Special Areas requests for water

[cakadu]

Linda, the Taiwan Sugar application was in Flagstaff County, and you are correct there was huge opposition, and it split the county council in two.
That is one key reason why the provincial government made the decision to remove the authority for siting confined feeding operations from municipalities and appoint the NRCB as the regulator for the AOPA legislation.
Decisions are based on economy, effect on the environment, community and the appropriate use of land. It takes the local politics out of the decision also takes the heat off the municipal council.

One key requirement in the applicants ability to obtain a water licence, and if Alberta Environment is of the view that ample water is not available then no licence will be issued, and the NRCB will not issue an approval regardless of whether all other criteria are met.

Regarding water studies, most counties now have done ground water assessments in partnership with PFRA, so your county should have the information on file.

[cakadu]

Emrald, the groundwater studies I would be interested in seeing is a cumulative effect of all the drilling activity and right now that is a big unknown. We should be aware of lessons that have been hard learned in other areas. The Colorado River is one that comes to mind. It has been allocated to the point that there just simply isn't enough water. How many industries, farms etc. were hurt because of the cumulative shortfall? The Colorado is a mighty big river.

What about infrastructure? Like all the rest of the municipal areas it too will end up costing in the long run and the municipalities involved will be scrambling for money just as many of our counties are.

The point about Taiwan Sugar is that it would have brought value-added industry, jobs, a fairly significant economic benefit, perhaps kept the kids at home and it was soundly and emphatically rejected. What will be any different about other proposed feedlots and/or confined feeding operations - water issues aside? People do not want these things in their back yards.

Cowman, what helped to significantly boost the land values around here was far more a consequence of all the demand primarily by European buyers than the lake dwellers. Bear in mind that the area structure plan did not allow for any of the development that you presently see around the lake, let alone for any increase in that development. It would have far greater value as a natural area and if the only way we can see value in a natural or recreational area is to develop it, then we are truly in a sad state.

Everything is moving at such a fast pace that we have no idea of what the final consequences of our actions are going to be. The biggest point to bear in mind is that we are only borrowing these resources, they are not ours to do with as we will. We could very well be painting future generations into a corner with little or no option. Wouldn't it be nice to leave them some options?

[cowman]

Linda: I agree there was a lot of European buyers of farmland but there was also a whole lot of land bought up by Calgary businessmen. The anticipation that eventually the area will flourish as a recreational area was a driving force behind these purchases. And quite frankly from what I heard at the land use meetings that is the goal?
People want to be near water and have a view of the mountains. They like lots of spruce trees and green areas. They will pay for it...more than agricultural activity can afford. I believe the area south and west of the dam, really meets all those expectations?
emerald: Should a family be able to build whatever operation they want? How about if I owned some land right on the edge of Red Deer? Should I be able to build a feedlot or hog barn, even if I meet all the regulations? The fact is the "rules" might say I should be able to...unfortunately then the real world takes over?
Whenever people and agriculture collide, agriculture is going to lose! That is just a fact of the real world?
The injection of huge amounts of money into CFOs from wealthy Europeans was not a good thing in my opinion. They came in with unrealistic dollars and upset the "natural" planning system! The hog barns were being squeezed out of the developed areas before they came in with their mega bucks!
As far as Hutterite colonies go, why would they be treated any different than any other large feeding operation? Hutterites know the value of a dollar and if the price is right they have no problem relocating. After all they do it every twenty years or so?
I wonder what the prediction of costs and benifits of the *****on dam and Glennifer lake were like before the dam was built? I do remember a fierce battle about the merits and costs before it was built. I would suggest it probably was one of the best things that ever was done for the Red Deer river and the city of Red Deer? I truly believe you could call it a success story? Or am I wrong?

[cowman]

cowman, you would not be able to locate a feedlot or hog barn etc. near an urban centre such as Red Deer because of the inability of meeting the minimum distance separation from an urban centre or neighbours, plus most large centres have an intermunicipal development plan with their urban neighbour which will include buffer zones where no confined feeding operations are an accepted land use.

In land that is zoned agriculture it is a different matter. Applicants for confined feeding operations must meet all criteria, including set backs and they depend on the size of the operation.

Linda in some communities there is a vocal opposition and on the other hand a silent group of supporters for feeding operations. In many areas that grow a large amount of grain, and transportation costs are through the roof, confined feeding operations are welcomed due to the opportunity to market grain locally .

