Responses to our plan for cleaning up Lake Simcoe

Keith Currie (Ontario Federation of Agriculture) on June 16, 2020

1. Do you support Lake Simcoe Watch’s recommendation that the Government of Ontario should develop a plan to reduce Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus pollution to 44 tonnes per year by 2026? If no, do you support the achievement of the 44 tonne per year target by a later date? If yes, please specify the date.

Response from Ontario Federation of Agriculture

3. Do you agree that the Development Charges Act should be amended to permit the Government of Ontario and Lake Simcoe municipalities to levy development charges to recover 100% of their costs of reducing Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus pollution? If no, please explain why not and outline how you believe the pollution reduction measures should be paid for.

Response from Ontario Federation of Agriculture

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Jonathan Wilkinson (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Canada) on June 4, 2020

Letter from Minister Wilkinson

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Jeff Yurek (Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks) on May 21, 2020

Letter from Jeff Yurek, Minster of Environment, Conservation and Parks

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Don Ciparis (National Farmers Union) on May 21, 2020

Full response from National Farmers Union.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Andrea Martin, Director, Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch (OMAFRA) on May 5, 2020

Click here for OMAFRA letter in response to our questionnaire.

2. Do you support Lake Simcoe Watch’s proposed actions to reduce Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus pollution? If no, please explain why not and outline alternative actions that you believe should be taken to reduce Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus pollution?

3. Do you agree that the Development Charges Act should be amended to permit the Government of Ontario and Lake Simcoe municipalities to levy development charges to recover 100% of their costs of reducing Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus pollution? If no, please explain why not and outline how you believe the pollution reduction measures should be paid for.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Thank you for your letter to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the opportunity to review “Cleaning-Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper”.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) is committed to supporting farmers as stewards of the land. Stewardship, education and outreach are essential tools that assist in achieving the objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. They provide mechanisms for connecting directly with rural and agricultural communities in the watershed. Stewardship programs help to address specific threats facing the Lake Simcoe watershed and encourage everyone to engage in responsible and sustainable actions. Education and outreach programs connect the environmental, economic, social and scientific aspects of stewardship and help to improve community acceptance and encourage positive changes.

OMAFRA created the “Best Management Practices Series”, a collection of publications to support individual farm planning and decision-making by presenting affordable options for protecting soil and water resources on the farm. These publications cover a wide range of agricultural best management practices, many of which support the reduction of phosphorus loss on-farm. You can access these documents here: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/environment/bmp/series.htm. The Canada Agricultural Partnership provides cost-share funding for a range of actions to reduce phosphorus losses from agriculture and food processors, including in the Lake Simcoe watershed.

The Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 requires the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to review the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan at least every 10 years to determine whether it should be amended. The Act also requires that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to consult with local stakeholders and ensure there are opportunities for public participation during the review. OMAFRA will be an active participant in this process.

When the 10-year review of the Plan begins, we will consider the recommendations in your discussion document. Public engagement and consultation is a key component of the review process and we also welcome your feedback during the official public comment period. Please be sure to check the Environmental Registry (www.ero.ontario.ca) for the launch document to provide your comments.

Thank you for your dedication to cleaning-up Lake Simcoe.

Adam Weir (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters) on April 30, 2020

The OFAH supports a strategy to reduce Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus pollution to 44 tonnes per year; however, a recommendation to reach the target load reduction by 2026 may be unachievable. The 2010 Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (PRS) is believed to be an “ambitious and aggressive” plan, and it outlines actions and directives to be undertaken to reach the same target, but by 2045. The Government of Ontario worked with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, stakeholder groups, municipalities and other partners, and though we would like to see phosphorus reduced as soon as possible, the outcomes of these collaborations determined that 2045 is a realistic time to achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the PRS. Attempting to have the same results by 2026 is likely setting the goal up for failure; therefore, we recommend aligning with the PRS and reaching the target by 2045.

