Calgary city council, and presumably citizens, will get answers on the Bearspaw water main break by November, according to a plan set out in draft guidelines for a third-party review.

Still, the document has raised questions from the chair of the Infrastructure and Planning Committee (IPC), where the guidelines will be presented on July 3. Calgary has just begun to relax water-saving measures that have been in place since the Bearspaw south water feeder main ruptured on June 5.

An independent, third-party review has been promised since early on in the water feeder main break, which paralyzed clean water production from the Bearspaw water treatment plant, forcing Calgary and the surrounding area to manage water use. That included Stage 4 outdoor watering restrictions.

“The review will consider factors that contributed to the break, identify possible root cause of the pipe break, and assess current asset management practices of the water distribution system,” the guidelines read.  

“Further, the review will look to improve Water system distribution resilience moving forward.”

Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek has already called for budget measures over the next two years that will help examine and address issues with the city’s water supply.

“We’ll get better clarity on these costs, and the independent, third-party incident review will help us create long-term change and ensure that we can improve the city’s water system to 2030, and beyond,” Mayor Gondek said, in a recent water main media update.

The third-party review objective is to reinforce public trust in Calgary’s drinking water system, and the process of inspection, maintenance and replacement. It will look at the Bearspaw south feeder main break itself, why it happened, and how the City responded.  The report will use that information to review its asset management approach and suggest actions to improve water supply resilience.

Ward 1 Coun. Sonya Sharp, who chairs IPC, said that she has mixed feelings about the draft guidelines, particularly around it being an independent review.

“The reason I’m saying this is when we talk about a third party, we talk about completely third party,” she said.

“When I see things like, we’re going to manage risk by having an administrative liaison, CAO (Chief Administrative Officer), to review everything, I start to say, ‘Well, how is this a third party?’”

Other red flags in the guidelines: Sharp

The suggested panel size is no more than 12 people, according to the guidelines. It’s to include private industry, professional associations, academia and government. The Calgary Chamber of Commerce is mentioned by name as having participants, including as members of the Review Panel Chair Selection Committee.

Coun. Sharp said that when the admin report said that the development of the draft guidelines included reviews of the terms of reference for the Housing Affordability Task Force, the Economic Resilience Task Force and others, again, there were “red flags.”

She said on those panels there were members of administration, and some had council members, too.

In terms of the actual scope of the review, Coun. Sharp said it should include some of the items deemed out of scope. Those include city and regional growth plans (including water licences), water quality and water efficiency and water loss. The latter has been a bone of contention with local developers who pay levies based on expected water use in a system that has leak issues.  

“I’m a little bit concerned here we’re giving an opportunity to administration to maybe massage out information – I will put that politely. I think it needs to come directly from the panel to council,” she said.

“You want this to be completely unbiased.”

Coun. Sharp said she would be bringing potential changes forward, should a member of the committee not do so.

Mayor Gondek said that she felt it was good to give the review panel something to start with on a project this big. The panel doesn’t have to take the draft guidelines, she said.

“I think it is important for us as a city to provide a starting point,” she said.  

“It may be rejected completely. It may be considered by the experts and found to be great. There probably will be changes.”

The panel would be selected in July, with the panel chair providing an update to council in September, according to the proposed plan. The final report would be delivered to Chief Administrative Officer David Duckworth in October and then be presented to council in November.