Proposed Landfill Site in Simcoe County on the Best Groundwater in the World - Essay Example

Site 41 Proposed Landfill Site In Simcoe County On The Best Groundwater In The World In our rapidly developing world environment is often neglected at the cost of development and growth. One such issue that has been under serious debates for the past two decades is the development of the Site 41 landfill in the Simcoe County, Ontario, Canada. Here it would be pertinent to discuss the geographic location of the site in order to understand the importance of the issue. The dumpsite is located at the top of the Alliston Aquifer which is a prominent source of fresh water for the locals, farms and other nearby communities. The aquifer extends from the Georgian Bay, going beneath Lake Simcoe and extends to the south till the protected area of Oak Ridges Moraine. The location of the site has been under controversy and the local people have raised their concerns and demanded of the authorities to preserve the aquifer since it is the primary source of fresh water to various communities and also because it discharges into numerous rivers and creeks that fall into the Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe, Lake Scugog and Lake Ontario. Building of the dumpsite would not only mean endangering the quality of water but also to deprive all these communities of the fresh and pure water reservoir (Stop Dump Site 41, updated 2009). The disapproval of the site by the local communities has led to the arrest of a number of people. However their concerns were finally heard and the county voted a one year moratorium for the controversial site 41 (Stop Dump Site 41, updated 2009). In this paper I intend to discuss the pros and cons of the construction of the dumpsite over the Alliston Aquifer. I intend to review the points raised by the Ministry of Environment in favor of the site and that of the local people that disapprove the site. Towards the end I intend to make my own recommendations regarding the issue. I have chosen this topic because in my opinion water shortage is already a serious environmental concern not only for human beings but for other living species as well. To destroy a water reservoir to build a dumping site would be unwise and an issue that can be solved through proper planning. I shall begin with the points raised by the Ministry of Environment in favour of the Site. The Ministry states that the construction of Site 41 is essential because the shipping of waste from North Simcoe to other dumping sites that fall outside the service area causes increased cost to the taxpayers of North Simcoe. The Ministry states that the waste from the North Simcoe has always been transferred to the North Simcoe Transfer Station from where it is taken to the other dumping sites. The statistics show that in the past decade approximately 152,000 metric tonnes of waste had been shipped from North Simcoe to other dumping sites. It is estimated that the transfer of waste from North Simcoe to other dumping sites is an expensive process and has costed the taxpayers approximately 5 million over the total cost of waste disposal (Corporate Services Committee, 2006). The second point raised by the Ministry to support the Site 41 is that its construction is essential because the waste from North Simcoe County is already filling other landfills. In the past the waste from North Simcoe was being disposed at the Pauze landfill. After the closure of the site the waste was shifted outside the county to Keele Valley landfill site in Vaughan. In 1990s the waste was disposed at the Wasaga Beach landfill site. The site accommodated approximately 150,000 tonnes of waste from North Simcoe. However this site was also closed at the end of 2003 which further enhanced the need for the construction of Site 41 Services Committee, 2006). Thirdly the Ministry believes that the construction of the site is essential because otherwise the disposal of waste at other dumping sites that fall within the premises of the County will reduce their lifespan. The fact has been highlighted that site 5, site 10 and 11 have been accommodating waste from North Simcoe ever since the closure of the Wasaga Beach landfill site. The Ministry pleads that if Site 41 is not constructed site 5 and 11 will reach their maximum capacity much sooner than the scheduled time and will have to be closed well ahead of schedule. It is also a known fact that some of the waste is also exported to the US for disposal purposes. Due to the recent restrictions on the export of waste across the border and in case of closure of the border the situation of the local landfill sites could get worse. According to the Ministry the remaining waste disposal capacity of the North Simcoe County landfills is limited. It has been estimated that the sites could receive only 519,000 tonnes of wastes in the next 7.8 years starting from January 1st, 2006. Thus the demand for constructing Site 41 landfill becomes self evident. The Ministry further pleads that in the past 20 years approximately 8.1 million dollars have been invested over the project. Failure to utilize this project would mean the waste of time and money Services Committee, 2006). Another point pleaded by the Ministry supporting the landfill project is the necessity to dump the increased waste due to ever increasing population and development. The expected growth rate of Midland, Penetanguishene, Tay and Tiny is estimated to be 28.6% in the next 25 years. Likewise the increase in population of North Simcoe County is