The OFAH supports Lake Simcoe Watch’s proposed actions to reduce Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus pollution; however, it may be beneficial to elaborate on exactly what Lake Simcoe Watch is requesting. For example, the first action in the discussion paper recommends that the OMAFRA develop programs and financial incentives for agricultural producers to adopt BMPs to help with phosphorus reduction, but this approach is open-ended and doesn’t provide specific examples of grants and funding mechanisms. The Lake Simcoe Watch should consider listing broad-based environmental stewardship programs that could be improved upon or developed, and past initiatives that worked well that could be re-administered and that align with the BMPs listed in the discussion paper. Additionally, it may be critical to target more organizations for this action item and include, for example, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

In general, the OFAH is in agreement with a developer pays system to protect and conserve the environment, but presently, we are not optimistic that this approach will work. Schedule 3 of the More Homes, More Choice Act (Bill 108) makes amendments to the Development Charges Act to reduce development costs. Because the Government of Ontario is currently loosening restrictions and reducing red tape for developers, it may be important to investigate alternative methods for revenue generation. The Lake Simcoe Watch is proposing legislative changes to the Development Charges Act, that alone would likely take several years to implement (if feasible), which would also conflict with the proposed target load reduction by 2026.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the associated economic downturn we have and will experience into the future, there will be even less funds available from municipalities, conservation authorities, and government. Considering that the current government is taking action against over-regulation, cutting red tape, and has launched the “Open for Business” action plan, the Lake Simcoe Watch should consider additional innovative solutions and ideas to fund phosphorus reduction initiatives. According to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, the annual value of the watershed’s key ecosystem services is estimated to be $922.7 million. It may be of interest to strategically focus on the economics of Lake Simcoe, as a business case, to garner more political interest: investing in communities and businesses in the Lake Simcoe region equates to economic growth and prosperity. This situation may not be ideal, but it’s important to have a plan that reflects the current political and social climate in order for the Lake Simcoe Watch’s goals to be reached.

We would also like to highlight ALUS Canada, a national charitable organization that supports the delivery of the ALUS program across the country. The OFAH administers ALUS Peterborough, one of the OFAH’s Fish and Wildlife conservation programs. It’s designed to support and guide farmers wishing to convert marginal farmland to functioning ecosystems, who are then recognized via management payment support for providing ecological services to the community. This model and approach to conservation has been successfully operating nationally for over a decade. At this point, it is our understanding that there isn’t a chapter for the Lake Simcoe region, and could be an excellent, innovative opportunity for approaching phosphorus reductions.

Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association) on April 23, 2020

Yes, OSCIA agrees with the target reduction of 44 tonnes per year by 2026.

OSCIA is generally supportive of the proposed measures, but can speak only to the agricultural practices being proposed.

Uptake on water course naturalization can be limited as it requires farmers to stop production on significant acreage, particularly if the goal is a 30m buffer along all watercourses and fish habitat. Fairly compensating farmers for the loses in income could be prohibitively expensive. While OSCIA is supportive of this action, the challenges in implementation must be recognized.

The Phosphorus Reduction Efficiency percentages for streambank stabilization and streambank fencing are significant and may be more achievable that 30m buffer areas. Encouraging good agronomic practices such as crop residue management, nutrient management, cover crops and reduced tillage should also be encouraged, and may also see higher implementation rates than large buffer areas.

It should be noted that there is significant history (i.e. 30 years) of delivering agriculturally focused cost-share programs in the Lake Simcoe watershed. As a general statement, the farm community demonstrated significant willingness to participate and adopt further best management practices; however, more recent programs (i.e. last five years) have seen relatively lower uptake by the agricultural community. Any funding programs must be strongly aligned to the diverse production practices of the Lake Simcoe watershed. It will also be critical to tailor funding opportunities to the needs of the growers in the Holland Marsh.

Based solely on the information provided in the discussion paper, OSCIA agrees that levying development charges seems a reasonable way to offset the costs of improving water quality in Lake Simcoe.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Pamela Fulford (Couchiching Conservancy) on April 17, 2020

We support the science-based reduction target of 44 tonnes per year. It may take longer than 2026 but we must increase our efforts to make it happen.

Yes. We support the actions.

Development charges are important. New Development should pay for increasing the phosphorous in the lake. I haven’t read the Development Charges Act but it makes sense that new development should pay for its damage to the lake.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

It is clear, concise and science based. Thankyou for providing it.

Nicole on April 9, 2020

Yes, they need to reduce excess phosphorus as soon as possible.

