‘Deserve an explanation’
Dear Editor:
As Erin voters prepare for the Oct. 26 municipal election, one question for our mayor and council is this: If the stated purpose of the Hillsburgh Pit commercial fill agreement was to remediate the pit, why are we moving forward with a 20-year fill operation after the remediation requirements have been addressed?
The operator had provincial compliance issues that had to be addressed before the aggregate licence could be surrendered. The requirements were addressed and the licence was surrendered. That work was required to close out the licence – not evidence that a 20-year commercial fill operation was necessary to remediate the pit.
The Ministry of Natural resources (MNR) then accepted an amendment to the licensed rehabilitation plan incorporating the commercial fill operation. The town’s commercial fill agreement became the municipal mechanism governing imported fill.
MNR’s records indicate there was already sufficient material on site to accomplish the required remediation. If so, why is Erin being subjected to millions of cubic metres of imported fill and truck traffic?
The town describes the project as remediation, while its agreement provides for commercial fill over 20 years. That raises questions of necessity and transparency.
It also raises a risk management question. What risk assessment did the town undertake before accepting responsibility for a 20-year commercial fill operation involving millions of cubic metres of imported material and hundreds of daily truck movements? What risks were identified, and how were they determined to be acceptable?
One member of council has clearly objected. Why do the remaining members continue to support the operation if the stated purpose was remediation?
Council members speak publicly about making Erin healthier, more sustainable and environmentally responsible. How are those campaign commitments reconciled with approximately 250 daily diesel truck trips, five days a week, for up to 20 years? Residents have obtained FOI records, reviewed MNR inspections, compared rehabilitation information with the agreement and asked council to reconsider. Residents’ lawyers have also written to the town without a substantive response.
The town said the matter was referred to legal counsel. Was advice being sought about reconsidering the agreement – or protecting the town’s position to move forward?
Mistakes happen. What matters is whether decision-makers acknowledge new information, reconsider their position and correct the public record.
If remediation does not require 5.36 million cubic metres of imported commercial fill, why is Erin proceeding with a 20-year commercial fill operation?
Erin residents deserve an explanation before Oct. 26.
Jacqueline Guagliardi,
Erin