Preserving wetlands really in everyone’s best interest

I recently read the Sun article, of Tuesday, Jan. 13, about the development plan which has been submitted for the South Village area, south of Patricia Avenue. Some claim this will be a real “win” for Brandon residents to have another large commercial area in the city. Maybe that is true, although others might argue that we don’t need even more retail outlets to stoke the consumption of even more consumer products that is fuelling increased household debt and environment degradation.

But let’s just leave that discussion for another day, because at issue in this plan is a much more immediate and specific problem. The city planner quoted in the article very correctly identifies that there are concerns about maintaining the integrity of the very large wetland on the development property. This is a Class 4 wetland, subject to special protections in provincial regulations.

Interestingly, in the current plan submitted by the developer, the word “wetland” barely appears. When it does it is quickly, rhetorically transformed into a “green space” that will host trails, play structures and benches, and will be carved up into a series of connected “naturalized storm water ponds.” While this is clearly a wetland, a sensitive and vital natural ecosystem, the site developer seems to see “green space” opportunity where they plan to “enhance the habitat and aesthetic qualities of the wetland” (a quote from the plan document).

What a wonderful vision, right? But let’s look at the reality obscured by the vision. The current plan proposes a “parks and natural area” of 55.1 acres, of which the wetland portion is part. Keep in mind, this includes all the recreational area they propose to create in the “green space.” Now consider that the wetland assessment that was part of an earlier planning phase for this same site (on file with the city) determined the area of the wetland to be 90 acres. That includes 35 acres of deep and shallow marsh zone (where you will find standing water most of the time) and 23.5 acres of what is called “wet meadow zone.” Already that is 60 acres in which if you go for a hike you will be walking in water or mud.

What is more, the department of Environment and Climate Change has established that a 50-metre zone from the high water mark of all Class 4 and 5 wetlands should be maintained development-free. The developer is planning 55 acres of “green space,” which will include play structures, a soccer field and trails that will “provide barrier-free access” to the public (page 12), in spite of the fact that, in all likelihood, this whole 55 acres will be underwater this spring when the snow melt begins.

All this is offered in conjunction with the promise of “enhancing and protecting the wetland.” How do you “enhance and protect” a 90-acre wetland by turning it into 55 acres of recreational green space? I’m guessing there are bulldozers, dump trucks and many tons of fill involved. The plain, obvious fact is that this is a plan to eliminate at least 35 acres of wetland and pretend that is “protection.”

Why, you might ask, should we bother to protect this very large wetland? Wetlands provide what are sometimes called ecosystem services. Those include storm water retention, flood and drought mitigation, climate-saving carbon sequestration, mitigation of urban heat island effects, aquifer replenishment, maintenance of bio-diversity including pollinator habitat which is critical to supporting many food crops on which we rely. Those services are worth millions of dollars in the long term, and are all provided to us free of charge by this wetland eco-system.

Once the development happens, all these services are eroded. Who picks up the cost of those services? For instance, when the basements of houses or commercial properties built right on top of a former wetland inevitably flood, who will pay for the flood damage? Typically, it is not the developer but residents and the city, which is to say, you and I — the taxpayer. The draw on taxpayer funds for this development has already begun since, in order to proceed, the city has had to commit some $40 million to build a sewage lift station at a low point within the plan area. You guessed it, actually inside the wetland boundary.

Why else should we protect the wetland? Because government at both the city level and the provincial level have pledged to do that! The city’s own Climate Plan, which prioritizes conservation of natural ecosystems as one of its “big moves,” promises the “preservation of sensitive ecosystem areas … reducing the urban heat island effect” and to “develop a natural asset inventory and assign a financial value to the biodiversity and natural systems services.” The plan says we are going to preserve and value our ecosystems. Simply put, if you plan what to do, you should then do what you plan.

The province also pledges to protect wetland. A senior officer at Water Resources communicated to me that “all developments must adhere to strict guidelines set out by the province that reduce or eliminate alterations to certain wetlands … Class 4 and 5 wetlands are protected from development as has been a longstanding practice of the department.” Certainly, turning a 90-acre wetland area into a 55-acre mixed-use “green space” is a substantial alteration that by no means should be seen to adhere to provincial guidelines.

Obviously, carving out an additional 35 profitable acres serves the developer’s interest very well. But how many other interests and concerns do we want to throw under the bus to that end?

I would suggest we have a moral interest to conserve the environment for future generations. We have a fiscal interest to conserve tax dollars by preserving ecosystem services provided for free by the wetland. We have a civic interest to hold our city and provincial politicians accountable to their stated plans and regulations. Therefore, we should oppose the plan that has been submitted by the developer and push for one that better protects the wetland and thus serves our city’s broader interests and needs now and in the future.

QUENTIN ROBINSON

Brandon