I support them.

I think the major polluters ex. Farms and agriculture should be charged.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Anonymous 1 on March 4, 2020

Yes

No it does not go far enough. Ground source water is overburdened by PTTW. Surface water as well. They have identified opportunities to revitalize aquatic habitat, rivers, streams, wet lands and create ponds. Ground source water is being pumped out faster then it can recharge during growing seasons. That run off is very difficult to control when millions upon millions of litres are pumped on any given day from aquifers and surface waters. Those PTTW surrounding the Lake have been loading the Lake for decades. Our ground waters equally need protections from these practices. They need to revoke many of these permits. As wells as how many high volume pumping wells one can have on a property.

No l think industries that pump surface and ground water should be paying as well. Since that run off has been loading the Lake for decades prior to any development of many areas.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Anonymous 2 on March 2, 2020

Yes

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Anonymous 3 on February 26, 2020

How can we STILL be asking when the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan wasreleased more than 10 years ago! And, STILL the province and local governments have not developed a plan to reduce phosphorus pollution to 44 tonnes per year. Meanwhile those same governments continue to overload this watershed with unwieldy population growth and development. The more roads, the more houses and rooftops, the more exposed soil, more fertilizers/pesticides, the more phosphorous pollution in the form of urban stormwater. I support the reduction phosphorus pollution NOW ... stop dithering and DO IT! I suppose the best way to handle this was TEN YEARS ago, all those politicians should have been told there would be a moratorium on development until the phosphorus reduction plan was hammered out. Since politicians seem to exist on campaign donations from developers, that would have been an incentive for them to get going on this!!

OF COURSE, the reduction of Lake Simcoe's phosphorus ought to be the OVER-ARCHING GOAL for all municipalities within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. The lake is not just there for humans -- for thousands of years, it has been there to support many forms of life, and it should be healthy enough to continue doing so. This could go hand in hand with establishing undisturbed areas of forests and wetlands while they are STILL THERE. Put limits on activities that generate phosphorus and other forms of pollutants in the first place. I never understand why politicians are so gung-ho to spend money on bull-dozing the landscape, then paving it, and building cheek-by-jowl developments that will increase phosphorus -- THEN, they want to spend MORE tax dollars on costly new engineering solutions to reduce the phosphorus overload. At least, the developers always get what they want -- but that should NOT be how the 'public service' works.

ABSOLUTELY, the Development Charges Act should be amended to ensure 100% of development charges are paid by developers. This should have been instituted a few decades ago. For too many levels of government, development has become an unquestioned religion -- and the primary source of campaign donations from 'satisfied developers'. This is sad beyond words because of all the nations in the world, Canada could have a sustainable stable economy that serves nature well -- remembering that humans are a part of nature. Humans rely on natural areas, such as forests for recreation, fibre, oxygen, flood control, shade, carbon sequestration, food items, even medicines are harvested from forests, and forests will provide these services for free, as long as they are retained in fairly robust 'natural interdependent communities'. Forests can survive well without humans, but humans cannot survive without forests.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

There have been countless conferences, going back to 1991, that 'discussed' the NEED for watershed planning. I remember one at the Unversity of Trent, and there was another held near Orangeville, attended by keynote speaker, David Crombie. It was held at the Hockley Valley Conference Centre on Oct 22, 1991, and the resulting publication was entitled, "There's Always Someone Downstream", ISBN-0-9696017-0-0. It can be accessed at https://mono.civicweb.net/document/19861 How many times does this exercise have to be repeated, with the same lessons offered, over and over?

When it comes to planning, watershed planning should be the paramount duty for Conservation Authoriities, and the botched-up cross-jurisdictional 'responsibilities' of other layers of government (intent on development primarily) must take a backseat; otherwise, we get this line-up of politicians at the municipal, regional, and provincial levels whose devotion to developers prevents sound planning -- and we end up with degraded landscapes, sprawling overly-standardized conformity, or land-use 'cramming', NOT planning. The natural constraints of the watershed DO MATTER, and the human population must be brought into alignment with ecological constraints. We cannot say we 'value headwater' landforms, then bull-doze them away so developers make a quick buck, while the residents shoulder 30% to 50% of development costs (though the public will never really know about all the subsidies offered to developers and industry). Those costs race ahead of current development, so politicians are always playing catch-up, ensuring that the next generation of taxpayers pay for the current generation -- meanwhile the current generation is paying for the previous 'iteration' of development. On and on the 'game' goes, while debts and deficits at all levels of government continue to spiral out of control -- and this is exactly what is happening here.

