Author: peiislander

March 17th, 2014

On By peiislanderIn Letters to EditorLeave a comment

Some meaningful letters addressing the high capacity well issue — these were printed on just one day, and was “balanced” by the editorial the next day and the Potato Board ad the next…..

This is from John Joe Sark’s address to the Legislative committee on February 27:
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Letter-to-editor/2014-03-12/article-3645489/Mother-Earth-in-danger-from-deep-water-wells/1

Mother Earth in danger from deep-water wells
Letters to the Editor (The Guardian)
Published on March 12, 2014

I can see great damage being done to Mother Earth if the moratorium on deep-water
irrigation wells is lifted.
There is enough damage caused by the use of poison pesticides and herbicides used by the large corporations to grow potatoes. It saddens me to see and hear about thousands of fish floating dead in our streams and rivers after a heavy rainfall.
This has been happening year after year for too many years. If these chemicals can kill our fish, then how safe are they for the human population?
We hear of illness and death caused by these chemicals in our human population, among our brothers and sisters, in the animal kingdom and among birds of prey that depend on these fish to live.
Water is one of the most sacred elements of the Miʼkmaq People. The water, air and Mother Earth are all sacred elements, without anyone of these all life on Mother will die. All of these sacred elements are so interconnected that whatever we do to the water will affect the land and will affect the air.
I, along with many others, am against the drilling of deep wells for irrigation of the potato crops, as I believe it will only add to the problem of more water from the potato fields flowing into our once pristine rivers and streams and seeping down into our water table.
As keptin of the Miʼkmaq Grand Council for the District of Epekwitk, I strongly recommend that the moratorium on high- capacity deep wells for potato field irrigation not be lifted until we are sure these deep-water wells will not harm the quality of fresh water in this province.
To date, there is no evidence that we can be sure.
We have no idea what happens to our underground water, which flows under the surface. We have no idea how much of that water is available to us and what could happen to it if more deep wells were dug for the purposes of those who appear to place profit over the needs of the greater population and future generations of Islanders.
The present model of industrial agriculture cannot be working for P..E.I and it is time we faced this and built the alternatives needed now and in the future. We need to realize that corporate and industrial agriculture has had its day and that trying to rescue it will inflict great damage on Mother Earth.
She is already too wounded by this model of agriculture, which has resulted in destruction of land, water, trees, human and animal life.
Organic farmers are not asking for deep wells. They donʼt need them because they have environmentally friendly agricultural methods, which are building up the soil, treating water responsibly and enhancing human and animal health.
As Prince Edward Islanders we have to come together and demand that the government of P.E.I. maintain the moratorium on high capacity deep water wells. Set up monitoring systems on the wells that are now operating, and create legislation with teeth, so that these wells can be shut down if they are endangering our water table, our clean water supply, or causing harm to our soil.
Dr. John Joe Sark LLD is keptin of the Miʼkmaq Grand Council for the District Of Epekwitk (P.E.I.).

———
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Letter-to-editor/2014-03-12/article-3645477/Potato-danger-all-consuming/1

Potato danger all-consuming
Letters to the Editor (The Guardian)
Published on March 12, 2014

Editor:
First of all I would like to say this deep-water wells venture is too risky and could destroy our Island with the protocol we are using to determine the facts needed to make such a monumental decision. The very future and existence of P.E.I. is at stake here. No water . . . nobody can live without water. The process to determine this needs to be more scientific.
Without proper tests to assess the quality and quantity of the available water on P.E.I., this request should be turned over to an independent committee to ensure the proper research and studies are completed. When the data is available, an informed decision can be made. Careful consideration is required to determine potential damage to our drinking water and environment.
Secondly, my research indicates health-care scientists are studying the health problems associated with eating foods that spike our blood sugars. More and more people are becoming insulin-sensitive and developing diabetes, cancer and heart problems with the spike in insulin created from eating foods like potatoes. How much longer will people consume potatoes? French fries are even worse considering they are fried in canola oil.
The misinformation regarding the P.E.I. potato industry contributing $1 billion to our micro- economy is not accurate. The majority of the money ends up off-Island and does very little to grow our economy or create a tax base to pay for the health-care problems it creates. Nor does this industry compensate adequately our education requirements.
Finally, I would like to leave food for thought: “Mankind will not destroy Mother Earth, man can only destroy our ability to live on Mother Earth.” Mother Earth is a living cathedral, with real feelings and needs. She must have harmony and balance, she can shake mankind off her back like a dog shaking ticks off their back. She has many ways to do this, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis and tidal waves. Think about it.
Wayne MacKinnon,
Marshfield

