Land rehabilitation planned

© AgMedia Inc.

Letter to the editor: Company representative challenges quarry coverage

Comments

The Highland Company spokesperson just mentioned rehabilitation. Well to the Highland Company spokesperson we ask...show us an example of successful rehabilitation of a limestone quarry.

And speaking of rehabilitation, let's remind people of the projected quarry area which sits on the source water area of the Nottawasaga and Grand River systems. Is Highland going to rehabilitate the local wells and rivers as they will also be compromised.

As far as Specialty Crop Designation, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture stated, "In all likelihood, once aggregate extraction begins the special soils, and their unique qualities, will be permanently lost. No amount of rehabilitation and site restoration will restore their productive capabilities."

Nanci Malek
on behalf of NDACT
www.ndact.com

I find the last half of the last paragraph interesting. the Ontario Potato Board declined to become involved in the process, one the Board said "may limit a landowner's rights and options."

This would be a same potato board as other commodities under Farm Products and the Ag minister mandate? Where did this heartfelt love for rights and property come from?

The limiting of a landowners rights and options was never given validity, consideration, or renumeration for those who found their options changed by Greenbelt, Oakridges Moraine, source water or species at risk. All were arbitrarily implemented by government decree, most with a prior mandate to be science based and economically neutral.

Two ways to loose property, thieves and government the latter the law-makers and enforcers that are expected and sworn to oath to protect us from the first

What Mr. Daniher fails to mention is Highlands proposal for rehabilitation includes "tender fruit trees". Seriously, in the heart of the snowbelt, at the bottom of a 200 foot hole that will only NOT fill with water if massive pumps are kept running 24/7 to the end of time at someone's expense, just not the company's expense who made all the money mining the limestone and then disappears.

He also fails to mention that in fact there is no legislative requirement for rehabilitation once they mine below the water table.

Sustainability is a big buzzword these days. If the land is left as prime agricultural land to produce food, it is "sustainable" because that can be done forever.

If they are allowed to mine 2,400 acres to a depth of 200 feet (and we get it Daniher, it won't happen all in the same day) when the limestone is gone and the prime agricultural land is gone-what is left. NOTHING.

That is not sustainability.

Ken
Melancthon, Ontario

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.