expected to be 52.6%. The increase in development and population would produce more waste and for its disposal the construction of Site 41 becomes mandatory Services Committee, 2006). The last point raised by the Ministry in favour of the site is that it is EA and EPA approved. It is further stated that the site has been approved in consultation with the Ministries of Agriculture and Health. The Ministry states with authority that landfill process has been compared with other technologies of waste disposal such as incineration and has proved cheaper. At the same time it is stated that the natural containment abilities and the upward flow of the water makes it the most suitable place for landfill. The design of the site has also been given a certificate of approval by the Ministry as being environment friendly Services Committee, 2006). The recommendations of the Ministry of Environment have been severely criticized by the opponents of the site 41 landfill project. Firstly water is the most important and primary source of life. The planet is already experiencing a shortage of water due to environmental changes and development. Where millions of people around the world are dying due to thirst and lack of water the Simcoe County intends to destroy this natural aquifer which is known for its purity and freshness (The Council of Canadians, Updated Sept. 22, 2009). The advocates of the site state that the process of disposing the garbage underground is a cheaper method. A lot of solid waste, greenhouse gases and other forms of pollutions are taken care of by dumping into the ground and forgetting about them. In doing so the true value of the services given to us by nature are actually ignored. The method appears cheaper because we fail to consider the damage it does to our environment, biodiversity and human health in the form of global warming, deforestation, desertification, loss of species of plants and animals and other pathological effects as a result of dehydration. Since Site 41 is based on top of Alliston Aquifer therefore it poses great danger to the water since any leakage could spoil the purity of water. The authorities would then have to install water filtration plants, dykes and other engineering equipments to deal with the issue of polluted water. Hence the process would prove more costly rather than cheaper as assumed by the Ministry of Environment (Suzuki and Moola, 2009). Thirdly the selection of the site for garbage disposal has been severely criticized. Alliston Aquifer has been tested to be a source of world’s purest water. In 2006 the water was tested by a renowned scientist, Dr. Shotyk. His observations showed that the water contained less amount of lead and that it was so free from other containments that it could be compared to the Arctic ice water some 5000-6000 years back. The water was further tested for a total of 41 elements and it was stated that the purity of Alliston water should be set as a standard against which the water quality of Ontario and Canada’s reservoirs should be measured (Stop Dump Site 41, updated 2009). According to Suzuki and Moola (2009) the whole idea of approval of the site for disposal purposes is confusing. According to the experts, to build a dumping site approximately 225 million liters of fresh water would have to be pumped from under the ground and disposed off. The problem does not end here. In order to maintain the structural integrity of the site more ground water would have to be pumped out in the future. That would mean a lot of water would be wasted for no reason at all and keeping in mind the global shortage of water we are in no position to waste our fresh water resources. The point raised by the Ministry stating that the site is naturally suitable for garbage dumping due to the natural containment ability and upward flow of the water has also been questioned. The observations of the hydro geologists state that there is a connection between the upper ground water and the aquifer. David Charlesworth, an independent hydro geologist, stated that in some place the water flowed downward indicating that the garbage could put the aquifer at risk. The permit for approval of the site thus becomes flawed since it was based on the assumption that the garbage would pose no damage to the aquifer (Stop Dump Site 41, updated 2009). The Ministry claims that the site is EA and EPA approved. At the same time both the authorities also accept the fact that Canada is experiencing water shortage and is at the brink of water crisis. In such a situation it would be unwise to damage the aquifer. Protection rather than destruction of our fresh water resources should be our top most priority (The Council of Canadians, Updated Sept. 22, 2009). According to the Clean Water Act passed by the government in 2006 the first line of defense in protecting our environment and health is to stop the containments from getting into our drinking water. By approving Site 41 the government is actually violating its own law of clean water (Stop Dump Site 41, updated 2009). The Ministry states confidently that in approving the site for landfill purposes agencies such as EA, EPA and Ministries of Health and Agriculture were consulted and it was only after their approval that the site was reserved for landfill purposes. Despite all these approvals the government did not consult the indigenous people who believe that it was their natural right to be consulted for any construction projects within their premises. These people have been brought up to worship water and therefore