———-

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Letter-to-editor/2014-03-12/article-3645487/Potato-processors-bargain-through-blackmail/1

Potato processors bargain through blackmail
Letters to the Editor (The Guardian)
Published on March 12, 2014

A Readers View
Editor:
I have lived on the Island for almost 19 years. For those 19 years, anytime the Irvings or McCains think that they are not going to get their way, they threaten to pull out and take their jobs with them. It is a bargaining tool of theirs. This is not a good debating point, it is blackmail.
Showing “candid” photos of hard-working farm families is a bit like a defence lawyer pointing to a murder suspect and saying to the jury does this person look like a murderer. Again this is not a good debating point for or against deep-well drilling. We all know and respect that farmers only want to make a living and do not want to harm the environment. The trouble is past farming practices have not been good and perhaps growing potatoes for the french fry factories is not good, sustainable farming practice.
When I first moved to P.E.I., my late husband and I rented out cottages for the summer. Our property backed onto a potato field. Late one fall, the field was plowed. We thought it was rather late to be plowing and then planting a cover crop. One night we had a terrible windstorm. The next day our lawns, cottages, in fact, the entire property was covered in red dust. So were the properties across the road, there was even soil in the cottages. We called the farmer, talked to him. He said he was putting in potatoes the next year, and because the growing season for this type of potato on P.E.I. was too short they had to plow in the fall.
He also stated that usually the ground froze over and there was snow cover so it did not matter. At the time I thought why are they growing a type of potato that requires a longer growing season than they naturally have. Of course these potatoes were for french fries. It seemed to me t was neither scientific or good farming practice that one should hope the ground froze before the winds came.
It was a terrible mess to clean up in the spring and I wondered whether the farmer was hoping the wind would blow the soil back onto his field. In Australia, which is a continent not an island, they have been irrigating for years, especially for the wine industry. Now their rivers are drying up. So please no pictures or threats, a proper debate is needed.
Carol Capper,
Summerside

———-

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Letter-to-editor/2014-03-12/article-3645478/Three-things-spark-our-pride/1

Three things spark our pride
Letters to the Editor (The Guardian)
Published on March 12, 2014

Editor:
There are three things Canadians seemingly take great pride in — hockey, our Medicare and our vast supply of fresh water. With that being said it appears the only thing thatʼs thriving is our hockey after another gold performance at the Olympics.
Prince Edward Island has seen a disintegration of our health care and our fresh water supply. With wait times increasing and residents having to incur expensive trips or even hitchhike to Halifax for health services itʼs hard to believe we live in Canada.
Our health-care system is falling fast as well. The download of health- care costs from the feds to the provinces makes it hard for any health care to function. Itʼs made even worse by a provincial government that doesnʼt seem to understand spending wisely versus spending foolishly.
When thinking of fresh water, many will remember another summer of water problems for the city of Charlottetown as well as continuous river closures due to runoff in the summer and fall over the last few years. Itʼs hard to believe P.E.I. with all its fresh water faces these problems.
Recent calls for deep-water wells set a dangerous precedent as it opens up the already fragile Island water table to more pressure. Itʼs time we as Islanders take a stand against this and work to protect and preserve our Island water for future generations. Problems in Charlottetown over the last two summers with the Winter River Watershed should serve as a wake-up call and remind us that without proper care and protection of our water resources — we will run out. There was a time when I was growing up that buying bottled water was unheard of but nowadays this has become the norm.
I love P.E.I. with all my heart but itʼs becoming hard to live here. Itʼs time for accountability and transparency, wise spending not wasteful spending and care for the citizens of the province. Perhaps then even our politicians will be worthy of a gold.
Melvin Reeves,
Kensington

———-
And the website for the Coalition for the Protection of PEI Water:
https://peiwater.com/
———-

And the last recommendation in the section of The Carver Commission report dealing specifically with Aggregate Land Holdings discusses “Land Grabbing”.

It’s an excellent section and I found it hard to trim it, so here is most of it:

LAND GRABBING
The term ‘land grabbing’ refers to the contentious issue of large-scale land acquisitions, primarily the buying or leasing of large pieces of land in developing countries, by domestic and transnational companies, governments, and individuals. While used broadly throughout history, land grabbing as used today primarily refers to large-scale land acquisitions following the 2007-2008 world food price crisis.
<<<
On Prince Edward Island, the chief concern has been the purchase and control of land by non-residents, primarily shore frontage. The Commission’s research into the question and consultation with Islanders indicates that non- resident ownership is not as great a concern as it was when the Lands Protection Act came into force. The real estate industry provided valuable insight on this subject. Their experience shows that following the 2008 global financial crisis, demand for property here slowed considerably.

