by SUSAN MANN
Some drainage ditches and irrigation ponds created by farmers on their lands fit the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s definition of wetlands. And that could create problems for farmers if those areas get caught up in regulations the Ontario government brings down as part of its wetland conservation efforts.
However, farm groups are fighting to keep those areas that were created for an intended purpose on the farm out of the government’s regulatory grip.
The ministry’s discussion paper, Wetland Conservation in Ontario, defines wetlands as lands that are saturated with water long enough to cause the formation of waterlogged soils and the growth of water-loving or water-tolerant plants.
Many wetlands are permanently flooded. Others flood only periodically, mainly in the spring and fall, the paper says. Wetlands can range in size from very small (about the size of an urban backyard) to areas covering hundreds of square kilometres.
John Kelly, executive vice-president of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, says as part of its submission to the ministry’s consultations the association argued that wetlands created by humans, such as drainage ditches and irrigation ponds, should be exempt from regulations.
“A lot of our members use irrigation and if they have dug ponds, those should not be considered to be wetlands,” he explains. “Part of the challenge comes in the definition of what a wetland is.”
A dug pond intended for irrigation could have bulrushes growing around it and that fits the ministry’s definition of a wetland. Kelly argues those areas should be excluded from regulations “because they’re not intended to be wetlands. They’re intended to be something else.”
Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Don McCabe agrees. It’s very important to understand the difference between a wetland and lands that get, and temporarily stay wet.
McCabe says the wetland conservation principles the ministry is discussing as part of its consultations “do not work for the agricultural sector. We want to see improvements made in their definition” (of a wetland).
Kelly says the ministry also needs to do a very good inventory of the wetlands that exist in Ontario.
“We want to make sure the evaluation of wetlands considers things like seasonality, year-to-year variation in rainfall and those types of things,” he says. “If you have a very wet year and part of your field becomes flooded, it could potentially get some of those species that are deemed as being part of a wetland, but only temporarily.”
The association is “suggesting scientific rigor be used in the evaluation of a wetland,” he adds. In cases of disagreements between what’s considered to be a wetland and what could potentially be one, the association recommends a third-party, neutral, independent ombudsman be appointed to sort them out.
Meanwhile, some farmers are involved in the Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) program where they get paid to retain and reconstruct natural areas on their properties, such as grasslands and wetlands.
Lynn Bishop, ALUS Canada director of operations, says by email “ALUS sees farmers and their communities playing an essential role in efforts to protect and enhance Ontarian’s wetlands and should be paid accordingly.”
Tillsonburg-area farmer and ALUS participant Bryan Gilvesy agrees. His personal opinion is that farmers are crucial in any efforts to successfully improve the environment and that they should be paid for the ecological services they produce.
The ministry is reviewing Ontario’s wetland conservation framework with an aim to strengthen policies and stop the loss of wetlands. Almost 70 per cent of southern Ontario’s original wetlands have been lost, according to the discussion paper.
The ministry is working to develop a strategic plan for Ontario’s wetlands to identify a provincial vision, goals and objectives for wetlands.
The government also plans to outline a series of actions it will undertake over the next 10 to 15 years to improve wetland conservation across Ontario.
There are four wetland types in Ontario: marsh, swamp, bog and fen. Swamps are most common in Ontario while bogs and fens are rare, except in the north were they are the most common wetland type.
Threats to wetlands include: land conversion, alterations to natural water levels, invasive species, pollution and climate change, the ministry’s consultation document says.
The document also notes wetland conservation is important to ensuring a healthy natural environment that can provide essential ecosystem services, such as flood control, water quality improvement and recreation, the discussion paper says. Wetlands also help “us adapt to climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” BF
Comments
Oh come on now . Like who is going to dig a pond on the top of a hill ? Of course you are going to put one where it is wet already . How many wet lands have been changed , dug out , filled and tiled . Why is it Ag reps are trying to make out like all things Ag are pure and honest . Ag along with developers , planners and the like are not innocent . Some in this story has a track record of screwing those who he is supposed to be representing . Another hydro increase to support green energy just happened again .
Wetland, on balance, may well contribute to climate change, because the methane produced is a much more potent GHG than any carbon dioxide sequestered. Interesting how this tends to be overlooked for wetlands, and not for other anaerobic fermentation systems.
In response to "......and another name for methane is 'marsh-gas' " http://betterfarming.com/comment/17357#comment-17357
Lowlands, marshes, swamps, and swails exist for a reason. They act as an absorbent sponge when heavy rains hit.
Over the last 50 years, Manitoba has allowed farmers, municipalities, and developers to fill in over 90% of the former swails (ie. marsh lowlands) so that the land could serve a "better use".
Without swails, any rain that falls is only minutes away from a ditch or creek. In a heavy storm, those ditches and creeks soon become swollen and overflow their banks.
Other land, that used to be high ground that never flooded, has unfortunately started to flood now that the swails are gone.
In 2011, the Winnipeg Free Press said, "Flood modellers have described this year's Assiniboine flooding as a one-in-300-year event to a one-in-2,000-year event. That may be technically correct. But a similar scale of damage occurred in 1882 and perhaps two other times in the 19th century. It is bad public policy to fail to prepare for the range of observed conditions.
Decision makers can choose to hide behind models that describe this year's event as extremely rare as a reason for inaction. But if similar water levels have occurred perhaps four times in the last 200 years, then it is obviously not a one-in-300 or a one-in-2,000-year event, no matter what the models say. And in a time of rapid climate change, the past becomes an increasingly imperfect guide to the future. We need to imagine the unimaginable and prepare for it."
Manitoba isn't the only one. I have seen or heard of Canada-wide short sighted developers, municipalities, and Planning Boards continue to develop cheap swampy land to turn it into high priced development land, thereby maximizing profits for the callous promoters, all while they put the flood risk onto neighbouring lands.
Yes, this posting’s title paraphrases the classic Laurel & Hardy line - this is intended to to tell the truth about Canada’s "Ministries/Departments of Lands, Forests, Mines, Natural Resources, Parks & Recreation, etc. Canada’s "natural heritage" is not "hunting in the name of 'conservation'" - what a joke How convenient! My Canada began in 1771 upon my descendants arrival from County Armagh, Ireland. The historic and contemporary dearth of ecological decisions based upon science and not politics is mind-numbing. Shame on EVERY DAMN bureaucratic employee of a provincial natural resources entity tasked to serve the people. They serve but a scant few - the so-called "conservationists ie. folks who kill animals for fun and justify the act by saying "it tastes good". That is not logic. Governments want resident and tourist "sportsman" dollars so badly they will lie, cheat, coerce and falsify reports to get what they want. They will redact information at will when a RFI ends up on their desk. Time for the real naturalists to stand up and be counted - damn the torpedos! BTW, the term "swail" does not exist in the English language. The proper spelling is "swale".
Anonymous comment modified by editor.
OH COME ON NOW states - "How many wet lands have been changed , dug out , filled and tiled." Precisely. How about 80 percent of Southern Ontario for starters? The largest contiguous swampland area in Southern Ontario is the Greenock Swamp,
Anonymous comment modified by editor.
The most dangerous wetlands in Ontario are the toilets at Queen's Park.
Stan Thayer
Would be nice to know if those toilets at Queens Park dump directly into the lake or do they have a septic system big enough to handle all the effluent coming out of Queens Park ?
When you look at the BF Municipal spills and bypasses in
Ontario January – June 30, 2015 it is funny that there is no listing for QP or Toronto ! Wonder why ?
Post new comment