BVRA Presentation, June 21, 2010, Speaker's Notes

BVRA Presentation, June 21, 2010
Speaker’s Notes

1. We are the Beaver Valley Ratepayers. I am vice-president Ed O’Neil and with me is president, Cathy Little.

2. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak to you today. This is an outline of our talk. Basically, the concern is the effect of new subdivisions on existing wells that already have problems.


3. We were incorporated in 2002.

4. We speak for the 125 existing homes in the Beaver Valley settlement area and some below the escarpment. These homes are along Windy Lane, Bowles Bluff Rd., Grey Rd 30, the Seventh Line and the Beaver valley Crescent Subdivision southwest of Hutchisons’ Corners.

5. At the 2008 BVRA AGM in Kimberly, members packed the hall because of concerns about the proposed Beaver Valley Village Subdivision. Again at the Beaver Valley Village public meeting, the Rocklyn Community Centre was full. Members and property owners voiced their concerns regarding this development proposal.

6. This is a map of the area of the proposed subdivision. The turquoise area is the Beaver Valley Ski Club and the orange area is the proposed Beaver Valley Village subdivision on top of the escarpment. The Beaver Valley Village is a 45 lot subdivision packed on approximately 7.5 hectares of a 29 hectare site. The major portion of this site consists of hazard land and wetlands. The land is in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area and designated Escarpment Recreation. Grey Highlands has development control of the area.

Our people have concerns about the quantity and quality of water when new subdivisions are built. But even more concerning is the fact that peer reviewers have concerns and these peer reviewers have a lot more expertise than we do. We understand that there are proposals for 103 more homes. There are another 35 lots that could be developed, so we have 125 existing homes and we are going to more than double the number of homes in our area. This does not even include the remaining undeveloped 45 ha in this settlement area representing between 70 to 130 new homes.

7. The number one concern of BVRA members and local property owners is water. The AEMOT Groundwater Management Study, Final Report, 2001 identified this entire area as “one of the most sensitive groundwater management areas in the Province “(pg 104).
Mapping from the Study shows the proposed site for this development is within a “High Aquifer Vulnerability Area” and a “Recommended Protection Area for Groundwater.”
Many residents already experience water shortages, wells going dry, turbid and contaminated drinking water. The potential for negative environmental impact on the quality and quantity of water from this proposed 45 unit subdivision is real.
The Settlement Capability Study uses very complex formulas and very little well testing and concludes that we will not have problems with our water. We know differently – we have the practical experience and we have well problems.

8. We assume you are tired of hearing from delegations primarily against all development, but our concerns are real. We are concerned about
• Groundwater uncertainty
• Risk of cumulative negative impact and
• Density
We have done our homework. We have been monitoring this application since 2008, have read all the documents and correspondence. We are impressed with the process so far, particularly the work of the peer reviewers for the Municipality and the County. In addition, the BVRA has been advised by planner, Ron Davidson and hydrogeologist, Ray Blackport. With all due respect, the proponent is focused on the bottom line: to get approval for as many lots as possible. The justification for this application is often misleading, incomplete or even wrong in some cases. The residents too, have a bottom line: to minimize the risk to the quality and quantity of potable water to local residents now and in the future.

9. Groundwater hydrogeology is a complex system made even more complex by the presence of karst. This is the situation in this proposed subdivision location.
• In the opinion of the peer reviews, inadequate knowledge of local groundwater is being used to justify this development.
• Local experience has been neglected.
Failure to inform residents of well pump tests was interpreted as “no reports of adverse interference.” Anecdotal evidence about contaminated water, water shortages, and seasonal fluctuations was excluded from the assessment of the availability of potable water. There is resistance against implementing a monitoring program of local residents’ wells as recommended by both peer reviews. You would think that if you really wanted to learn about the water situation in the area, you would ask the people who live here.

10. For the most complete understanding of local groundwater, residents’ input and peer reviewer recommendations must be included.

11. Peer reviews have consistently pointed out inadequate assessment of both the area hydrogeology and the karst topography.
• Marcus Buck (County of Grey) believes that "… groundwater flow could be substantially less and the number of homes that could be supported within the BVVSA may also be substantially less (than estimated).”
• RJ Burnside (Grey Highlands) recommends pre-development water level monitoring program to assist in confirming long-term water capacity and believes risks associated with septic effluent require more discussions for mitigating concerns.
• We support the peer reviewer recommendations including peer reviewer oversight of the writing of draft plan conditions.
Ray Blackport, the hydrogeologist who advised us, believes more work needs to be done to better understand the site hydrogeology.

12. The position of the Ministry of the Environment is clear: Ministry of the Environment concern about cumulative environmental impact and the appropriateness of the servicing proposed is made more relevant by the other development in the immediate area either proposed or approved. There are 103 residential lots being proposed. Servicing should be reflective of and appropriate to this context.