Since then, the trend has been toward sales by non-residents rather than purchases.
However, in the Commission’s view, this temporary trend does not mean Prince Edward Island will remain immune to market pressures in the longer term.

As presently written, the Lands Protection Act offers no protection against purchase by any resident of a large land holding of just less than 1,000 acres. Such purchases by resident individuals can be achieved without IRAC and Executive Council approval.

Since the definition of ‘resident’ is a person who resides in the province for 183 days per year, non-consecutively, it is conceivable that offshore interests could acquire large tracts of land through the use of creative planning. For example, students attending university or college here for a couple of years could each buy up to 1,000 acres of land. Or someone could assist them with the purchase. In addition, the Act offers no protection against the purchase of farmland by individuals who have no intention of keeping it in agricultural production.

The Commission heard two messages loud and clear:
1.    That the provincial government should take advantage of its legislative authority to keep land under the ownership and control of Islanders and those who want to become resident here; and
2.    That agricultural land should remain in food production, preferably under the control of resident bona fide farmers.
The Commission recommends:
As it now stands, a non-resident can acquire up to 5 acres of land or 165 feet of shore frontage without Executive Council approval. Those who want more must apply to Executive Council, and approval is usually granted.
The Commission believes the provincial government must seek the views of Islanders on the question of whether non- residents should be permitted to acquire large tracts of land. The related question of whether residents who are not bona fide farmers and who have no intention of farming should be able to hold 1,000 acres needs to be debated as well. In other words, how much is enough, and how much is too much?

Recommendation:
5. That the provincial government use data collected under the Registry Act to monitor the sale and purchase of large tracts of farmland by residents and non- residents who are not bona fide farmers, and place restrictions on future transactions,  if deemed necessary; exceptions would be made in cases where non-residents receive land from residents via will or inheritance.

As it now stands, a non-resident can acquire up to 5 acres of land or 165 feet of shore frontage without Executive Council approval. Those who want more must apply to Executive Council, and approval is usually granted.
The Commission believes the provincial government must seek the views of Islanders on the question of whether non- residents should be permitted to acquire large tracts of land. The related question of whether residents who are not bona fide farmers and who have no intention of farming should be able to hold 1,000 acres needs to be debated as well. In other words, how much is enough, and how much is too much?

These are important questions that must be addressed, but further public discussion and debate are required.

Land grabbing is a global phenomenon. It became an issue on Prince Edward Island in the 1960s when non-residents began buying shore frontage, and it remains a concern to this day. While the global economic downturn has slowed interest from non- residents, the Commission sees this as only a temporary reprieve.
The time will come again, perhaps soon, when Island land will again come under pressure from non-resident buyers. Government should have a policy in place to deal with the demand, and devise means to protect our precious shorefront and our most important natural resource the land    from those whose interests may not be what’s best for Prince Edward Island’s land.

This was from pages 30-32 of the Commissioner’s report, found at
http://www.gov.pe.ca/lpa/ The link to the report is around the middle of the page.

March 16th, 2014

On By peiislanderIn OpinionsLeave a comment

Another installment of “Let the Potato Board Educate Islanders on the Deep Well Issue”:
Guardian ad, Saturday, March 15th, 2014 — a quarter page in size (with annotations):

Oh, so it’s OK.

This is the The Education Plan — take what the Department of Environment officials said (“We have the capacity for Dozens and dozens and dozens of wells.”) and basically ignore scientists, watershed people, and volunteers who have looked at most of the same data and more and most certainly don’t come to that conclusion.  They are attempting to reassure a public which does cares about the health and fate of these farmers, but is growing increasingly uncomfortable with how this sector does business with its effects on land and health, and with ever-increasing demands to “level the playing field.”
—

This educational installment, point by point (any errors of interpretation are my own):
First the point being made by the Potato Board, and then what presenters have said at the Standing Committee meetings:
“The Science” Point #1:   “Prince Edward Island has one of the highest groundwater recharge rates in Canada, with recharge rates double of those in other agricultural parts of the Maritime provinces.”
Actually: A lot of rain (remember how many swimming pools per square inch or kilometer?) does not mean that the rain gets to groundwater.  This has been mentioned by several presenters at the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Environment, Energy and Forestry.