S. Henry on February 20, 2020

Yes, I support the recommendation to develop a plan. It is imperative to our long term enjoyment and sustainability of the area.

Yes, I support the actions to reduce phosphorus pollution

Yes. However, I would like to clarify that this should be for new developments and should not penalize homeowners who want to make changes to their properties. To build a new garage in the county, the permit fees are already outrageous. Can the impact of the amendments be further explained.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

More detail is required in terms of the types of developments from which this funding would come.
I believe there should also be federal grant possibilities given the climate plan. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus in the environment cause diverse environmental effects - many of which directly affect human health and welfare. Beyond the effects on climate, these include air pollution, acid rain, marine and freshwater eutrophication, biodiversity loss, and the stimulation of some invasive species. Freshwater eutrophication carries a multibillion-dollar price tag. Some estimates suggest that safe planetary levels of nitrogen and phosphorus have already been exceeded, with long-term consequences for humanity.

Barbara Heidenreich on February 19, 2020

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT, I don't think we need ANOTHER "Plan" ....we need to ACT!

YES!!!!

of course!!....but dream along...we all know the conservative government, whether provincial or municipal) is in the pockets of the developers

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

I grew up on the shores of Cook's Bay at DeGrassi Point and as a child we drank the water from the lake...in May, the May flies (a sign of water purity) covered the lake and shore in their millions...I haven't seen a May fly for the past 50 years. We canoed and we sailed everywhere.....now I refuse to swim in the lake as it is a cesspool and you can't have a conversation outside because of the noise of jet-boats. In my lifetime we have totally destroyed a precious ecosystem thanks to human greed and stupidity. STOP making 'Plans" and start doing something!!!!!

Ken Imrie on February 18, 2020

Extremely informative and very well done! Absolutely agree with the 44 tones target! Lake Simcoe draws a number of tourists not only from within the country ,but, also outside. This is beautiful lake and a great asset to the province of Ontario!

Absolutely support

Yes!

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

It is essential we protect this lake not only for it's beauty, but, also the major contibution it makes to sustain nature! Let's not forget the major financial benefit to all the townships, cities, and towns that surround the lake
. Perhaps the support of the fish and wildlife club could be obtained they certainly would have a concern and interest in protecting the lake?

John Barker (Retired R Us) on February 18, 2020

Yes I would support it but only if proper authorities manged it. Not current authorities!

Yes

In Georgina we are using the development fees to build a MURC oh joy vs bringing water and sewers to the rest of Georgina which would reduce the load from bad septics.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

LSRCA should have their wrists slapped for issuing permits which cause more loads into the lake and when notified they have excuse after another vs rectifying!

Cynthia Sanderson on February 18, 2020

Yes and the sooner the better.

Yes.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

john bartosik on February 18, 2020

yes

additional water trucks on developing residential lots...putting fines in place where preventable discharge of soil and silt into the storm sewers andnatural waterways. Educational and necessary certification to engineers, developers, planners and such in ways to prevent and implement proper procedures and practices during the development stages of natural lands slated for development of commercial, and residential lands.

yes

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Anonymous 4 on February 18, 2020

Yes

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Anonymous 5 on February 18, 2020

Yes. Even earlier would be nicer.

Yes

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

In most studies and reports regarding environmental issues, I've noticed in the past that governments are given too much time, too much leeway, when it comes to fixing or effectively handling a problem. After the dust has settled they always end up falling short of deadlines and amounts anyway. So my advice...START BIGGER, START FASTER, START BETTER, DEMAND MORE than you would normally, then after the dust settles you will end up with what you want and accept.

Anonymous 6 on February 18, 2020

Yes I support the plan to reduce this number and more.

