By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
A firefighting invoice sent to two farmers in the Dalmeny area prompted a discussion at the RM of Corman Park’s administration committee meeting on September 9 about whether landowners should be billed for fires that don’t start on their property and the role of farmers in fighting grass fires.
The committee members voted unanimously to direct administration to bring back a report in October about whether the costs of another similar grass fire had been billed to local landowners.
At the September 9 meeting, the committee heard from farmer Tyler Van Ee regarding the grass fire that started as a result of a cigarette butt tossed in a ditch along Township Road 374.
“This fire was carelessly started by someone else, went through Corman Park’s ditch and three other properties before burning on to our land,” said Van Ee.
On the day of the fire, Van Ee said he went for a drive after seeing smoke in the air, and upon getting close to the fire, he noticed that it was not under control.
He said he approached one of the Corman Park police officers and was advised the fire was under control and they had turned away other farmers offering to help with the fire.
Ultimately, he and another land-owner, Ken Klassen, were sent $30,000 invoices for firefighting services.
Administration noted the total firefighting bill came out to $69,616.
The two landowners had been billed equally as per the municipality’s bylaw, which administration noted did not allow for much leeway.
In any case, Van Ee protested the bill, noting, “I would expect a bill if we had started the fire, but in this scenario, I do not believe the bill should be passed on to us.”
He also pointed out that this fire might have been handled better if farmers were allowed to help. Van Ee said he had personally assisted with fighting numerous fires in Corman Park over the past 10 years and had never sent the RM a bill for his efforts.
And while insurance would cover the bill, Van Ee said that would result in his premiums going up.
The RM had also received a message from a property-owner named Fernando Pereira who described a similar experience during the May 3 grass fire.
He had been told his place was on fire and rushed home to help, quickly starting up a loader. However, he was told the blaze was under control by firefighters on the scene. (He also recounted Van Ee arriving in a tractor with diskers and making the same offer, but being turned away.)
In the end, the fire did get on to Pereira’s property and burnt 25 of his hay bales.
“I was not impressed with the fire crew’s performance,” he wrote.
Division 1 Councillor John Germs suggested he had heard about similar situations where farmers were turned away when their assistance could have quickly nipped fires in the bud.
“Ninety per cent of the time, I believe the farmers put these grass fires out themselves with their own equipment.”
Division 3 Councillor Lyndon Haduik also shared how he had once volunteered to help put out a fire south of Saskatoon and was turned down, even as the fire grew to a size where spray planes had to be deployed.
Health and safety co-ordinator David Bryden said the responsibility for managing an emergency like this falls to the responding fire department.
Stressing that he was not physically present at the May 3 fire, Bryden noted that these situations are fluid and constantly-changing — a decision made at 9:30 a.m. may need to be changed at 9:45 a.m.
He said there are many factors that may go into a fire chief’s decision to deploy (or not deploy) farmers using their own equipment, and if the risk is too high, they will be turned away.
While a decision made on the scene may turn out to be wrong in hindsight, Bryden said this was the only way to make these decisions.
“These situations are not as simple as they seem. They are complex,” he said.
Noting that he did not feel the landowners should be billed in this instance, Division 4 Councillor David Greenwood made the motion to have administation prepare a report on how a similar fire that was also caused by a cigarette butt being tossed in a ditch was handled.
“It’s my understanding that … there were no firefighting costs that were passed along to the ratepayers,” he said.