The Science Point#2: Supplemental irrigation uses a very small fraction of our water supply.
Actually: this is likely true, but only a very small fraction of our water supply is actually available for our use.  Do we know all the factors to choose that this commodity is more worthy than any other needs for our water?

The Science Point#3: Supplemental Irrigation will have negligible impact on the available groundwater supply, as water will be drawn — at most — a few weeks per year, and not at all in some years.
Actually:  These high capacity wells pull up about 800 gallons per minute, I think I have read.  And they can run non-stop to get to all the fields.  That’s about a million gallons a day, multiplied by 18-27 days per year (Innovative Farms Groups information) — at the driest time of year, when the streams are running on mostly basewater (groundwater input)  — that’s about 34 million gallons of water from one well, which services about 200 acres, I think they said.  Most people would not call that negligible.

The Science Point#4: New wells would be regulated so that wells would not be approved that are beyond the capacity of the local watershed.
Actually: At least three different presenters have said that the assessment of capacity to allow the draw off water is completely wrong in the provincial 2013 water extraction policy; and that the department chose to ignore or “cherry-pick” the analysis and recommendations from the Canadian Rivers Institute (CRI) and other sources, namely that the water could be drawn off until stream base flow (levels only from groundwater) hit 35%.  The CRI cautioned never to let irrigation happen when the baseflow is all there is — only extracting water when there is at least a certain percent of streamflow (from rain) in local streams.

Now these assessments are my inferences from listening to every presenter to the committee after the Environment Minister and her entourage.
———-

Last spring, Horace Carver was criss-crosing the Island, listening to Islanders,reading every previous commission, every roundtable, every task force and action committee, and after very long and hard thought, came to his conclusions thatincreasing potato acreage is not going to improve soil or the bottom line.

From his report The Gift of Jurisdiction: Our Island Province:
The Commission does not doubt, as they claim, that many potato producers are doing a good job when it comes to protecting against soil erosion and maintaining an acceptable level of soil organic matter content. However, the following facts cannot be ignored:
1.    Potato yield is related to soil quality;
2.    A significant number of potato producers do not comply with the Agricultural Crop Rotation Act;
3.    The precise number of acres not in compliance is unknown since the Department of Agriculture and Forestry does not verify compliance through field checks;
4.    There have been no successful prosecutions since the Agricultural Crop Rotation Act was proclaimed in 2002; and
5.    Soil organic matter, a principle indicator of soil quality, continues to decline.

Therefore:

The Commission recommends:
3. That the aggregate land holding limits of 1,000 acres of land for an individual and 3,000 acres of land for a corporation apply only to ‘arable land’ – a term to be defined in the revised Lands Protection Act – and that the maximum amount of non-arable land holdings be set at 400 acres for individuals and 1,200 acres for corporations.

The Commission Recommends:
4. That before any future increase to the arable aggregate land holding limits is considered, government and the agriculture sector must
commit to actions and report satisfactory progress to

  • Through collaborative research, identify barriers to profitability and quantify the relationship, if any, between farm size and profitability;
  • Improve compliance with the Agricultural Crop Rotation Act, improve soil quality, and reduce losses from soil erosion; and
  • Evaluate and report on the potential impact on rural communities of further farm consolidation.

The Commission believes the Agricultural Crop Rotation Act has the potential to bring about significant improvements in soil quality, crop yields, and farm profitability.
But, as the hollow instrument that it is now, the Agriculture Crop Rotation Act lacks force and will never be effective until the agricultural community itself takes ownership of the problem and required solutions. To do nothing is not an option.

As a further comment on the subject of aggregate land holding limits, the Commission realizes there are some who believe the decision on “How much land is enough?” should be left to those who currently own and control the most land. History teaches us that the Lands Protection Act was brought in for the express purpose of providing all Islanders, through their elected representatives, with a say in the matter. In this regard, the Commission believes nothing has changed.

Amazingly clear analysis and strong words.  

Critique of BC’s Water Act

On By peiislanderIn Government PolicyLeave a comment

Here’s a really great breakdown of BC’s new water sustainability act from the BC Environmental Law (association… sister association to ECELAW, East Coast Environmental Law)

http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/strengths-and-weaknesses-new-water-sustainability-act?utm_source=LEB

From WCEL:

After reviewing the Act, we’re actually fairly impressed.  There is a lot to like about this Act – even though many of the critical details will need to be worked out in the regulations.  That being said, there are also concerns and disappointments: especially related to addressing the environmental impacts of current water users and a relaxing of rules regarding making water available for hydraulic fracturing.

