I am writing in opposition…

I am writing in opposition of the ERO# 019-6928.

With recent and ongoing dealings with the aggregate industry, I see nothing but turmoil for communities, our ecosystems, drinking water and our health should such a proposal be allowed to pass.

• The input of the public is crucial! It is the community that knows the area best and all its hidden secrets. Had our community not gotten involved in the recent application in our area, a 24/7 massive operation would have been able to proceed with a below the water table extraction pit next to a spring fed lake and cold-water ecosystem, adjacent to 129 ha wetland housing the Endangered Blanding’s Turtle, on top of an aquifer recharge zone and Uranium pluton. It was community involvement that brought these issues to the forefront. For the sake of the employees that would be working the pit and all the local residents, the health implications of such an application would have been tragic for all.
• Substituting public input for “Qualified persons” hired by the applicant is unjust and obviously bias towards the applicant - unacceptable. If there was one thing, I learned about the recent applications in our area is that it is not what they put in their application for all to see, it is what they put in fine, tiny printing hidden somewhere within the report down-played so that an issue would be deemed miniscule or what they conveniently do not put at all. Public input makes the applicant accountable and puts faces and families to area where they just see sand, gravel and money.
• Currently, the applicant hires the experts to do the studies required. This should be neutral 3rd party experts. Again, from recent experience, an arms length authority would eliminate the dis-trust, missing information and crazy asks.
• The applicant currently delays the process with sub-standard testing, reporting/studies and purchasing land within fragile systems. Streamlining permissions on any scale would put them on a pedestal, hand them a ‘god-like complex’ and basically give them the permission to do what they see fit!? Wow, a 100% recipe for disaster! The process is deemed too lengthy and delayed, not because of the ministries or public input, but because they do not adhere to the rules and applications go under scrutiny. Giving them more leeway is ridiculous.
• The amount of water the machinery used in these pits consumes, is astronomical. In our case, the amount consumed in a year would equate to the population of nearby 3 towns. Every area is unique and a water taking study MUST be done to evaluate each community on an individual basis. The application in our area side-stepped the water taking permit questions we had and is still to this day – knowing that they do not have a good answer that will appease the community.
• Streamlining environmental permissions for stormwater management could be disastrous. The pit application in our area is a perfect example as it would flow into the cold-water ecosystem creating irreparable damage to the area, wildlife and residents. Permissions and policing need to remain in place.
• You would be removing a pro-active approach for an after the problem arises approach. Some problems take years, decades to fix. Walkerton, Rideau Lakes Township - ring any bells?!
• ECA’s stop reckless commercial activity and questionable projects, removing them, is just opening the door for trouble.
• All these modifications and streamlining processes make it easier for private companies and yet again, harder for the residents of the area. The process already greatly favours business over public interest. The applicant takes years to put together their reports and studies mandated for the application. The public is then notified and given no more then 60 days to re-but bias expert studies. Then, the applicant is given another 2 years to respond to the public with modifications, answers, etc. – hmmmmm, you can see where I am going with this. Rules should be more stringent, not loosened.
• Increasing water taking from 50 000 litres a day to 379 000 litres a day in a world that is worried about quality and quantity of water for future generations and with Climate Change in the forefront is absurd. The average person consumes 142 litres of water a day, one operation would consume that of 2670 people. Water for people or water for dust control, sand washing? I can’t believe, I actually have to ask that question. Very scary!
• The industry should be policed more and yet with cut backs, staffing shortages were created, which in turn has generated less inspections and oversight of the very operations that can contaminate our waterways, drinking water, lands and communities. What is being proposed would allow self-policed business practices in an industry where greed often supersedes the well being of neighbourhoods. Conservation authorities and the public MUST be involved in the application process.
When will we learn that actions have consequences and doing something bad with the intention of cleaning up later if something goes wrong is just UNACCEPTABLE!