[All] Grand River Watershed Forum 2010 part 2

[Louisette Lanteigne]

The Grand River Watershed Forum 2010 Part 2

Lulu Note: Before the panelists began, J. Crawford Reid approached me, shook my hand and mentioned he worked in 
aggregates for many years. He asked me about my concern for the Watershed in 
regards to aggregates. I told him that aggregates serve to gather, 
retain and transport our water resources from point a to b, that the current
State of Aggregate Resource Study fails to include the value of 
aggregates left in place or their worth to agricultural sectors. We need identify
 what roll these aggregates play in the area and include the MOE and 
Agricultural ministry in these discussions. We need to understand what 
water supplies could be adversely impacted by aggregate extraction in 
order to mitigate risks. Until we put a dollar value of the aggregates in 
place, we're not looking at the full economic picture. If we've got a 
permanent water ban in our region, then we can't really afford to extract the
 sediment that makes up our municipal aquifers. It's worth way more than
 the value of raw aggregates. We need to see the real economic value of the natural capital 
function and then plan accordingly from there. He agreed.

Forum Panelists: 2nd group
(R) Mark Reusser, Zone Director Ontario Federation of Agriculture
(M) Larry Mellors, Grand River Fisheries Management Committee/Trout Unlimited
(A) Blain Albin, Manager of Grand River Dinner Cruises
(JR) J. Crawford Reid, Chairman of the Grand River Conservation Foundation

R: We need funding to help us (farmers) reduce impacts and we need to increase public awareness. We need river restoration, we need a resilient river that can bounce back and support life. A good tree canopy along the river would help. In the Upper Grand the GRCA is well known but downstream some folks need to know there is a river here. The downstream folks need to be engaged too.

JR: I used to support the idea that less federal land owning would be a good thing but now I realize that our government needs to own the land to protect it.

M: Funding for stream remediation would be good. You should see what trout unlimited can do for $600. It's amazing but we need communication and education to help us along. E3 programs helped fund youth to assist in creek restoration. Programs like that help.

JR: There are many opportunities to fund raise for the GRCA in the industry community.

R: Urban Planning was not conducive to creating a relationship between people and stream communities. Take Schneider's creek. It was placed underground where people couldn't even see it. Better planning fosters better stewardship. I see threats to the Grand. Our area is well looked after but we have to deal with the threats of urbanization and population. Impervious surfaces etc. We have to grow up not out. What should our population be? At what point is enough? We have climate change too. How will we deal with that?

JR: Population is the biggest challenge. More houses means more gravel needed. They have a right to build but it's in the headwaters!

M: We need to have studies done and ripple effects projected. The public needs to understand what we're doing. Ministry staff act as advisors and the choice is A, B or C but government agencies must stop fighting for control. We need to share a vision we can all support.

A: There are opportunities to interact with the water more from canoe, boat etc. it helps to form the perspective of what people believe the watershed is.  Sometimes conservation means constraint on use and the GRCA can do that.  

JR: Brantford to Paris on the River is beautiful.

M: There is terrific opportunity for fishing in the water. It's worth millions. 

Q&A: They are selling us on a knowledge based economy but knowledge extends to our farmers and aboriginal communities too but it's the urban folks who sway the votes. 

R: Knowledge economy needs food, water and recreation. Our watershed is unique. Urban can visit rural in minutes. Planners define our country side lines here. Rural is accessible and a great opportunity. 

JR: Working party of 6-8 players needs to say, how can we sell this to the general public? Rotary all up and down the Grand could help. Why don't we pull together?

M: Stream restoration can be done. Look at the Brantford Steel-headers. We have to look at floods, different watershed issues. Does it need barriers removed? We need to look at floodplains. Pike needs floodplain grasses. We damaged their populations because they needed the grass.

R: Folks ask me all the time, "Why can't we build in the floodplains? It hasn't flooded in years. I'd like to ask the GRCA to release the dams for a bit and show them why it's needed." (Joke)

M: Millpond fish passage helped to improve flow but there are still constraints. The Shand Dam is used for municipal water but there are areas we can improve existing systems. 

R: If you can restore the river it would be nice but society needs to decide what resources are needed and what we are going to do to protect those resources. ie: Farmland, water, trees etc. We'd like to see rural/urban with the best environment possible but the reality is the publics demands as consumers are taking a toll. In one area, people love a pond but the pond is a fish killer. If they know what a better creek would be like. they would probably support that. 

M: I'd like healthy sustainable river and quality to the way we live. Bottled water is a waste. We need to foster a healthy respect for the water.

A: Improved technology can help growth but it would be cool if the river were navigable.

JR: I visited Europe and the Danube is a mess. Murky like the old days of the Grand before restoration. Keep going towards Germany and the water is beautiful. It's not impossible. We need the river a factor in planning decisions. We can change.

R: I dream that we can fight invasive species. Wild mustard is taking quite a toll etc.
___________________________

Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner wraps it up.
 
John Wilkinson the MOE minister said his riding lies in 4 watersheds. He knows his watersheds. That's good. He stated the line of people with problems is very long whereas the line of people with solutions is very short. He mentioned how he learned the value of conservation authorities after receiving a sticker from former GRCA CAO Peter Emerson. The sticker got them talking and he found out all about us. Mr. Emerson should make sure he stocks up on more stickers. It works.

Joe Farwell said that prices went up on water costs and people didn't complain. That tells me it's because the public values it.

Glenn Murray mentioned the Water Conservation Act in the works. We're caught wondering where our planning threshold is. He stated that leaders see the light at the end of the tunnel and order more tunnel when in fact we should run towards the light with enthusiasm. We need to give people better choices.

(In regards to our panelists and other speakers)
there is no venture capital anywhere but green water technologies. Mr. Rudolph stated we can be roll models. Regulation is needed for clear guidelines but over regulation can be to restrictive towards promising technologies. Growth and population is a reoccurring theme as was bottled water. There are issues regarding our current lifestyle, dependence on cars etc.The alternative to the pipeline: USE LESS!Kids who are conserving water may not have a clue why they're doing it but hey that's good enoughWe've got to keep flex to adapt to an uncertain future.Tree canopy: Don't loose sight of that. It's a challenge because land owners can remove them but right now we're not doing much to reward those who have kept them.Jack Imhoff states: Build infrastructure, human infrastructure and natural infrastructure are all equal. The story of Ken Kirby and Nile Creek shows how near destruction inspires repair. 
When asked what you would like to see in a health watershed, people would like more tree coverage, the return of sturgeons.Larry Mellors stated stream restoration is about more than fish. I don't fish personally but my friends bring me along so they can use my limit. 
We need moneyWe need to work togetherWe need to market these ideasPlanning should preserve creeks so urban folks have a relationship with them.Population issues regarding our watershed has folks wanting to work within the natural carrying capacity.The knowledge economy needs foodSociety must decide what it wants, what's important.Wouldn't it be cool to navigate to Brantford? J.Crawford Reid says yes.Planning must have the river being a factor. This was yet again, another successful, watershed forum.
The End

Lulu :0)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100918/1eeaf279/attachment.html>