[All] Challenges we still face on Source Protection

[sdlachance]

As a gentle response,

            First, thank you Lulu for all your research, insights & courage
to share them with decision makers.

            Second, I have some concerns when situations escalate beyond
showing up, rational debate & presenting petitions of support. Democracy
allows other opinions to be on the table, the majority to rule, etc. "Losing
it." In a public place scares me & I am sure scares others away because
extreme emotion is so very volatile. Over escalating & over personalizing
drains away audience attention from the big picture, the slow, democratic
process & the consensus building needed for long term solutions. Losing a
battle is not the same as losing the war! This situation has come up in some
of the candidate debates on Rogers TV. In my opinion, it is a time for the
many to think carefully not for the few to scream madly. We need to be a
persistent but reasoned voice for environmental sustainability, To lead the
way we need followers!

            Third, over care of others sometimes means we are not taking
enough care of ourselves. Lulu take care. Trust that the weigh of the world
is a shared weight & many are contributing. 

With thoughtful consideration,

Sandra

            

 

            

 

  _____  

From: all-bounces at gren.ca [mailto:all-bounces at gren.ca] On Behalf Of
Louisette Lanteigne
Sent: September 21, 2010 10:42 AM
To: all at gren.ca
Subject: [All] Challenges we still face on Source Protection

 


Hi folks

Last night the city of Kitchener approved building a gas bar with car wash
to be built over top a sensitive well head protection area within 500 meters
of Strasburg Creek. The runoff from the car wash is intended to discharge
into sewers, the related chloride of road salts from the cars will end up in
the Grand because they can't remove it. The Fuel storage is supposedly going
to be placed "above the water line" using a fiber glass tank, but the land
has not been subject to an EIS study. The zoning was given back in 1987 so
the ecological constraints are set to those standards.

Well over a hundred signed the petition against it, all delegates opposed it
except for Mr. Brittan who was representing the group. No regional hydrology
staff or GRCA were present. Council said the GRCA approved this, and council
Vrbanic stated that even with todays laws it would still technically be a
use allowed for this location. Kelly Galloway stated that conflicts with
what she was told by Regional Staff. According to the current ROPP it would
not be allowed but the ministry has yet to fully approve that ROPP so it
doesn't stick yet.

Citizens tried to put a delay on the project stating more info is needed,
why not let the next council participate in this decision but no delay was
given. They simply approved of it with the only opposition from Ms. Wiley
and Ms. Galloway.

When Mr.Gazolla started speaking of his confidence of developers to be able
to responsibly construct this project in this area I lost it. I stood up,
showed him my the iron suppliments my doctor ordered me to take to make up
for the chronic anemia I have from all the bloody episodes of e coli that I
endured in my subdivision. The result of poor planning has changed the
biological composition of my blood. I stormed out of there so angry. They
just don't get it. They have not actualized the risk.

The technical manual as produced by the MOE clearly identifies projects of
this nature as a "threat to drinking water quality". I told them in my
speech how all the legislation I've reviewed from the Clean Water Act, the
Ontario Source Protection Act, the PPS, ROPP, Kitchener OPP, there is no way
this project can reasonably be viewed as compliant. Seriously, if any of
those pipes sink or shift for either the car wash or the gas station it's
contamination. They just don't get it

The City planners and city council are woefully undereducated on the bona
fide risks and they give absolutely no regard to any legislation outside of
the outdated planning policies of this project. They don't know or
understand what other options exist.

At this time we are sitting along a fault line where on one side there has
been extraordinary scientific advancements that can identify ecological and
hydrological risks and develop policy strategies to avert them. On the other
side there are past plans and associated fiscal investments pushing the
ecological limits to advance forward. It's a time of opposing and
conflicting values, opposing and conflicting long term economic and
environmental visions. To add to the sense of horror, the educated public is
witnessing these economic projects come to fruition going beyond
environmental constraints. We can see the damages at the local level with
Elmira, Northstar, leaky landfills etc. Then at the national level we have
Tar Sands, the Gulf Oil spill.  The trust in government working for the good
will of the people has been shattered at every level we have a gross
disconnect between municipal objectives and the public. 

It's easy to blame council, but on the flip side, the latest ROPP is
amazing. Our policies are trying catch up to science and make everyone happy
while trying to avert fiscal disaster associated with previous investments. 

Maybe GREN needs to create a panel to consult with ministry officials and
planners to see if we can create ways to intervene with past planning that
poses a risk if only to bump up mitigation strategies. If we created a
report like that we can distribute this widely, not only our region but
others. 

Politicans across Ontario need access to options like this otherwise these
crazy things are going to continue over and over again. Reactionary
approaches are weakest but in providing strategies,knowledge that can be
used, to address these types of issues, now that's the path to creating real
solutions. 

Lulu :0)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100921/eba67c95/attachment.html>