Saturday, March 15th

On By peiislanderIn Standing Committee Hearings on High Capacity Wells 2014Leave a comment

Quite the list of presenters at the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Environment, Energy and Forestry yesterday in the Coles Building.  It ended up going from 10AM to about 3PM, with a short lunch break.  But it was completely interesting.

On Compass, it was the top news story, a pastiche of clips:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/PEI/ID/2441995351/
First there was an update on the provincial hog industry by three very nice people (two producers and the executive director of the PEI Hog Commodity Marketing Board).
Hog farmers have had it rough, but they feel the cycle that was elongated into a “supercycle” of extended poor years is turning upwards.
Hog production on the Island has such history!  (Especially the last dozen years with the local plant and such.)   I do know that the large producers left have their hogs go off-Island to be butchered (at a federally-inspected). That was just accepted as fact.  There was no mention of the small (successful) farmers who raise and sell fresh pork,fresh sausages, deli meats, and smoked hams and bacon.  By the way, these local folks are likely at a Farmers’ Markets day :-).

(There was a great deal regarding other presentations I hope to address later.)

The last presentation on the moratorium on high capacity wells, the ninth!) was from the NDP PEI,  and as I got a copy of their presentation, I’ll paste their closing statement here (the standing committee could just change the names and submit this to the Legislature):

In summary, the position of the NDP PEI is that the request by the corporate potato sector to lift the moratorium on deep water wells for irrigation purposes does not take into consideration the fact that access to a plentiful supply of safe drinking water is a basic human right, represents a direction in agriculture that we should be moving away from, and is not based on scientific evidence that has been properly adjudicated by either the scientific community or the public at large.
The NDP PEI recommends that:

  •  Before any consideration at all is given to the request by corporate agriculture to lift the deep-water well moratorium, a comprehensive provincial water policy be developed as a way to safeguard the public interest. Such a policy should be established using a process that involves a knowledgeable Task Force and full public consultation. Given the urgency of having such a water policy in place, this should be tackled by government in the next session, at which the Task Force should be struck and provided with a 6-month deadline to file its report.
  •  A further prerequisite to considering the request to lifting this moratorium should be a broadly based peer review process of the scientific justification for doing so. Scientists who are experts in groundwater research should be given the opportunity to debate and critique the merits of the proposal, using the precautionary principle as an overriding guideline. It is imperative that this process be open to the public. If, and only if, government wishes to pursue the request by the Potato Board & Cavendish Farms to lift the moratorium on deep water irrigation (i.e. beyond a simple: “No”), the process of exposing the data obtained by provincial employees to peer review and public consultation should be initiated by government during the next session, in parallel with the Water Task Force proceedings.
  •  The provincial government needs to develop a strategy to encourage farmers to move away from an industrialized model built around a monoculture of potatoes toward a diversified, organic, and sustainable model that is less dependent on irrigation and environmentally – harmful soil amendments. This is a long-term policy change that should have been done decades ago. It will require careful deliberation by government in consultation with appropriate experts, stakeholders, and the general public. Serious discussions should begin within government immediately.

Submissions to the Standing Committee

On By peiislanderIn Standing Committee Hearings on High Capacity Wells 2014Leave a comment

Please click on links for downloads (word, pdf and link to gov website):

National Farmer’s Union NFU’s submission to the Standing Committee on the well issue.

Coalition for the Protection of PEIWater_Standing Committee submission

NDP Brief to Standing Committee on Environment, Agriculture, Energy and Forestry

Non-coalition member presentations:

PEI Federation of Agriculture’s submission on high capacity wells

Atlantic Salmon Federation Presentation to the Standing Committee

March 13th, 2014

On By peiislanderIn Letters to EditorLeave a comment

Hello, all,

Yesterday it was discovered that if you buy two ads in a local paper, you get an opinion piece printed like a news story.  But, wait, there’s more: the special really is:

Buy two big ads, get one editorial free.  This is the same package which the Department of Transportation got regarding Plan B!

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Editorials/2014-03-12/article-3645493/Potato-processors-enter-water-debate-as-stakes-increase/1

Potato processors enter water debate as stakes increase
Published on March 12, 2014 in The Guardian
Lead editorial

The stakes are being raised in the divisive debate on deep-water wells for supplemental irrigation of potatoes on P.E.I. Now, itʼs about processing contracts, the ability of growers to fulfil those contracts and the future of our two major french fry processors. Last week, the spectre of Cavendish Farms or McCains Foods reducing their contracts or even remaining in the province was raised publicly during a meeting of a legislative standing committee.