Yes I support the plan

Development charges need to be levied. I think of (Black) Friday Harbour. Do you know the Harbour does not pay school taxes or other taxes because it qualifies as a resort community. This is not fair. There are many wealthy people that seem to not pay their share of taxes. Slow down shore development. The developers seem to avoid paying taxes. This is not fair. Do not allow special designations for developments like Friday Harbour.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Donna Deneault (n/a) on February 18, 2020

I approve a clean up plan by the government as soon as possible for the phosphorus pollution.

Yes, I support your actions to reduce the phosphorus pollution.

If that is the option that makes most sense, then yes. However, I don't know if there are other options. ?

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

I want to say that developments like Friday Harbour should never, ever have been approved. It is my understanding from several of the marinas on Lake Simcoe, that the Friday Harbour group "diverted" the natural current of the lake. This sound very bad, if it is true.

Thank you for all that you are doing to save this most beautiful lake.

Anonymous 7 on February 18, 2020

Wait until the CONservative government is turfed

You may as well forget about ANY support for any projects or concerns while the CONservatives/ Fraud Nation are holding Ontario hostage

Anonymous 8 on February 18, 2020

Yes develope a better plan then out lined. 2023

No it is a constant up hill battle because there is far to many high volume pumping wells (PTTW) surrounding the Lake. They add more yearly. They will continue to load the Lake. As they have done for decades. Some folks are missing the signs of loss of wet lands, aquatic habitats in water tributaries we already face from overburdening aquifers. No secret the levels are dropping world wide because to much taking from the bank account is occurring when no new deposits are made. Land subsidence can not be be reversed. The compaction soils can no longer regenerate former recharge. The plan to revitalize a number of identified areas will not work well if the watersheds are constantly being depleted from over pumping. They need revoke many of these permits to reduce the what they are discharging back to the Lake. They need to take stock of and map out all aquifers. They need to start monitoring actual levels. Not what goes on these days pumping ridiculous amounts of the watershed during droughts with out a care in the world.

No- industries using high volumes of surface and ground waters for profiting for decade's should indeed pay a share of the clean up costs. Since they will continue to load the Lake.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Domenic Filippone on February 18, 2020

Absolutely in support

Yes

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

I am a resident living on Canal Road right on the Holland Marsh. That being said I live on 2.5 acres, and rent out my muck land to a farmer. My biggest concern and beer is that there are no incentives for the land owner to create native plant windbreaks, followed by my most important concern. What type of chemical weed killers are these farmers applying to the land. I do not, nor, have I EVER seen any Ministry of Agriculture staff around to inspect what they are spraying on the land. I will be asking my tenant farmer and would love to see a blitz as to what is being sprayed. I also want to see more native plant species planted along the whole stretch of the Canal both soouth and north sides.

Peter (Crystal lake Cottager's Association) on February 18, 2020

\Yes, I support any attempt to reduce it......
ow that it is known to me, and others ?

I'm still not clearly informed as to what the proposed actions are proposed, but have ideas of my own, as follows:
Is it possible to "shock The System" to bring back to where we should have been at this stage and Time ?
If so.....Let's do it , and move forward on a more gradual basis to meet 2026 goals and objectives ?
Now that we are free of the Liberal Gov tin Ontario......LET'S MOVE FORWARD !!

YES, I agree with this suggestion and Proposal.
To recover some of charges, Increase in Boater Licences traveling this area, Slight increase to Property Taxes in the area, Increase in taxes to Municipalities , townships , and Towns that would benefit from a cleaned up surroundings . Increased charges at Boat Launch Facilities.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Please let's not screw around.....let's just get the NECESSARY JOB DONE before i's too late to recover from .
Regards, Peter Nind

Paul Jolie on February 18, 2020

I live in Newmarket which is equal distant between lakes Simcoe and Ontario. As a recreational cyclist I love going south where I can bike from Oshawa to Oakville and enjoy the view of Lake Ontario for 95% of my ride. This provides me with an appreciation of the beauty and concern for the health of the lake. Contrast this with a ride around Lake Simcoe where 95% of the view is private residences / cottages blocking all views of the lake. Consequently my concern for the health of the lake is clouded by my inability to actually see the lake. If you want residents living in the Lake Simcoe watershed to get concerned about its health then you should provide more opportunity (shoreline) for us to enjoy. As it stands the York Region section of the lake is a personal playground of shoreline property owners and boaters.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Anonymous 9 on February 18, 2020

support a provincial plan to include developers, municipalities, farmers

yes

yes but should be shared costs

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Anonymous 11 on February 18, 2020

Yes by 2026

Yes

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Marg Gurr (StoneSong Studio) on February 18, 2020

I supported the 2008 recommendations and would like a more inclusive explanation as to why this didn't get off the ground.

