DRAFT letter re wetlands management

PLEASE RESPOND TO ED WITH COMMENTS
Here is my first draft of the wetlands policy planning letter we agreed to write. I suggest we send it to Rob Renner who is the Minister of Environment. Should it go to anyone else, and who should it be from?  I need to fact check with my contact in Ducks Unlimited, but expect we should have a final draft in a couple of days. Anyone with feedback for me should respond in the next few days.   Regards,  Ed

We wish to commend the Alberta government for developing a wetlands management plan that would offset any Alberta wetlands lost to development by restoration or creation of wetlands elsewhere. This approach is entirely consistent with the philosophy of sustainable development, which we endorse, in which economic development occurs without net loss to the environment. This approach is particularly important in regard to wetlands.


Research is increasingly showing that wetlands act as a natural filter, cleaning water of contaminants and impurities before returning it to open water reservoirs such as rivers and lakes. Many lakes in Alberta are already suffering from excessive nitrogen, phosphate and other contaminant loading, a consequence of agricultural and industrial activities exacerbated by past wetland destruction. Lake Winnipeg, in which watershed a part of Alberta lies, is on the verge of becoming a dead lake due to industrial and agricultural pollution. For these reasons we have been pleased with Alberta government plans to halt the steady destruction of our wetlands.

Recently we have learned through media reports that several industry development groups have objected to this Alberta government initiative. They have cited the cost of wetland restoration offset as being too great, and thus becoming a drag on our economy. This position begs the question; at what point does stopping the loss of wetlands justify the cost? At this point we have lost 60% of our wetlands through industrial and agricultural development. Do we stop the loss at 80%, at 95%? It is certain that we will stop it when wetland loss has reached 100%. Economic development concerns itself with short term profit, not our long term future health, whether it is personal, environmental or economic. That responsibility lies with government.

Secondly, the economic costs will not stop all development projects, only those that are weak to begin with. It is quite reasonable to assume that the loss of these projects will be offset by economic gain arising from systematic wetland restoration and creation. These restoration processes will require a broad range of skills, labour and equipment across the economic spectrum, and will become economic drivers in their own right.

Finally, the costs cited as a concern by the objectors are short term costs only. The future costs of restoring polluted and dead water bodies will be immense, and will have to be supported by the taxpayer. It would be better to have the costs paid as they arise by those who will benefit most by economic development, rather than by future taxpayers.

It is relevant to this discussion to note that one of the objectors to your wetland policy planning is the Alberta Chamber of Resources. We have observed on this organization’s website, that Alberta Energy is listed as one of its members. We suggest that this may be a conflict of interest in that the Alberta government, through Alberta Energy, is supporting an external objection to its own environmental planning. We trust that you will take the necessary steps to ensure an objective and transparent wetland planning process.

Media reports state that Alberta government wetland policy planning has been deferred to 2012 due to industry objections. We urge that you proceed with your policy development and implementation on your original time schedule and with your original objectives of zero net wetland loss.