Deepening a Navigational Passage in a Mariculture Lease Cont'd

I think it is reckless to legislate a change to the zoning of "The Cut" before knowing the results of that zoning.  Peter Luckham said a lot of words about maintaining the depth of the cut, but really didn't have an answer.

He said it may be already be impossible because of the mariculture lease on the south shore.  But he doesn't know.

He said the waterway was polluted so the dredging spoils couldn't be dispersed on the polluted north shore.  This, if true, doesn't make sense.  It is all the same soil.  Wherever that came from could probably be reversed.

He said dredging would make an unsightly mess on the north shore.  We have been living with "that mess" since 1905.  Is it really a mess?

He said the water depth was OK, and that if you needed a high tide, just wait another 6 hours.  The tides in the Gulf are Mixed, Mainly Diurnal, which means in summer, the daytime tide is low more than it is high, and in winter it is high more than it is low.  Summer is when we have most traffic through "The Cut"

Lots of words. 

He referred to "The Penelakut" a few times in his discourse, It wasn't clear whether he meant the tribe, or the seafood company.  Politics may be moving this rezoning faster than it should.  I refer to them below as "The Penelakut" because I don't know which it is.

I went back to the original espokes notices about the May 9 meeting.  I didn't see any reference to this meeting being the last chance for submissions or public input.  Submissions were not mentioned at all.  And the May 24 meeting espokes notices did not even refer to "The Cut" rezoning as part of the agenda.  I tried to get espokes to mention it, but the best I could get was an offer to put in a notice in espokes under my signature.  I did, and that was the only espokes message about the Islands Trust meeting that said anything about the agenda.  It was very strange.  Islands Trust were not notifying us fully about the meetings.

The letter from  "The Penelakut" agreeing to allowing maintaining the depth of "The Cut" may be useless, as the conditions of the mariculture licence preclude dredging, and I don't see any way to get a variance from DFO, unlike the 2012 licence.

Maintaining the waterway has to be done at a local governmental level - Transport Canada made it clear they don't maintain waterways.  I suspect CVRD would identify a need, and take it to the BC govt for funding.  Islands Trust don't have the answer yet as to how or if it can be done, and yet they are going to change the zoning.  Like I said earlier, this is reckless.  Future generations may look back to the Quarterlys of this date to see what went wrong, and that is why I am writing you.

Ken Hunter of Islands Trust is to be commended for objecting, and refusing to vote for this.  Third reading of Bylaw 97 was delayed, pending the letter from "The Penelakut".

I finally got an email back from DFO with contacts to query a solution.  Maybe it is possible, maybe not, but we should know before going forward.  Islands Trust seems to have lost interest and have cut themselves off from contact after the May 9 meeting.  What to do?

Arthur Gooding