None of the reports that the BVRA has seen has evaluated the cumulated impact of 45 new units not to mention the 103 new units on existing well water -- quantity and quality.

13. A Settlement Capability Study, completed by the proponent as a requirement of the County of Grey did nothing to change the position of the MOE: “The study does not address the fundamental question: What is the most appropriate way to service a settlement
• of this scale
• in this location
• with identified issues
• in an environmentally sustainable way?”

RJ Burnside raises the question whether the Ministry of the Environment has actually provided clearance to the County with respect to the Settlement Capability Study and the servicing options. Grey Highlands OP and Niagara Escarpment Plan both require that a development proposal on private services must meet the requirements of the MOE.

14. Filthy water cannot be washed is an African proverb which expresses a principle that guides the management of water resources throughout the world. It is more sustainable– that is, less expensive economically, more socially responsible and better for the natural environment – to maintain a pristine water supply than to treat water once it has been contaminated. It is also the title of a southern Ontario study looking at the health of groundwater in fractured bedrock soils, published in 2009.

15. This study concludes: “Further source water protection initiatives are imperative to protect the health of those consuming groundwater from private rural wells especially in sensitive settings.” (Authors: Jana Levison PHD, Kent Novakowski P.Eng, PHD, Queens University)

16. Slide shows cover of Municipal World magazine (March 2010), featuring the story, Ten Years After Walkerton – What have we learned?
After the Walkerton water tragedy, the recommendation of Justice O’Connor to protect drinking water at the source has resulted in Ontario’s Clean Water Act. This legislation requires communities to develop source protection plans on a watershed basis in order to protect their municipal sources of drinking water. Unfortunately, the timetable extends beyond 2012 and rural wells are not even on the current agenda.

17. Summarized from the article: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
1. The first lesson is that humans are part of the environment. What should be clear from Walkerton is that environmental management is not just about nature, but also about human health and safety.

2. The second fundamental lesson is that we need to look at the big picture: Society, the economy and the environment community interests and sustainability of the whole watershed.

18. The AEMOT Study recommended that participating municipalities have groundwater management plans. Grey Highlands can be commended for including in the Official Plan, acknowledgement of the importance of groundwater to the Municipality and intention to incorporate groundwater management policies into the Plan.

19. There is no evidence that a groundwater management plan has been used to evaluate this development proposal. Consequently, there is an opportunity for the Grey Highlands Planning Committee to honour the acknowledgement and intent in the Official Plan by implementing the peer reviewer recommendations, in order to protect groundwater quantity and quality in the Beaver Valley Settlement area.

20. The density of this proposal and individual servicing are incompatible. Since municipal services and communal services are deemed to be unfeasible, density of this subdivision is a key issue and must be reduced to comply with planning policy.
• The proposed lot size of this development is only half of the 4000 m2 recommendation of Grey Highlands Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 7.1.2
• Provincial Policy Statement 1.6.4.4 - recommends new development of 5 lots or less on individual private services
• According to the MOE, a development of this size on individual services is not appropriate.
• Grey Highlands OP states “New privately serviced residential units
should not exceed 3 units per ha (4.9.3 d)”.
This 7.5 hectare developable area with 45 homes works out to 6 units per hectare. The developer is proposing to calculate density including the wet and hazard lands. We cannot believe that this is the intent of the policy. If so, what stops the next developer from buying land with major wetlands and arguing for development on 20 ft. wide lots. The statement in the hydro-g report that development consists of widely-spaced wells on relatively large lots is just not true.

21. The BVRA supports sustainable development.
We would be willing to support this development if:
• the MOE approves,
• an independent cumulative impact study is completed for the Beaver Valley Settlement area before development,
• groundwater management strategies are implemented before development,
• the most cautious interpretation of Provincial Policy Statement, Official Plan policy and Zoning Bylaws is used in determination of density,
• all peer review recommendations are implemented,
• a reasonable enforcement plan for conditions of draft plan approval is implemented.

22. We have respect for council and we do understand the difficult responsibility council has, in addressing apparently competing needs. However, short-term thinking that focuses solely on economic revenue jeopardizes one of the biggest economic assets Grey Highlands has – it’s environment. The natural, beautiful and healthy Beaver Valley attracts people here and keeps them returning, often to move or retire here. We trust that council will take the long view and consider this application in the context of the whole settlement area and in the most cautious and most sustainable way. Long after the developers have moved on, we will be living here with the consequences of this decision.

23. Thank you to the Committee of the Whole for giving us this chance to address you.

We gave councilors and the planner a package containing the slide show and an addendum listing the peer review statements and recommendations that the BVRA supports. This addendum will be posted on the blog.