|
Wake up to source water protection |
|
Written by Dr. Robert (Bob) Patrick
|
|
Wednesday, 17 November 2010 22:05 |
Following is the viewpoint of Patrick, an assistant professor in the department of geography and planning at the University of Saskatchewan. He teaches environmental planning in the regional and urban planning program.
In Wake up to economic development (SP, Oct. 20), Sask. beef industry chair at the U of S, John McKinnon, states: "In order to build and operate a feedlot where cattle are fed in confinement, there is an extensive environmental assessment required to evaluate drainage, clay barriers to soil nutrient movement and the impact on surface and groundwater. Proper drainage and containment is a must!"
Saskatchewan residents should expect nothing less.
Unfortunately, provincial environment agencies across Canada in recent decades have seen the progressive erosion of their economic, technical and human resource capacity to undertake comprehensive planning for, and assessment of, intensive development.
Additionally, experts across Canada agree that the current environmental impact assessment process is flawed.
Inconsistent environmental indicators and varied monitoring methods are only part of the problem.
The inability of environmental impact assessments to address the cumulative impacts of all activities on a watershed scale is now recognized as a major stumbling block to sustainable watershed management. A group of researchers at the U of S, and others across Canada, are currently focusing on this very topic.
The approval of an intensive livestock operation in the RM of Rudy is problematic due to the potential for surface water drainage of high concentration contaminants into the South Saskatchewan River.
This is in addition to all other known and unknown contaminants that enter the river.
The South Saskatchewan is the only source of drinking water for Saskatoon and many other communities in the watershed. In a province where so much of the land surface does not contribute to the river's streamflow, can the RM of Rudy truly be the best location for such an operation?
Decision-makers must look beyond its immediate economic development potential to the greater good of downstream residents, including water security and public health.
Waterborne contamination of surface and groundwater sources of drinking water has proven to cause significant economic damage.
The cost of the May 2000 water contamination in Walkerton, Ont., was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The rush for an intensive livestock operation in Rudy may create more negative outcomes than positive benefits. This is a time for careful planning to undertake full assessment of the hydrological characteristics of the area, consideration of broader cumulative effects of all sub-watershed development activity, assessment of alternative locations, and full collaboration with all groups, including First Nations, and communities that depend on the river for a water supply.
The human cost of water contamination from an intensive livestock operation (or any other activity) is simply too high. The economic cost of advanced water treatment to "fix" water quality problems after development will be out of reach for many communities that now depend on this water source.
In the face of uncertainty, the right decision on intensive livestock operations is to protect the water source for future generations in the region.
The promise of a refurbished Highway 219 to entice local approval of the proposed development trivializes the importance of water security.
We only have the South Saskatchewan for a domestic water supply.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
|
Resources 