In vi­o­la­tion of mora­to­rium

The Guardian (Charlottetown) - - EDITORIAL -

The Guardian edi­to­rial of De­cem­ber 5, “A sen­si­ble sug­ges­tion,” clearly sup­ports the pro­claimed com­mit­ment to en­vi­ron­men­tal sus­tain­abil­ity ex­pressed by Cavendish Farms. While I salute the ed­i­tor’s op­ti­mism, it raises a few ques­tions:

The prov­ince has in­di­cated that the mora­to­rium on high ca­pac­ity wells for agri­cul­ture will re­main in place at least un­til 2021, when the re­search of Dr. Mike Van den Heu­val and the Cana­dian Rivers In­sti­tute is com­pleted. No new high ca­pac­ity wells should be con­sid­ered or per­mit­ted un­til that time.

If this pro­posal were to be ac­cepted, and the wa­ter drawn from these wells used to ir­ri­gate agri­cul­tural lands, would this sim­ply be a happy byprod­uct of “de­ter­min­ing the im­pacts of agri­cul­tural ir­ri­ga­tion on the wa­ter ta­ble”? And if Is­land wa­ter sources are shown to be “at risk” as a re­sult, how would those neg­a­tive im­pacts be ad­dressed?

The ed­i­tor states, “The Irv­ings are suc­cess­ful be­cause they make sound, and some­times hard, busi­ness de­ci­sions.” So when ex­actly does a “pilot” pro­ject un­der­taken in the name of sus­tain­abil­ity be­come a hard busi­ness de­ci­sion to ir­ri­gate more agri­cul­tural lands, and cir­cum­vent a mora­to­rium on deep wa­ter wells en­dorsed by Is­lan­ders?

Let’s call “a spade, a spade” or in this case “a spud, a spud.” The pro­posal re­quires vi­o­lat­ing the mora­to­rium. The “sen­si­ble sug­ges­tion” is that gov­ern­ment should sim­ply re­ject it on that ba­sis alone - no mat­ter who is mak­ing the ap­pli­ca­tion. Marie Ann Bow­den, Char­lot­te­town

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.