Hollow words

What is left when Council can no longer be counted upon to do the things they said they would do? What happens to a community when it can no longer rely upon its elected leaders to be straight with them? When a pattern of duplicitousness emerges? When trust erodes?

Last year Council said it would conduct a third-party review of the big and bold assumptions that form the foundation of a massive and expensive expansion of waterworks contemplated in Picton/Bloomfield/Wellington. Shire Hall went through the motions, going as far as sending out requests for proposals to conduct such a review. Strangely, none of the 12 firms that expressed initial interest in the assignment ultimately chose to respond. One councillor suggested with a straight face that the non-response was evidence to him that the underlying assumptions were sound. Unimpeachable.

In any event, Council washed its hands of its commitment. There would be no thirdparty review. Commitment reneged.

Oh, if it were the only example.

Successive councils have committed to protecting Waring’s Creek and its watershed. But none ever did. Now it is preparing another betrayal on this sensitive land.

In 2008, County Council approved a settlement agreement whereby it would conduct a comprehensive hydrogeological study of the flows, patterns and trends of the groundwater (hydroG) in the watershed of the sensitive cold water creek. The study, required by the agreement with the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association (WCIA), would—once and for all—clarify the scale and scope of development the property could sustain. It would identify protected areas and propose remediation measures.

That study—a close examination of the total watershed—was never done. Time and events erased the County’s obligation.

Currently, two developers are aiming to build 1,400 homes on this land. Each developer will conduct its own hydroG study. Together, they have defined how the land will be developed and how it will safeguard the watershed. Not ideal.

But last December, in response to demands made by the WCIA, Council agreed to seek an independent cumulative impact study (CIS) to evaluate the potential harm the combined development may cause the watershed.

But by February, one developer had already taken its fight to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). The other had modified its proposal to ease some concerns of some council members. But the developer was simultaneously threatening to take his earlier plan to the OLT if his new and improved one wasn’t adopted that night. Some councillors were ready to fold. But not all.

“Our peer review says [we] don’t have enough information,” said Councillor Sam Branderhorst, pushing once again for a CIS. “[We] don’t have the full picture.”

Councillor Brad Nieman proposed some new conditions, including one that required a CIS to be conducted “prior to the execution of a subdivision agreement”.

Council approved the conditions, and the developer’s plan was approved.

Over the next few months, the WCIA say they were sidelined. The County’s planning staff say the group was consulted.

Last month, the matter was back before Council. Municipal staff and the developer argued that they had met the conditions set out in February. They both wanted to move on. The WCIA disagreed.

Not in dispute, however, was that a cumulative impact study was not done. Nor will it be done— not in the form committed to by Council in February. In fact, the entire concept of CIS study had been totally redefined by the developer’s consultants and agreed to by municipal staff.

Rather than an examination of all the existing data before the shovels went into the ground, the cumulative impact study is now defined as an “ongoing assessment” across the duration of construction.

Rather than a protective safeguard, the developer’s consultants now interpret a “cumulative impact study” as a means to measure the impact on Waring’s Creek watershed, after the fact. The CIS was no longer a shield to protect the sensitive watershed, but now simply a device to measure the carnage that will ensue from development.

These are both complicated files, both of which have unfolded over months and years. As such, there is much nuance and detail left out. There are massive pressures buffeting local decision-makers.

But here is the thing: it is Council’s job to wade through the chaff—and to do what it said it would do. Or explain why it backed down. Or changed its mind. Or folded. This is a fundamental obligation. It cannot just carry on as if it never made a commitment in the first place.

When governments say one thing and then do another, the institution is weakened. Trust erodes. We are all poorer as a result. Council has only itself to blame.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca