August
20, 2003
The
Honourable Jim Wilson
Minister of Environment
12th Floor, 135 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, ON M4V 1P5
RE:
Request for reconsideration of approval to construct the
Red Hill Creek Expressway, pursuant to s.11.4 (1) of the
Environmental Assessment Act.
Dear
Hon. Wilson,
I
am writing to you on behalf of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
(LOK), an environmental law group working to protect Lake
Ontario. As you are likely aware, the City of Hamilton
is currently undertaking to construct an expressway in
the Red Hill Valley. This project is highly controversial
and has been the subject of numerous public demonstrations
and media reports.
We
are requesting that you reconsider the approval for the
project, which was granted to the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth
eighteen years ago. Section 11.4(1) of the Environmental
Assessment Act grants you this authority when circumstances
have changed or new information arises. As outlined in
the letter below, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is of the opinion
that significant changes have occurred and new information
has come to light in the last eighteen years. We believe
that reconsideration of the original approval, either
by the Minister or by referral to the Environmental Review
Tribunal, would grant the public a fair opportunity to
address these changes in a contemporary EA process.
The
approval to construct the expressway was granted to the
Region of Hamilton-Wentworth in 1985 after the Region
successfully argued that the proposal was prepared by
responsible, conscientious individuals (p.186). The credibility
of the Region was given much weight in the consideration
of its ability to successfully mitigate environmental
impacts of the expressway.
However,
the credibility of the new project proponent – the
City of Hamilton – has never been tested. We feel
that the people of Hamilton have legitimate concerns regarding
the city’s credibility as a project proponent, given
its recent activities in the Red Hill Valley.
The
City of Hamilton has demonstrated that it is not only
an untrustworthy advocate but in fact an aggressor against
the Red Hill Creek. In September 2000 the City plead guilty
to offences under the Fisheries Act for leachate discharging
into the Red Hill Creek from the Rennie St. landfill.
It was fined a total of $450,000 and given orders to clean
up the site.
The
construction of an expressway includes disruption of now-remediated
sections of the Rennie St. landfill. Potential impacts
of this disruption have not been considered in an environmental
assessment.
The
Ministry of Environment has also charged the City under
the Ontario Water Resource Act for “greasy scumballs”
that were discharged in 1999 into the Red Hill Creek from
the sewage treatment plant located at the mouth of the
creek. The defence offered publicly by the City is that
it “happens all the time,” so the Ministry was
wrong to lay charges.
Incredibly,
the Fisheries Act conviction and the OWRA case (pending)
have not prevented the City from continuing to pollute
the Creek. In December, 2001 the City of Hamilton was
again caught in violation of the law as it polluted the
Red Hill Creek. Four orders were issued by the Ministry
of the Environment to clean up storm sewer outfalls and
all discharge points on the Creek. The City has yet to
comply with these orders.
In
addition to its egregious actions in the Red Hill Valley,
the city has withheld information about the area with
members of the public. On June 3, 2003 the Information
and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario ordered the City of
Hamilton to release documents it had produced concerning
the Red Hill Creek Expressway Project. These documents
contain new information about the impacts of the proposed
expressway on the Red Hill Valley and its environs.
Because
the city has withheld information and has actively polluted
the Red Hill Valley, we feel the people of Hamilton are
justified in hesitating to trust its future to the city.
It feels like asking a thief to guard your treasure.
And
the Red Hill Valley is a treasure. While the majority
of the Joint Board of 1985 accepted that the valley was
not a popular place for passive recreation (p. 191), its
value to the local community has grown. Since 1985 groups
such as Friends of the Red Hill Valley, the Hamilton Naturalists
Club, the Conservation Society, Kings Forest Orienteering
Club, the Hamilton Conservation Authority, Community Action
Parkdale East, Red Hill Neighbourhood Association and
Concerned Citizens of Ward 5 have formed or spoken out,
confirming that the 1985 argument is longer true.
Furthermore,
the area was named part of the Niagara Escarpment UNESCO
World Biosphere Reserve in 1990. In 1995, the first Southern
Flying Squirrel was spotted in the Red Hill Valley; the
mammal is a threatened species and 30 animals have since
been sighted in the area. These changes, combined with
the increased value the community places on the valley,
have never been meaningfully assessed. Without their consideration,
we cannot safely conclude that all adverse environmental
impacts will be successfully mitigated.
Mitigation
is important, because the Red Hill Valley is now one of
the last significant greenspaces in the City of Hamilton.
While the Joint Board was convinced that the expressway
was needed to clean up the creek in 1985, area residents
and provincial environment officials have since demonstrated
that hard work and diligent enforcement of environmental
laws will do the same thing. Because of their hard work
the Red Hill Valley today is an internationally recognized
treasure.
Section
11.4 (1): a Ministerial reconsideration. The City of Hamilton
has committed offences under the Fisheries Act and OWRA
which are directly related to the subject matter of the
approval granted to the Region in 1985. Such an act should
automatically and immediately call into question the continued
relevance of that approval.
The
purpose of an environmental assessment is, after all,
to ensure “the betterment of the people of the whole
or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection,
conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment”
(s. 2). After eighteen years, four orders, pending criminal
charges and a criminal conviction, surely reconsideration
and a reassessment via mediator or review panel serves
this purpose.
The
decision to construct an expressway through the last significant
greenspace in any community is not a decision to be made
lightly. It is imperative that a project proponent appreciate
its duty to uphold the public trust by maintaining its
credibility, and that the science of the mitigation measures
be sound. Only with a provincial review can we be certain
this is the case in the Red Hill Valley. We thank you
for your consideration and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Mark
Mattson
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
