[All] Challenges we still face on Source Protection

Fri Sep 24 17:47:41 EDT 2010

Hi Ginny

Kitchener Council clearly admitted there was no EIS study conducted in regards to the Gas Bar on the 
evening of the vote. Council did state however, that the proposal was approved by the 
GRCA and that it was part a  subwatershed review but THERE WAS NO EIS. Contact 
Councillor Vrbanic or Kelly Galloway because they were the two council members who debated this
 issue the most that evening. 

Technically speaking, the current ROPP would prohibit this kind of 
proposal from happening at a location like this but because the ministry
 has yet to approve the current version of the ROPP, we can't use it.

Take note, in Breslau a housing development did not have an EIS study and that proposal depleted several residential wells. The result was a proposal to introduce a looping water pipe at home owners expense to the tune of approx. $15,000 per home. The public protested and the project was declined. Technically according to MOE laws, the developer should have been held fully accountable for the remediation of all the adversely affected wells in the area. These are the kids of issues that EIS is designed to PREVENT.

	p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Even the new constraints of the Oak
Ridges Moraine Act do not apply to older proposals so we are still
observing development encroaching upon sensitive areas  degrading the
very resources the Act was designed to protect. They can't grandfather the law. 

The new decision coming out of Mount Nemo could have helped in this case. If we were to implement a private member application, that would have allowed the proper level 
of environmental protection to be decided ahead of, or at the same time 
as, the Gas Bar approval justified by the need to take a precautionary approach.
That's one option we need to remember in the days ahead.

Lulu

--- On Fri, 9/24/10, Ginny Quinn <ginny at kw.igs.net> wrote:

From: Ginny Quinn <ginny at kw.igs.net>
Subject: Re: [All] Challenges we still face on Source Protection
To: "Louisette Lanteigne" <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>, all at gren.ca
Cc: alicia.pokluda at sympatico.ca
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010, 4:55 PM

Lulu   With the proximity of the wellhead and the high water 
table  and proximity of Strasburg Creek   are you SURE  that 
there have been NO EIS studies ??Please tell me where I can confirm this 
fact.   and I'll see if I can get my teeth into that one 
correctly.  Or if they're going to do it soon ???   and is 
responsible to see that it is done???Thanks  Ginny

Alicia   I'm copying you on this because we have to keep you 
updated   Ginny
I want to write to the Editor but MUST have my facts straight.  
GQ

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Louisette Lanteigne 
  To: all at gren.ca 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:42 
  AM
  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)

  _______________________________________________
All mailing 
  list
All at gren.ca
http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100924/f84eff21/attachment.html>