I mean the study you linked shows the benefits despite the wetland only being 100m2. Compare that with direct runoff? Seems like an easy win.
Now let’s do a 500m2 wetland and make it actually inhabitable by native species. Bonus points if we don’t give the land to the conservation authorities at the same time as ford is stripping their powers.
Apart from what I stated earlier this reply digs into deeper criticisms I have of the article. I know communicating policy and science to the general public is hard and probably mostly ineffective as no one is going to want to give it close enough of a read to actually understand everything. I’m still cranky about it for the following reasons:
The wetland is not directly related to the “30 by 30” initiative. The article doesn’t claim it is, but doesn’t really explain it until the last paragraph, and even then it’s not stated plainly.
Among other things, in order for an area like Kelly-Pemberton’s to be recognized as an OECM, it must have a defined boundary, permit authorities to control activities within the boundaries, and prohibit activities that would be incompatible with conservation objectives, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Funding to give the land to provincially regulated conservation authorities isn’t on the table as part of the 30 by 30 initiative for Ontario or the local municipality because they do not have a Nature Agreement with the federal government. It’s not an alternative if the other option isn’t possible.
Areas with provisions that legally compel the governing authorities to prevent incompatible
activities from occurring and ensure that potentially compatible activities are managed
effectively, would clearly meet the standard. Sites may also meet the standard despite not
having legal provisions, if such activities are not occurring and are not likely to occur as a result
of the use of the mechanisms noted in Effective Means-1.
while this farm may not be explicitly required to treat run off by the MECP (taking that at face value), runoff is certainly a deleterious substance under the federal Environmental Protection Act. I deal with this in my professional life: if I had a dollar for everyone who told me (in error) that the EPA didn’t apply to them, I’d have to work less to survive lol.
I don’t know the address of the farm so I can’t check if it’s in a high risk source water protection area and thus subject to additional requirements, but the local conservation authority is required to have a source water protection plan. This includes programs to manage risks from farms. The finding for the pond came from ALUS which provides annual finding for managing and maintaining such projects.
The project was completed ~ 10 years ago, received a beef industry environmental award in 2021, the farmer in the article is a former Ontario Federation of Agriculture director, and was listed as a one of the top 10 most powerful people in Eastern Ontario Agriculture in 2023 . Is any of this inherently bad if we ignore the source of the pollution? No - but I don’t think the average reader will understand this is a PR move/indirect lobbying by the agriculture industry to get external funding for water protection projects under the guise of conservation rather than the cost of doing business.
I got one for ya, stop keeping animals captive so you can
steal their milkmurder them. A lot less run off that way.Edit: apologies, that used to be “dairy farm”. Now they are a “cow-calf operation”.
Here’s the wetland btw
https://ontarioruralwastewatercentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/orwc-research-case-study-beef-farm-runoff-wetland-vegetated-filter-treatment-system.pdf
I mean the study you linked shows the benefits despite the wetland only being 100m2. Compare that with direct runoff? Seems like an easy win.
Now let’s do a 500m2 wetland and make it actually inhabitable by native species. Bonus points if we don’t give the land to the conservation authorities at the same time as ford is stripping their powers.
Apart from what I stated earlier this reply digs into deeper criticisms I have of the article. I know communicating policy and science to the general public is hard and probably mostly ineffective as no one is going to want to give it close enough of a read to actually understand everything. I’m still cranky about it for the following reasons:
Funding to give the land to provincially regulated conservation authorities isn’t on the table as part of the 30 by 30 initiative for Ontario or the local municipality because they do not have a Nature Agreement with the federal government. It’s not an alternative if the other option isn’t possible.
Similar projects could potentially qualify for funding as a OECM. Designation of an OECM is not a legally binding agreement or definition, although funding may come with certain commitments. The requirement for controlling activities is a bit overstated in the article. It could be things like zoning or even that a certain use is established and unlikely to be replaced, even if it is not forbidden to do so. . This could rely on authorities like conservation authorities to validate, so they would still play a part.
while this farm may not be explicitly required to treat run off by the MECP (taking that at face value), runoff is certainly a deleterious substance under the federal Environmental Protection Act. I deal with this in my professional life: if I had a dollar for everyone who told me (in error) that the EPA didn’t apply to them, I’d have to work less to survive lol.
I don’t know the address of the farm so I can’t check if it’s in a high risk source water protection area and thus subject to additional requirements, but the local conservation authority is required to have a source water protection plan. This includes programs to manage risks from farms. The finding for the pond came from ALUS which provides annual finding for managing and maintaining such projects.
The project was completed ~ 10 years ago, received a beef industry environmental award in 2021, the farmer in the article is a former Ontario Federation of Agriculture director, and was listed as a one of the top 10 most powerful people in Eastern Ontario Agriculture in 2023 . Is any of this inherently bad if we ignore the source of the pollution? No - but I don’t think the average reader will understand this is a PR move/indirect lobbying by the agriculture industry to get external funding for water protection projects under the guise of conservation rather than the cost of doing business.