The second of the City’s five articles concerning it’s wastewater management system infers it is award winning. It is common knowledge that when Ted Tatum and others pioneered this system for Cranbrook in 1977 it received well-deserved accolades. However the Environmental Appeal Board Hearing held in the winter of 2008 -2009 over a period of several months involving well qualified and knowledgeable external personnel left no doubt that Cranbrook had better clean up its waste water management and it was ordered to do so once again just as it was thirty years ago. This occurred despite constant denials from city officials that there were both capacity and environmental issues. We have never been told the financial cost of the EAB Hearing. Environmental and health costs of non-compliance are unfortunately not quickly or easily measured. As reports have become available, the information within them is not reassuring. Questions from the public about Cranbrook’s wastewater management have not always been met with respect. In fact in the past those asking questions have been publicly ridiculed on more than one occasion. The public has empathy for those trying to deal with these issues. However it is hard to regain trust and patience when much important information continues to be skirted around.
Despite five lengthy articles in the Townsman and a partial report to Council there are several unanswered and important issues surrounding the Spray Irrigation Upgrade.
· Will The 15 million dollars designated to this project be sufficient to complete the improvements already contracted?
· Which of the original planned upgrades are not going to take place due to lack of funds?
· If more work is required to complete the necessary upgrades, what will be the estimated shortfall?
· What procedures are in place to reassure the residents surrounding the spray site and leaking ponds numbers one and two that well water in the area is safe?
· It was proven in the test results for 2009 that runoff provided to the cattle for drinking water exceeded contamination guidelines by a substantial amount. Have cattle as yet been provided with a clean, fresh drinking water source?
· Does ultimate responsibility for management of the spray site not rest with the City Farm? If so why are cattle as of August 2010 still permitted to graze when active spraying is taking place? This contravenes government regulations.
· What has been the total cost to taxpayers for ten years worth of legal dispute with CPR culminating in an extensive and likely very expensive Environmental Hearing?
There is absolutely no doubt as to the economic benefit of ranching. That does not need justification. The Farmers Market of the past year proves many people crave a healthy local food supply. Many people would like nothing better than to know where their meat is grown, how it is grown and what it is fed. That information is impossible to know unless you buy directly from a local farmer. The hamburger sitting on local supermarket shelves could be a mix of several animals from several different ranches and feed lots. The public is at the mercy of an industrial food supply which supplies food at the lowest cost it can.
Isn’t it only right therefore, that at minimum the public can be reassured and be able to trust that regulations and guidelines are adhered to at the City Farm? Isn’t it only right that taxpayers know the full extent of what still needs to be accomplished and at what cost before our waste disposal system is promulgated as ‘state of the art’?
No comments:
Post a Comment