There have already been warnings from processors that the demand for P.E.I. french fries is decreasing because of additional competition and supply from other market areas. There are suggestions that contracts will be reduced while processors are starting negotiations with a lower price offer over last year. This doesnʼt bode well for contractors who grow over 60 per cent of the Islandʼs potato acreage.
Outside of the agricultural sector, there is almost universal opposition to lifting a 10-year moratorium on deep-water wells. Even inside the farming community, the NFU is opposed to any changes. Other farmers, including some potato growers, are either opposed or neutral on the issue.

Like Daniel thrown into the lionʼs den, three farmer representatives from the Innovative Farm Group (IFG) appeared before the standing committee. IFG represents eight family farm operations in central P.E.I. who grow 4,000 acres of potatoes on a rotational production of 12,000 acres. Some of the farms already have deep-water wells, others use ponds fed by wells and the rest use a pond and surface water mix. If irrigation is needed, deep-water wells are the most efficient option, IFG representatives told the committee. Without the ability to guarantee quality, farmers risk losing processing and table markets where even one dry week can have a significant impact on yield. If Island growers cannot supply a certain quality and size of potato, processors have options with growers and plants in other provinces or states where opposition to deep-water wells is limited.
P.E.I. potato growers suggest the industry would be in jeopardy without some relief from deep-water wells, with catastrophic economic results for farmers, rural communities and the province in general. Irrigation will provide an important tool to help sustain family farms for the next generation and beyond. Farmers said all the right things to the committee. “We live in rural P.E.I. with our children, our families, our friends and neighbours, in and around the farms that we would be irrigating. Thus we are very committed to managing this resource to be as gentle on our environment and as beneficial to our environment as possible. Better plant growth from irrigation means less fertilizer and fewer pesticides due to less stress on the plant.”

The standing committee and government have difficult tasks ahead as they must decide if compromise is possible to protect our water resource even if science supports additional deep-water wells and thus offers farmers a chance to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
———-
The “Daniel in the lion’s den” comment is peculiar.  First, the editorial doesn’t credit that one of the presenters from IFG when starting his presentation used the reference to a lions’ den.  Second, the spectators were a bit taken aback by the allusion, as the atmosphere had been one of respect (and perhaps concern for the situation these farmers are in), and Chair Paula Biggar immediately and forcefully said no one would be treated disrespectfully in her committee room as she welcomed them.
———-

As a very observant woman said to me last night, “They (the Ghiz government) didn’t realize that the high capacity wells were going to be the thing that made many Islanders sit up and realize that the French fry sector of the potato industry is in terrible shape — and more acreage, French fry promotion, irrigation wells, fumigation…is just not going to fix it.  It’s not good for our environment nor our health.  But we can’t vilify farmers —  we do need to start the transition away from this before the market does.”

———-
Today’s weather is likely to have an effect on the Standing Committee meeting.  This will be the fourth meeting with presenters regarding this issue.  (Minister Sherry, Environment Director Jim Young and Watershed/Subdivision planner Bruce Raymond on February 20th, Catherine O’Brien with the Coalition for the Protection of PEI Water and Mi’kmaq Keptin John Joe Sark on February 27th; the National Farmers Union, PEI Watershed Alliance, Central Queen’s Wildlife Federation/West River, Green Party PEI, and Innovative Farms Group last week on March 6th.)

If today’s meeting (scheduled for 1PM) is postponed, it should be listed here:
http://www.assembly.pe.ca/meetings/index.php?shownumber=332
and be rescheduled for Friday, starting at 10AM.  

If you are storm-stayed with a bit of time, check out the archives put together by the tech-savvy member of the Coalition for the Protection of PEI Water, Maureen Kerr:
 https://peiwater.wordpress.com/
———-

Unfortunately, if the Standing Committee is postponed until tomorrow, it crams into other planned events:
National Farmers Union District Convention which is being held this Friday, March 14 at the Dutch Inn.  Registration is at 9:30 a.m. with the meeting getting underway at 10:00 a.m.  Our guest speaker is our National President, Jan Slomp who will be speaking on building alternatives for a better farming and food system.  As well, we will have a panel discussion on high capacity wells and fracking.  Reports and resolutions will be considered during the day with adjournment about 4:00 p.m.  Everyone is welcome to attend.  Registration fee is $20 per person which includes a hot and cold buffet at noon. 