it is their right to be consulted for any water affairs that fall within their premises (The Council of Canadians, Updated Sept. 22, 2009). Instead of destroying the water resource, there is a need to explore other options of waste disposal. The County needs to explore other options such as waste reduction methods, upgrading the current landfills, introducing recycling which also includes recycling the recyclable garbage (The Council of Canadians, Updated Sept. 22, 2009). After reviewing the points from both sides it would be pertinent to discuss the issue from an independent point of view. The situation related to Site 41 landfill must be dealt according to five key principles. Firstly water is an essential component for living beings and access to clean and safe drinking water is the right of every individual. The duty to provide clean and fresh drinking water the people falls on the government. For that matter the government needs to take all possible steps to ensure access to clean drinking water to its people on long term basis. The authorities have failed to recognize the signs of dewatering of Simcoe County wells due to construction activities. The negligence on the part of the government indicates that they have failed to recognize water as the fundamental right of every individual due to which Canada’s clean water is under threat (Barlow and Karunananthan, 2009). Secondly the rights of the indigenous people must be protected and honored. For any development activity it is important the indigenous people must be consulted and their healthy environment must be protected. The Beausoleil Nation of Christian Island has raised their objection they the authorities did not consult them on matters related to site 41 (Barlow and Karunananthan, 2009). Thirdly there is a tradition followed in all provinces of Canada except for Quebec which state that under common law water is a public property and matters related to water must have public interest. Any matter that violates public interest cannot be enforced. The public of Simcoe County have complained that water in their County has not been used in their best interest. For construction of Site 41 approximately 810,000 liters of water per day has to be withdrawn for 30 days and 410,000 liters per day for approximately a year (Barlow and Karunananthan, 2009). For transparency of any project it is essential that every detail be shared with the people. For that matter the Simcoe County has a committee called the “Community Monitoring Committee (CMC)” to monitor the developments within the County. The evidence collected by the CMC indicates flaws in the project that the landfill will pose no damage to ground water. However these apprehensions were rejected by the higher authorities to such an extent that efforts were made to prevent CMC from holding meetings (Barlow and Karunananthan, 2009). Lastly as a precautionary principle it is important that the construction must be stopped till the time it is totally proven that the garbage will not affect the environment and health of the people (Barlow and Karunananthan, 2009). In my opinion the government needs to explore other options to deal with the problem of increased garbage rather than destroying the water resources to adjust the garbage. Options such as population control, reusing, recycling and encouraging people to buy recycled products can help in minimizing garbage. The government needs to educate people to plan their shopping. Buying products in glass bottles instead of paper bags or plastic bags can help in minimizing garbage since the glass bottles and jars can be used for storing other things. Buying products in bulk can also help in reducing garbage. Using rechargeable batteries can help save the environment and minimize garbage. The County can set rewards for the people producing minimum garbage in the form of shopping tokens, vacation packages or discounts in municipality bills. At the same time instead of depriving the people of their natural resources the government needs to upgrade the existing landfills. Undoubtedly landfill is a better option as compared to incineration but still it has its own problems. The engineering equipments need to be upgraded to deal with the issue of garbage. In collaboration with the people adopting recycling and producing minimum garbage and population control there is no doubt that in near future the issue of garbage can be taken care of amicably. References Barlow, M., Karunananthan M. (September 9, 2009). “Site 41 Underscores Why We Need a National Water Policy.” Rabble.ca. Retrieved on October 1st 2009 from http://www.rabble.ca/news/2009/09/site-41-underscores-why-we-need-national-water-policy “County of Simcoe,” (September 13, 2006). Corporate Services Committee, Retrieved on October 1st 2009 from http://gilford.county.simcoe.on.ca/ClearFrame/Production/eGenda/eGenda.nsf/0/608dff84819fb504852571e0005b31b5/$FILE/CS%2006-271%20Site%2041%20-%20County%20infrastructure%20Requirement.doc. “Stop Dump Site 41”, (Updated in 2009). Retrieved on October 1st 2009 from http://stopdumpsite41.ca/?page_id=6 “Stop Site 41- No Water to Waste”, (Updated September 22, 2009). Council of Canadians. Retrieved on October 1st 2009 from http://www.canadians.org/water/issues/Site41/ Suzuki D., Moola, F. (September 1, 2009). “David Suzuki: Tiny Township Victory Sets a Big Example with Site 41 Landfill Moratorium.” Vancouver Free Press, Retrieved on October 1st 2009 from http://www.straight.com/article-254069/david-suzuki-tiny-township-victory-sets-big-example Read More