Environmental Science & Engineering - www.esemag.com - November 2004
Comments? send them to the editor.
Who’s driving or stalling our economic growth?
By Eric A.D. MacDonald, M.Sc.,
P.Eng., CEO,
MacViro Consultants Inc.
Our continued growth is
increasingly being slowed as
municipal infrastructure projects
are required to be constructed
in an environmentally-friendly
manner.
Undoubtedly, increasingly stringent
regulations that enhance our air, water
and/or terrestrial media are to be
applauded. However, questions arise
when these delayed projects are public
works assignments being prepared in
accordance with approved Official
Plans, e.g. residential and/or commercial
developments. The point being,
that the community as a whole has endorsed Official Plans
which, if supporting a growth philosophy, then require projects
to be constructed to realize the growth projections.
The question arising is: Can we maintain the pace
demanded for our economic development and still allocate
the time needed to address the expectations of other project
stakeholders? The concerns of the regulatory bodies and
environmentalists are, of course, focused on the environment,
not growth, which sometimes put them in conflict
with project schedules. One side requires an aggressive
schedule while the other side is concerned with the environmental
impacts. Neither side, perhaps,
has the full-picture viewpoint.
Infrastructure projects inevitably
cause a level of environmental disruption
during the construction phase,
albeit while working within stringent
environmental controls. However,
some projects drawing criticism may
well be providing, not just the needs of
growth, but real and long-term environmental
benefits. For example, a surface
water project such as a pipeline, may
provide relief to a stressed groundwater
aquifer if a groundwater supply is
being replaced.
Equally, is it not so that a wastewater collection/treatment
system is the environmental superior of an overloaded septic
tile system, which may be polluting a sub-surface aquifer?
Then again, what is wrong with a solid waste management
philosophy that endorses gasification (yes, a form of incineration)
whereby air emissions are well within regulated
guidelines? Is it not true that such a disposal process for our
residual solid waste is more environmentally friendly than
say, 150 large garbage trucks emitting fumes down Highway
401 taking waste across international borders?
The conflicting issues seem to beg the question, have we
lost a balanced viewpoint of who is responsible for providing
an environmental vision for the Province while considering
the growth needs? Is it the few, who have their environmental
opinions, but offer a narrow view of the big picture;
or is it the regulatory agencies who also may have a
biased view of construction projects; or is it the provincial
government which, surely, should be showing leadership?
The process is flawed, tending to be influenced by narrow
viewpoints rather than the full picture of society’s need of
mandated growth through the Official Planning processes.
Even projects that have gone through a ‘healthy’ Class
EA process can be threatened with time-delaying demands
for individual EAs with project schedules and costs being
negatively impacted.
The message is that the Province must not forsake its
provincial planning role, while playing backstop with regulatory
enforcement.
Contact: esaar@macviro.com.
See our home page on how to order your subscription. We regret we can
only accept orders from Canada.
