One can't just look at anything from one perspective. Take for example a current issue taking place right here in my own county. We have an oil company looking to take 1.5 million gallons of water per year out of the hydrological system forever by pumping it down holes. The environmental experts from AB environment say that isn't a problem because it is less than 1% of the entire volume of the river. Well, that is looking at it from a very limited perspective.
We have been in a drought situation for a good 3 years now and they are telling us that this year won't be much better. 50% of the water in the north and south Saskatchewan river systems - of which the Red Deer river is a part - must go to Saskatchewan. (I think we're in for an ethical debate here because is it 50% of the historical volume of water when the treaties were signed or is it just plain 50% of the flow no matter what the year or conditions).
The other huge problem that we have is the fact that by the year 2020, there will be no new development south of Ponoka (about 40 mins north of Red Deer) because there will not be available water to support it. We are already seeing evidence of this because many of the smaller municipalities around Red Deer are asking that a pipeline system be established so that water can be diverted to these places.
Then you have to consider if we do it for one oil company, what is to stop others from coming in and asking for similar amounts?
It is extremely obvious as to whose side the environment guys are on. Under the current legislation, the oil companies are under no obligation to look at alternatives for bringing the oil out of the ground. Where does that leave our potably water?
Another boiling issue in my county is the fact that prime agricultural land is being eaten up to satisfy both urban sprawl and those "rurbanites" that want "country" living, but city conveniences. There are those that are pushing for nothing but development, but at what cost? Once the land is gone, it's gone and we'll never get it back. I'm not at all for stopping development and progress - I just think that there are alternatives that have to be explored and so far the county hasn't really looked at them - in my opinion.
What about preserving some of our "natural capital" for future use and generations? How about exploring alternatives that will help both sides to get some, if not all, of what they want? Does it have to be a win/lose scenario? The answer isn't to develop it all and then think of the consequences; it requires careful consideration from the outset. We can never know the exact consequences of our actions, but it is best to try and think of all that we can prior to acting.
How are some of the rest of you faring in your counties and municipalities?
We have been in a drought situation for a good 3 years now and they are telling us that this year won't be much better. 50% of the water in the north and south Saskatchewan river systems - of which the Red Deer river is a part - must go to Saskatchewan. (I think we're in for an ethical debate here because is it 50% of the historical volume of water when the treaties were signed or is it just plain 50% of the flow no matter what the year or conditions).
The other huge problem that we have is the fact that by the year 2020, there will be no new development south of Ponoka (about 40 mins north of Red Deer) because there will not be available water to support it. We are already seeing evidence of this because many of the smaller municipalities around Red Deer are asking that a pipeline system be established so that water can be diverted to these places.
Then you have to consider if we do it for one oil company, what is to stop others from coming in and asking for similar amounts?
It is extremely obvious as to whose side the environment guys are on. Under the current legislation, the oil companies are under no obligation to look at alternatives for bringing the oil out of the ground. Where does that leave our potably water?
Another boiling issue in my county is the fact that prime agricultural land is being eaten up to satisfy both urban sprawl and those "rurbanites" that want "country" living, but city conveniences. There are those that are pushing for nothing but development, but at what cost? Once the land is gone, it's gone and we'll never get it back. I'm not at all for stopping development and progress - I just think that there are alternatives that have to be explored and so far the county hasn't really looked at them - in my opinion.
What about preserving some of our "natural capital" for future use and generations? How about exploring alternatives that will help both sides to get some, if not all, of what they want? Does it have to be a win/lose scenario? The answer isn't to develop it all and then think of the consequences; it requires careful consideration from the outset. We can never know the exact consequences of our actions, but it is best to try and think of all that we can prior to acting.
How are some of the rest of you faring in your counties and municipalities?
Comment