possible.