I am against this amendment …

I am against this amendment to the regulation. Although the legislation is about excess soil and ensuring topsoil is listed as a re-use, local authorities also see it as a tracking measure to lessen the impacts of improper soil use.

Part of the issue that local authorities had prior to the introduction of this legislation, was with haulers using one source site's documents (soil test reports) for several receiving sites falsely. They would use a report for several receiving sites to claim the soil being imported to a destination site was clean. The legislation as it was originally written requiring the registration and tracking of the soil, gave authorities some confidence that the haulers were being honest with their provided testing. Authorities for the destination site would be able to look online and quickly figure out 1. if the tracked soil was coming from the source site 2. if more than one destination site was receiving soil from this project and if the soil volume was in sinc with the recorded volumes.

Who will oversee the expectances to the regulation? What may be categorized as minor by some may not be by others. Is there an appeal to these expectances? Soil tracking keeps haulers honest.