March 12th, 2014

On By peiislanderIn Standing Committee Hearings on High Capacity Wells 2014Leave a comment

Tomorrow, Thursday, is the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Ag/Env/Energy and Forestry, at 1PM in the Coles Building.

**If weather cancels the meeting, it will be rescheduled, I am told, to Friday morning at 10AM.**

There is some other business first (from the Hog Board), then:
ECOPEI
Atlantic Salmon Federation (Todd Dupuis)
PEI Federation of Agriculture
Cooper Institute
Council of Canadians
Daryl Guignion
NDP PEI
Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI
PEIS Shellfish Association
and the Committee has to consider a request from Cavendish Farms

Woo, what a line-up!!
Of course, do consider attending if you can.
This page has the listing and link to the agenda.  As soon as I hear anything about the meeting being postponed, I will pass it on.

http://www.assembly.pe.ca/meetings/index.php?shownumber=332

———-
For an archive of letters and posts about this issue, including footage from Maude Barlow’s talk at the water forum last month, go to:
https://peiwater.wordpress.com/

———-
Besides the land limits, the Commission on the Lands Protection Act also explored the concern about “double-counting”, where farmland “leased out” (rented to someone else to farm) is counted and so is the same land “leased in” (somebody rents it).  The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission, but pretty much no one else, liked the system.  So:

The Commission recommends:
2.    That the provincial government amend subsection 1(3) of the Lands Protection Act to remove the double-counting provision so that only land leased in is counted as part of the aggregate land holding; that the amendment include a sunset clause that would expire in six years, unless specifically extended before the expiration of the six-year time limit; and that a cap be instituted to limit the amount of land an individual or a corporation can lease out to 50% of arable acres owned.

March 11th, 2014

On By peiislanderIn Government PolicyLeave a comment

And a bit about the Lands Protection Act review:
Mr. Carver contemplated the issue of where the agriculture industry is today and would increasing the land holding size actually help matters.  He also was charged with looking at the “red tape” involved in accounting for the amount of land a farmer (or corporation) owns.  The regulations regarding renaming some land as environmentally sensitive (so overall holdings could be increased) were scrutinized.  (Once the regulations were modified in 2009, and in 2010, farmers wanting to get some of their lands exempted this way have to play a game of pickleball back and forth between IRAC and the Department of Agriculture to hear if the exemption would be granted.)

from the Prince Edward Island LPA Exemption Regulations (page 22-23):
35. (1) For the purposes of this section, “environmentally significant class of land holding” means any land holding other than a “natural area class of land holding” that
(a) the Department of Agriculture has certified as being (i) agricultural land that is identified in the PEI Sloped Land Inventory that is verified as having been converted from row crops by the owner through tree planting, (ii) land that is being utilized as an erosion control structure approved by the Department of Agriculture,
(iii) land on which there is a hedgerow that meets the Department of Agriculture’s criteria and standards for hedgerows, or (iv) land that is verified to be a permanent grassed headland that does not include any land that is required to be used as a buffer under the Environmental Protection Act Watercourse and Wetland Protection Regulations; or
(b)the Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry has certified as being
(i) land that is identified in the PEI Wetlands Atlas as designated wetlands, (ii) land that is identified in the PEI Corporate Land Use Inventory as forested land, or
(iii) land that is required to be used as a buffer under the Environmental Protection Act Watercourse and Wetland Protection Regulations or land that is required to expand a required buffer onto marginal agricultural land.
(2) All land holdings that are certified to be in the “environmentally significant class of land holding” are eligible for exemption from the section 2 aggregate land holding limits contained in the Act up to a maximum of 40% of current aggregate land holdings, to a maximum of 400 acres for a person and 1200 acres for a corporation, of which no more than 80% (320 acres for a person and 960 acres for a corporation) shall be forested land. (EC645/09)

And without further ado, the first recommendation from the Commission tidies this up:
1.    That the provincial government do the following: repeal Section 35 of the Regulations in its entirety; modify Section 2 of the Lands Protection Act to make it clear that the 1,000 and 3,000 acre aggregate land holding limits apply to arable land only; and accept as proof of compliance the farmer’s signed declaration of the acreage of arable land owned and leased.