Appropriate use of land is one criteria where municipalities are in the drivers seat with respect to development of confined feeding operations. If the municipality sets out areas where no confined feeding operations are allowed within their municipal development plan then any application in that area will be denied.
Citizens of a municipality have opportunity for input at the MDP development stage and can clearly indicate to their council the land uses they feel are inappropriate.

I wonder how the agricultural community feels about the Glennifer Lake development in their midst ?

I drive highway 16 nearly every day and the new landfill on the Enoch Reserve is something to behold. Rank odor, garbage flying all over the highway and stuck in fencelines, and line ups of gravel trucks entering the site off the highway.
The odor of rotten garbage on a daily basis must be terrible for the community around the site but they likely had no say in the development because it is on reserve land which is governed by the feds.

If I had a choice I would live beside a feedlot anyday vs a garbage dump with hundreds of trucks entering and leaving and rotton odor 24/7. In fact I do live beside a couple of feedlots, but live far enough away ( 1.5 miles) that under the county permit system I did not have any input at the time they were approved.

[cakadu]

I cannot speak for the whole ag community and I would suggest that it would be a matter of how the whole community feels versus just one segment. Cowman is right - those with lands adjacent to the lake are likely waiting with baited breath for future development - despite the fact that it does not exist in the area structure plan --- YET. Others around the area are somewhat more skeptical about the development.

When the local Co-op board decided to cater to the lake people, it caused quite a rift within the community and the Co-op was approaching bankruptcy. Some people have shied away from the Co-op and hard feelings still somewhat exist.

Like any small community "outsiders" are not really welcomed and there has been a significant increase in vandalism, attempted theft etc. than there was before for the lake development.

Many of the lake dwellers wish to be left alone, certainly don't want the county getting involved in anything and will never hesitate to let you know just how much money they are adding to the revenue coffers of the county. At some point, the infrastructure costs will outweigh any benefit received. It will be most interesting to see what the group working on the ASP does eventually come up with and how much consultation they do with the permanent residents of the area.

Because many of the people are only semi-resident i.e. only here for part of the year - they do not have the same attachment to the area, nor do they feel the same from an environmental standpoint. They want the conveniences of city life to follow them to the lake. Doesn't always mesh so well with the local values and customs.

[cakadu]

During my time on council a previously approved bare land condominium applied to expand. The most VOCAL opponents were property owners within the existing condo ! Most of them lived there during the summer, and went south in the winter.

[cropduster]

And no one has touched on what the Special Areas REALLY is.It`s a benevolent dictatorship municipal form of government where the provincial government truly has all the power.Oh yes, the bureaucrats tell us they abide by the wishes of the people but it is/was never put into legislation.And the majority of the cattlemen seem to like it since they can appear to own their leases(so they think) and collect all(most)of the oil revenue without the cost of TRUE(deeded) ownwership.The water transfer project will probably make these guys show their true socialist side.I feel that issue(land ownership and municpal gov`t form) WILL have to be addressed as/before the project can truly succeed.Property rights/ownership of land WILL have to be addressed.People will not have the encentive to improve property they do NOT own.Other social experiments around the world have shown it and this will be no different.

[cropduster]

cropduster, do you think that the towns and villages in Special Areas will benefit from the ability to attract business and people if there is water available. The urban centres plus the counties in the area around Coronation etc. are not part of Special Areas governance.

[cowman]

I'm not really sure just what "special areas" means? I do know it was basically an area that was so destitute in the thirties that the government had to basically take it over?
Like I stated, I am basically ignorant of what "special areas" actually means!
I just assumed Coronation was in the special areas, as it is pretty bleak!
Enlighten me if you will?

[cowman]

cowman, I am almost reluctant to post this in case Horse thinks I am engaging in double talk but here goes:
Special Areas fall under a different form of government than Counties and Municipal Districts. They are governed by 13 councillors and a chairperson these individuals are appointed by the government vs being elected.

Towns and Villages included within the boundaries of Special Areas include:
Hanna, Consort, Youngstown,Oyen, Empress, Cereal and Veteran. All of these urban centres have their own elected government. There are 16 hamlets within the boundaries of Special Areas. Total rural population is approx. 5300 people.
Now it gets interesting: Special Areas encompasses over 2 million hectares. There are 5900 kms of open roads and there is over 50 million in reserve dollars socked away for a rainy day. The mill rate is on the lower end of the scale as far as rural municipalities go.

Coronation,Castor and Halkirk are urban municipalities within the boundaries of the County of Paintearth. It is not part of Special Areas but that area is also part of the group that is working on the water diversion initiative.