 |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
THE TAY RIVER LEGAL DEFENCE FUND Government Fails First Walkerton Test Case Environment Minister Stockwell’s decision to grant OMYA (Canada) a million gallons a day of Tay River water flies in the face of lessons learned from the Walkerton tragedy. Despite promises to uphold the recommendations from Walkerton, the government has failed to do so in this first test case. Both the Walkerton Report and the Tribunal decision call for a water budget as minimum protection for watersheds, but the Minister ignored this advice. Walkerton’s call for “community-based environmental stewardship” also got a slap in the face with the Minister’s ruling to put future decision making behind closed doors with no rights for citizens to comment or appeal on the granting of the full million gallons per day. OMYA will be allowed to significantly increase its water taking without applying for a new Permit To Take Water. This is contrary to the ERT decision which allowed OMYA to double it water taking, but required it to seek a new permit before increasing water taking further. The Ministry has circumvented public notice and comment provided by the EBR as well as citizen rights to appeal any increase in taking. The Minister’s decision has dealt a severe blow to water protection and the Environmental Bill of Rights in Ontario. Citizens expressed shock, anger and disappointment at Environment Minister Stockwell’s decision. “What he has done”, said Carol Dillon, one of the citizen appellants in the case, “is replace a thorough, open and transparent public process with a quick, politically expedient one behind closed doors. His action has made a farce of the Environmental Bill of Rights and has invalidated the process.” The Tay River case represents the first time a citizens’ group has been able to use the eight-year old Environmental Bill of Rights to reach a decision. The Minister has now trampled the rights promised by this process by reversing the ERT decision in a secret process. What message does that send to citizens? This small town’s three-year experience has exposed a government that only pays lip service to its commitment to the environment, open process, and the lessons learned from Walkerton. Contacts
|
|
|
|
[Home] [About the Fund] [Watershed] [Press and Opinion] [Press Releases] [Links] [Archives] |
|
|
|
|
 |
|||