Counterpoint: Question #20
The Lindsay Post is running a weekly series of questions, with answers by both the "Yes" and "No" sides of the issues.

---

Question #20:
How will your proposed municipal structure maintain the environment of the CoKL area?

---

      Is a two-tier (YES vote) or one-tier (NO vote) local government in the best position to protect the environment? Maybe we should ask our neighbours in (two-tier) Peterborough County. Their "Vision 20-20" builds a strong environmental component into their land use planning, just as our single-tier City of Kawaratha Lakes has incorporated the "environment first" principle into the community "vision".

      With respect, we suggest that it is people, not governance structures, that best ensure a healthy environment.

      The City of Kawartha Lakes is predominantly rural. Our two major economic engines are agriculture and tourism. Both of these depend on clean water, air and earth.

      Land owners have traditionally been the best stewards of their own property. When they do need guidance to encourage them to do the "right thing" we have environmental protection laws at the provincial, and occasionally at the federal level. Local by-laws can also enforce sensible practices with respect to the environment.

      Regardless of the outcome of the vote on November 10th, the "environment first" principle will likely find its way into the CoKL or the Victoria County official plan. County and local by-laws as well as federal and provincial legislation will enforce good stewardship practices.

      Just as important is the work of local volunteers and advocacy groups. Grass-roots organizations such as KPOW (Kawartha Protect Our Water) have been instrumental in bringing such issues as the Lindsay-Ops landfill to public attention. Local Adopt-A-Road projects, the Kawartha Fisheries Association, the volunteers who give the local osprey population a helping hand and the volunteers who have helped in the purple loosetrife control program are all examples of local efforts to provide a cleaner, healthier environment.

      Before amalgamation, the Kawartha Regional Conservation Authority (KRCA) acted as a monitoring agent for environmental quality issues. They continue to do so today. The City of Kawartha Lakes investigated the option of bringing environmental monitoring "in-house" and decided that this work was best left to the KRCA. After de-amalgamation, the KRCA would continue its work, as would the revitalized Victoria County.

      The "No" side might argue that only mega-city local government can protect the environment; that small local councils do not have the resources to achieve that goal. To this we would ask, how do all of the other two-tier local governments in Ontario manage? The answer would seem to be that the lower tiers do what they should through environmental by-laws, and what needs to be done at the upper-tier (County) level is handled there. In other words, we don't lose anything by returning to a two-tier structure, but we gain flexibilty.

      A clean healthy environment will be in no way jeopardized by de-amalgamation. We might even argue that, with a return to true local government, with enhanced access to decision-making at the local level, and with a return to genuine volunteerism, the citizens of our communities will in a better position to monitor and enhance environmental quality.