Dear Editor,
I was encouraged by the public engagement surrounding the IAAC Review of the TCE pumped storage proposal.
It reinforced what many of us have known for a long time. In a town the size of Meaford, in a province the size of Ontario, it really is encouraging to see how very few people really oppose this thing.
Of the 432 submissions to the IAAC, about one quarter of them came from the same 33 people or groups submitting multiple times. The big winner was Joseph Leung (15 submissions), followed by Pat Maloney (13 times), then the Impact Zone (12, including submissions made for them).
It’s tough to be more precise. Too many of those opposed to the project lacked the strength of conviction required to sign their own name to their posts. It’s impossible to say how many more people posted multiple times anonymously. Every ‘Concerned Citizen’ could easily be the same person too.
By comparison, pretty much every person or group who posted to support the project and the process signed their name.
When you count the opposed submissions with names (but only once for each name), assume a few anonymous ones were probably multiple posters too, then subtract the project supporters, you arrive at a very small number of unique participants actually opposing the proposal.
This was their big chance, so I imagine that everyone opposed to the proposal participated. Only people without concerns had no need to show up.
It sure looks like less than 2.5% of the Town of Meaford opposes this project – based on their participation in the regulatory process. That’s how few opponents showed up for the IAAC Review.
Many opposing parties weren’t from Meaford. Including them, 0.002% of Ontario residents/organizations opposed Meaford Pumped Storage. That’s how few opponents showed up for the IAAC Review.
The vast wave of opposition hoped for by very few did not materialize. Presumably because it was never there to begin with.
Submissions demonstrated how well informed the people who support pumped storage in Meaford are.
Many opposing submissions were far less likely to be supported by science and ignored publicly available information completely. It was like they were all working off the same script? The same list of, being polite here, concerns.
When TCE works to address the concerns sent by the IAAC, the majority of them can be readily addressed. Answers should start with “We see you didn’t take the time to find out the most basic details of the proposal. Let us fill you in on them first.”
Many will be easily handled.
TCE can probably guarantee “no use of live animals for testing pollution” already. The “eyesore” damage to tourism answers will be “You won’t see it. From land or water.” Multiple concerns about damming tributaries and streams, with the possibility of the dam bursting, requires just 8 words. “There is no dam. It’s a man-made reservoir.” “Extreme weather danger?” Same 8 words. The answer to “polluted soil being dragged into the Bay” every day of operation will be “Lined tunnel, lined reservoir, Georgian Bay water doesn’t contact Base soil during operations.” The gentleman who needs reassurance that TCE won’t dump the soil excavated to build the reservoir directly into Georgian Bay should be easy to satisfy. The fellow who insisted 296 trucks a day will leave the Base with contaminated soil might hear “Interesting. Who told you that was going to happen?” TCE can make short work of the person who believes TCE will not use any of their own money to build this thing. And “A CANDU reactor is a generator. Not a storage device. Storage stores energy generated by CANDU generators. They’re quite different things.” deals with that request. Plus “That screen is 1/2 inch wide. Show us how this fish fits in there. Currents generated during operations are equal to the naturally occurring current there now. Show us how that same fish (and any swimmers and boats illegally entering Base property) gets sucked through that same screen.” should deal with so many other concerns raised by the opposition.
Raised over and over in fact.
I suppose the DND will need to weigh in for the fellow who believes contractors and truck drivers will be impossible to screen, leaving the Base open to “sabotage and attack.” I expect they already have a plan for that. And know where they can scare up a guard or two. Probably armed too.
To me, the exciting thing with public engagement in general and this process specifically is what comes next. All of that accumulated mess has been assembled and turned over to TCE to respond.
That is the process. It’s pretty standard. Required.
Now TCE will address the concerns raised by the public and concerned entities. Even the imaginary ones.
Personally? I’d go with “Really? You believed that!! No way!” But TCE will have to pick better words than I have.
So, if you’ve been spreading misinformation about this project non-stop for 6 years, you will not like it when the process continues. At all.
It was kind of odd that in his recent letter, Mr. Zita thinks “the scrutiny now reflected in agency and departmental reviews did not happen on their own.”
They did. Save Georgian Bay neither invented Environmental Assessments, nor did they pioneer mandatory Risk Assessments. Both are required by current law. They did happen on their own.
Best to not try to take credit for something that has to happen whether you complained or not.
Bruce Mason, Meaford
