Globe and Mail,
As for the greenbelt, were between a rock and a hard
place
Queens Park, Murray Campbell
There is a lot of rock in
In a nutshell, thats the problem that is bedevilling the government as it tries to reconcile its vision of a greenbelt around the Greater Toronto Area with the need to provide the materials that make the city work.
The issue is how to deal with the pits and quarries that blast 450 million year old rock face and crush the stone into gravel. Its not an area in which sweeping policy statements have much value
Every year, the average Ontarian consumes 15 tonnes of aggregate --- sand, gravel, clay, shale and crushed stone used in roads, concrete and glass --- but its fair to conclude that very few of them would want to live next door to a quarry.
Those who do say the blasting, pounding and crushing can make life a nightmare.
There are inherent conflicts in
aggregate extraction, particularly in
And yet a large number of
The tension between these
operations and residents in the in the
Theres a lot of rock in the rest of the province, but it makes economic sense to match the source of the aggregate with the region that demands it.
Its one of the oldest economic activities on the rural landscape, and until 1971 there were few controls. The latest legislation, passed in 1990, sets out fairly strict conditions that companies must meet to win licences.
These concern not just noise and dust during extraction but also such things as water tables and traffic from trucks.
The draft greenbelt plan unveiled last month takes things a step further. It grandfathers the permits of existing operations, but it lays out stricter conditions, both for the expansion of quarries and the establishment of new sites, in an effort to protect wetlands, woodlands and endangered species.
Indeed, as Ms. Hochu laments, the proposal is harsher than the recommendations of a government task force, and she warns that future supplies of aggregate are threatened.
Her association estimates that for every three tonnes of aggregate produced in the GTA, only one ton of replacement supply is licensed. At this rate, it says, existing licensed reserves could be depleted by the end of the decade.
Of course, its possible to go beyond the greenbelt to areas where there are more rocks than people, but there are few backers for this option.
The idea of diesel trucks belching greenhouse gases and clogging remote roads does not present itself as an environmentally acceptable solution.
Ric Holt, who started a watchdog group called Gravel Watch, epitomizes this ambivalence: Whats the point of a greenbelt if youre going to strip mine it? he asks.
But if theyre just going to leapfrog across it, thats not so good either.
Environmentalists say current practices underprice the value of sand and gravel.
They note that a royalty of six
cents a tone charged to operators hasnt changed for years and is a fraction of
the fee in
They link this with the fact that
But the ironic perhaps unsettling thing is that governments are the biggest customers of the aggregate industry. Nearly 60 per cent of the annual production of 165 million tonnes is used for public infrastructure, so, like it or not, we all have an interest in keeping costs down.
Its possible that a greenbelt will reduce demand for aggregate by curtailing the habit of paving over farmland, but there will still be highways and roads to expand and repair.
Some aggregate could be shipped by rail or barge from remote locations, but the best bet is to reduce demand by recycling demolished buildings or torn-up roads.
But its not a fix. This isnt an industry to be wished away, no matter how unsettling newly minted country squires find it.