March 9th, 2014

On By peiislanderIn Letters to EditorLeave a comment

This one raises an issue about radon, but has anyone actually heard about his concern?  Perhaps we all need to start asking about it.
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Letter-to-editor/2014-03-06/article-3639414/Deep-water-wells-will-spray-radon-into-air/1

Deep-water wells will spray radon into air
Letters to the Editor (The Guardian)
Published on March 06, 2014

A readerʼs view
Editor:
P.E.I. groundwater contains radon as a dissolved gas. Have the deep-water wells in Prince and Queens counties received a radiological assessment? For I believe there are meteorological and health consequences to their operation. Specifically, what are the activities of radon, 86Rn222, in these wells? How does it compare with shallow water wells? What is the airborne maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of radon on P.E.I.?
If you irrigate with P.E.I. groundwater by spraying, in the flight of the water droplets through the air, radon will evaporate out of the water droplet, effectively what is called an air stripper; now a radon stripper. Some radon evaporates (stripped out), some doesnʼt. The radon stripper effect will form a radioactive radon gas cloud, a radon plumb. The radioactive half-life of 86Rn222 is 3.8 days, and a significant concentration of radon may occur near the spraying source in light winds as well as down wind.
When radon decays it emits an alpha particle of 5.5 million electron volts, very energetic.
Electrons are stripped off diatomic oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the air and it takes about 30 electron volts to create one ion pair. This is referred to as ionization or ionizing radiation. Do the math: divide 5.5 million by 30 and you
get ~183,000 ion pairs from one alpha particle.
There is a background level of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays and background radiation. Airborne irrigation will add to this considerably; so much so that the resistance of the earth atmosphere is decreased, the electrical field of the earth arcs over, and you have thunder and lightning.
Last summer I heard thunder over Hunter River or Cavendish and there wasnʼt talk of any electrical disturbances on the newscast nor were the clouds thunderheads. I believe now this thunder most likely was caused by the deep-water wells spraying radon in the air in Prince and Queens counties of P.E.I. Friends say: “I heard that too.”
Health Canada should also look into the health consequences of the deep water wells.
As a public health matter, it will also prove useful to know the MPC of radon for groundwater, as municipal wells are also involved, at least indirectly.
Tony Lloyd,
Mount Stewart

———-

And a bit on the Lands Protection Act review:
from the Commissioner’s Report, page 21, with my inserts and deletions: 

Questions Regarding the Strategies (those documents cited a few days ago that looked at farming issues and the future):
The 1,000 and 3,000 acre limits were by far the dominant issue in public meetings held by the Commission.  Calls for increasing the limits came mainly from the potato industry, through the Federation of Agriculture and the Potato Board. Not all farmers and not all agricultural organizations    called for increasing the limits however.  The National Farmers Union opposes any change to the Lands Protection Act and Regulations.   Among non-farm groups and individuals, the vast majority favoured the status quo.

Two other points of view were expressed:
1. There still needs to be a limit on how much land a person or a corporation can own and control; and
2. The door should be left open for someday lowering the aggregate land holding limits.

Bearing all this in mind, the question must therefore be asked: If none of the provincial    and    industry    strategies mentioned above calls for increasing farm size as a way to improve farm profitability, enhance rural development, strengthen tourism, or promote environmental sustainability, on what basis can increasing the aggregate land holding limits be justified?

In this regard, the Commission sought answers to the following questions:
1. What is the relationship between potato acreage and profitability for a potato farm?
2. What is the evidence that the present aggregate land holding limits are having a negative impact on the profitability of individual potato farms?
3. If further consolidation occurs in the potato sector, what impact will this have on employment and contribution to provincial Gross Domestic Product?
4. If further consolidation occurs in the potato sector, what impact will this have on rural communities?
5. How does the Agricultural Crop Rotation Act fit into the picture? To what extent is it being enforced? In other words, how many potato producers are in full compliance?
6.    Given current aggregate land holding limits under the Lands Protection Act, has the Agricultural Crop Rotation Act become a deterrent to future growth of the potato sector?
7. Should the Agricultural Crop Rotation Act be changed, or can ways be found to use it, in combination with the Lands Protection    Act    and    government programs, to encourage better land management practices?
8.    What is the impact of the ‘double- counting’ provision that requires landowners to include both land leased in and land leased out as part of their aggregate land holdings? What would be the benefit, if any, of removing the requirement to count land leased out?
9. What are the problems with the Environmental Exemption Regulations introduced in 2009 as they are currently written and enforced? Can they be changed to better reflect the needs of the agriculture industry, or should they be abolished?
———-
So onto the what he actually recommended next.