GRAVEL PITS GRAVEL PITS AND MORE GRAVEL PITS

From my reading of exerpts from the Aggregate Resources Act it appears to me that although there is a requirement to show that the resource (aggregate) is economically viable ie. it exists in a sufficient quantity and is reasonably accessible there is however no requirement to show a current market demand. I find this a little strange. As we in Woolwich have had no less than 5 gravel pit applications in the last couple of years and as there seems to be no "sunset" clauses for closing these pits, is it possible that what we are seeing is simply a race by various contractors, pavers, road builders and landscapers to tie up as many gravel and sand resources as possible? If I were for example bidding on a road reconstruction wouldn't I want a pit (as in MY pit) as close as possible to the project in order to lower my costs and maximize my profit?

Of the 5 applications, four of them are along the Grand River. From north of West Montrose and Hwy #86 the first is on the west side; we then have in descending order north to south the Montrose Pit (Capitol Paving), the Jigs Hollow Pit (Kuntz Landscaping), and the Hunder Development (Hunsberger Pit). The Capitol pit and the Hunder Pit are on the east side of the Grand River and the Kuntz (Jigs Hollow) is on the west side. The fifth pit is north of Elmira on Sandy Hills Dr..

In regards to yesterday's posting about the Region of Waterloo's concerns with gravel pits by Mannheim and Wilmot Township, apparently at least two rural townships a few years ago expressed similar major concerns. Puslinch and North Dumphries raised the issue at the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). As a result a report titled "Cumulative Effects Best Practices Paper for Below Water Table Aggregate Operations within the Grand River Watershed" was researched and written. Here is the link. More to follow.