OrilliaMatters welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected] or via the website. Please include your full name, daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). The following letter is in response to a letter from Andrea Khanjin, minister of the environment, conservation and parks, and Barrie-Innisfil MPP, published July 19.
Lovers of Lake Simcoe, do toxic blue-green algae, beach closures and teetering game-fish populations have you worried?
According to MPP Andrea Khanjin, we have nothing to fear because the province is finally using the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan to “protect and restore” the lake.
Well, MPP Khanjin got one thing right: The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is the right place to start. But did her government actually read the plan?
MPP Khanjin crows about a commitment to reduce “several tonnes of phosphorus per year.” Unfortunately, “several” is a drop in the bucket. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan states that, in order to avoid toxic algae blooms and support lake trout and whitefish, we can’t let more than 44 tonnes of phosphorus enter the lake annually. Since recent loads were about 99 tonnes per year, we need a reduction of 55 tonnes per year. That’s a lot more than “several.”
And, actually, we’ll probably need to reduce by even more than 55 tonnes a year, thanks to the province’s bulldoze-now-and-let-the-grandkids-pay-later approach to development. The fact is that urban runoff and stormwater dump even more phosphorus into waterways than sources like sewage and agriculture. Especially when climate change serves up a month’s worth of rain in a day. Especially when construction is allowed to happen without conservation authority oversight. Especially when you pave over forests, wetlands and other green spaces that would otherwise soak up runoff. Which brings me back to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan calls for “a minimum 40 per cent high-quality natural vegetative cover in the watershed.” Why 40 per cent? For starters, that is how much is needed to buffer streams, rivers and the lake. That vegetation keeps water temperatures cooler so the water can retain oxygen and support life. That vegetation soaks up phosphorus and uses it for its own growth instead of allowing it to flow into waterways where it feeds algae, aquatic plants and bacteria. There is certainly nothing wrong with MPP Khanjin’s youth-centred planting projects, but will those projects compensate for the green spaces that are on the chopping block thanks to Bill 185? Will they amount to 40 per cent high-quality natural vegetative cover?
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan calls for “increased ecological health based on the status of indicator species and maintenance of natural biodiversity.” Now that the province has undone policies and cut funding for most of that science, who is going to determine the status of indicator species and maintain biodiversity?
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan calls for the protection of wetlands. MPP Khanjin’s letter didn’t mention how her government is planning to do that. Perhaps by building the Bradford Bypass across the Holland Marsh?
The projects Ms. Khanjin describes don’t even begin to meet the targets in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and they won’t even begin to compensate for the damage that her government’s approach to development will inflict on Lake Simcoe.
Susan Sheard
Willow Beach
