GRCA SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT ?

Today's K-W Record has a story titled "Woolwich landowner ordered to remove fill". Apparently the landowner was filling in a low spot on his property which was near a wetland. The impetus for the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) action was complaints from a neighbour. This inherently is a hit and miss method of environmental protection. The location of the property is on Shantz Station Rd. near Maryhill.

There certainly is an element here of slamming the gate after the horse has bolted. Dave Schultz of the GRCA advises us that "...in the Grand River watershed about 65% of wetlands have been lost...". We are also advised that in reference to the charges laid on this particular individual "... actions like this are relatively small given the amount of legal development that happens in a year.". This is what concerns me. How seriously difficult (or expensive) is it to obtain a permit from the GRCA for a larger development including residential subdivisions? The GRCA have a poor record in actually prohibiting development in inappropriate locations. At one time their nickname was the Grand River Construction Authority.

I admit a certain bias based however on their behaviour in Elmira. While Varnicolor's Lot 91 was in the news for illegal storage and dumping and burying of solvents (& P.C.B.'s), they the GRCA gave approval for the construction of concrete tank farms on Lot 91 in the floodplain of the Canagagigue Creek. In fact that site is bordered on two sides by Landfill Creek and the "GiG". That was in 1991. Today we still have pro development Councillors in all Municipalities and hence I have to ask the obvious question. How difficult is it for these pro development folks to change their hats when they attend a GRCA meeting? Who are we kidding?