Yes

You haven't provided enough information to make an informed decision. I would want to know what's worked in other communities, whether forecasts are a consideration in budgeting, and how we can avoid getting so far behind the curve in the first place. Ignorance is not bliss, but acts as a convenient excuse for the smaller players (individuals and families) to simply ignore the whole issue. Get serious about the purpose of the laws and the enforcement, recognize that the chief offenders should be the chief contributors to the financial burden of clean-up and start taking this as seriously as those of us who make this effort personally every single day. Stop spending money on consultants and surveys and get to the doing part of the mess.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Stop dumping harmful agents into the lake. You guys plough, pick up and dump. What did you expect would happen. This isn't rocket science.
Road salt (aka sodium chloride) is 40 percent sodium, 60 percent chloride, and a smattering of other components: ferrocyanide (often used as anti-caking agent), phosphorus, and iron. ... Road salt and its unnatural additives are making their way into our natural environment.

Konrad Brenner on February 18, 2020

yes

No ! The present legislation permits essentially recovery of cost associated with the new development, and that is all new owners should pay. Correcting things created in the past should be levied on the entire tax base.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Texas Constantine on February 18, 2020

Yes.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Ken Davis on February 18, 2020

Yes I support the reduction in pollution by 44 tonnes per year by 2026

I support any action that will contribute to the solution

I don't believe 100% of the costs should be applied to development charges however new development should bear a significant percentage of the costs with the balance coming from a strategic fund raising strategy which remains to be developed.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Frank Wice on February 16, 2020

Absolutely if we don’t fix it at this time when the h##l are we going to fix it. It’s not fair to leave it for our grandchildren to fix

Again keep up the good work

We all need to pay our share not just the new people moving into our area

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

Anonymous 10 on February 16, 2020

I agree that something needs to be done, however, I do not believe that it is the sole responsibility of the G of O to develop and implement a plan. Other agencies and governments also need to be involved. For example:
The Federal Government has a huge stake in agricultural industry, particularly, overseeing treaties and agreements that benefit Canada as a whole. That said, however, they should be involved in the crop management ideas put forward in the paper, perhaps even leading the efforts in this regard. I’m sure many other water resources throughout the country would benefit as well as Lake Simcoe.
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority also needs to share their knowledge and experiences to help pull a plan together. In all likelihood they would be partly responsible for ensuring the proposals are met, through the issuance of permits and monitoring the implementation.
Local governments would have a stake, since the Feds and Ontario would download the cost and implementation efforts. I don’t believe this should happen, however, it is the reality of the current government system. Local government involvement then increases local taxpayer dollars and they take the brunt of the impact.
The farming community is obviously going to be the primary target for impact. The help they will require will be in education and finance. I believe this should be a Federal initiative since it would reap benefits across all the country’s water resources.

I think that groups like Lake Simcoe Watch have a role, however plans and implementation efforts are surely a government responsibility.
LSW carries no authority to create, implement or enforce any legally binding strategies thus should refrain from trying to do so. Instead, their efforts should be in assisting in the funding of these important projects; on focusing on how to implement the projects, not just saying this is what needs to be done; working with municipalities and governments, not just pointing out their shortcomings.

No.
Development Charges are in place to pay for the provision of necessary infrastructure to accommodate growth, not schemes to prevent pollution.
Like the successful recycling programs now in place, education of the public in how to reduce phosphorus pollution is key. Perhaps instead of LSW producing an expensive report, they could have used the funds to create a swale planting, or help a few people who can’t afford to connect their septic system to the municipal sewer system.

4. Please provide any other comments about Lake Simcoe Watch’s report: Cleaning Up Lake Simcoe: A Discussion Paper.

It is a good report and informative. But efforts need to be put into being part of the solution, not just reporting on the problem.