Skip to content

Looking at improvements to the Holland Marsh's Main Drain (4 photos)

Information night was the 'first step' in looking at ways to improve the functioning of the West Holland River in the Holland Marsh

Some in the Holland Marsh call it the “main drain.” To others, it’s the West Holland River.

But to Glenn Harrington, of consultants and landscape architects Harrington McAvan Ltd., it’s a lake.

As Harrington explained at a public meeting held upstairs in Bradford’s old Community Centre on Nov. 13, the entire Holland Marsh basin is a former extension of Lake Simcoe that, since the retreat of the glaciers, has filled in – first with sediment, and then with organic material produced by an expanding swamp.

And as the soils subside – a result of erosion, compaction, decomposition and oxidation - the drains must be cut deeper and deeper to maintain drainage, requiring more and more effort to pump the water from the low-lying area.

The Holland Marsh basin remains a ‘sink’, and the river, in its present form, lacks the power to either carve out a clear channel, maintain its flow, or flush out the sediment that builds up.

Harrington McAvan Ltd. has been retained by the Holland Marsh Drainage System Joint Municipal Services Board to look at ways to “come up with an improved, if possible, management mechanism… for the drainage scheme,” Harrington said – in particular looking at the effectiveness of the main drain “and how to use it.”

Harrington noted the polders in the Holland Marsh were inspired by those in the Netherlands – a country where high water levels and shallow soils have led to the abandonment of some fields, which are “now used for pasture.”

He told the meeting, “Slowly but surely” the Holland Marsh is moving toward the same fate. “There is a time limit on how long these fields are going to be functioning.”

The study being undertaken has a number of objectives – to maintain the ability of the drainage scheme to lower the water table in the fields; to provide a reliable source of water for irrigation; to manage soil movement and reduce erosion; to minimize areas requiring dredging and therefore minimize costs; and to adapt the system to the pressures of climate change, which will mean more severe storms, higher precipitation levels, and stronger winds.

In the audience were landowners and marsh farmers. They were asked to respond to a number of possible solutions, and to share their knowledge of the Holland Marsh.

Were they in support of vegetation on the dykes to stabilize the banks and prevent erosion? Were they in support of windbreaks?

Did they want soil materials dredged from the main drain or canals spread on their lands, as a valuable resource, or stockpiled elsewhere?

What about the excavation of “sumps” in the marsh, at the end of every drain, to capture eroding soils? What about re-introducing marshland, in certain locations along the main drain to improve water quality, and narrowing the channel to improve flow?

The main drain “is no longer a river, it’s a lake – and not a very good lake,” Harrington pointed out, suggesting that restoring some marshland and changing the dimensions of the channel could provide improvement.

“You guys have the on-site experience and knowledge,” Harrington said. “You have to tell me.” Then those present broke into groups, to discuss the points raised.

It seemed that many of the growers were already far ahead of the consultants.

They were already planting a mix of vegetation on the canal banks, to stabilize the banks and reduce erosion – although grower Brian Visser warned against the introduction of species, for bank stabilization or windbreaks, without a full understanding of potential problems, disease vectors, and hosts for insect pests.

“We don’t want to introduce the wrong plant material into the marsh,” he said.

Rather than traditional windbreaks – almost impossible, when neighbouring fields may be only 18 inches (46 cm) apart – growers have created hilled rows at fixed intervals to increase wind resistance and reduce erosion.

Growers pointed out that improved farming practices – including irrigation when the soils become too dry, and use of cover crops – have actually reduced wind erosion events in the marsh, in part counteracting the impact of climate change.

Harrington McAvan Ltd. partner Rich McAvan suggested that one key piece of the puzzle was the amount of water used by marsh farmers for irrigation purposes. He asked if an estimate could be provided.

McAvan was told that those records exist, in detail.

Jody Mott, Executive Director of the Holland Marsh Growers Assocation, explained that under current regulations, farmers are required to have a water-taking permit for irrigation.

“We have to report every gallon of water we use,” agreed Visser.

The consultants were told that marsh growers prefer to take irrigation water from the canals – it’s cleaner, deeper and a more reliable source than the ‘Main Drain.’

The water has to be deep enough for the suction pumps to work, or growers can’t get the water they need – to irrigate to germinate and maintain crops, and to prevent the light organic soils from drying out and experiencing wind erosion.

As for dredged materials, from both the main drain and the canals, “that’s never been an issue,” said Alex Makarenko, who designed the dredge used by the drainage board. Growers recognize that the soil is valuable, and are willing to have dredged materials placed on their lands – if it’s done right.

There was consensus. Every farmer in the Holland Marsh needs access to water, and there is a need to improve the main drain/Holland River to the point where it is useful.

“All we want to do is farm,” said Visser. “We want to irrigate when it’s dry. We want to be able to till our land.”

“We want to be here 100 years from now,” said grower Sooruj Bhoolai. He noted that the need for water within the marsh equals millions of gallons. “It’s a lot of water, every week. And when it’s dry, everybody wants water.”

The meeting was described as a “first step” in looking for a solution to managing the main drain – a solution that has to be cost effective, and done with the approval of the landowners, since under the Drainage Act it is the benefitting landowners who pay for the work.  

Harrington thanked the growers for their input, but had one last comment about the main drain: “Stop thinking about it as a river. It’s a lake. It’s dead water. It doesn’t function as a river.”

Which is something the study will consider.

Drainage Superintendent Frank Jonkman Jr. explained the reasons for the study on the Main Drain: "The equipment that was used in the past is at or near the end of its service life and this study will determine if it needs to be replaced, or if any other method could be considered."

He added, "The (Joint Municipal Services) Board is also trying to look at ways of reducing the impact of maintenance, soil erosion impacts, climate change or the intensity of events and its impact to the river, and timing windows related to the permitting requirements for regulatory bodies such as Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)."

While Harrington McAvan Ltd. are primarily landscape architects, Jonkman noted, "The firm has expertise in stream restoration, wetland creation, shoreline/aquatic stabilization and flood management." 

And the current study is only "exploring the options," he said. 


Miriam King

About the Author: Miriam King

Miriam King is a journalist and photographer with Bradford Today, covering news and events in Bradford West Gwillimbury and Innisfil.
Read more

Reader Feedback