Harps Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Since Access seems to be an issue at the moment... anybody see this? http://www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca/ The NWPA Issue: Rivers At Risk Transport Canada is in the process of rewriting the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to eliminate a developer’s obligation to consider impacts on navigation when building dams, bridges, causeways or other invasive structures on thousands of waterways across Canada. Transport Canada and industry hope to achieve this by exempting "minor waters" and "minor works" from the NWPA, and by re-defining "navigation" under the act in a way that will strip all legal protection from recreational navigation. The new law will ignore all whitewater rivers, all seasonal waterways and all vessels with less than a one-metre draft. This is a direct assault on Canada’s tradition of river travel and the future health of our waterways by the same people who are supposed to protect both. It is a fundamental breach of public trust. More Detail The Navigable Waterways Protection Act is a law that protects Canada's rivers, streams and creeks. The government wants to change that law leaving the rivers vulnerable. And they don’t want to hear what you think about it. In January of 2008, the Standing Committee for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (TRAN) began hearings on proposed changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). Virtually all of the groups invited to speak to the TRAN committee about the NWPA over the past few months, have come from the “development” side and have argued and advocated for changes to the act that would eliminate the public right of navigation on most waterways in Canada. Of 70 stakeholder groups invited to speak, only one spoke for the retention of the public right of navigation, and that was Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. The TRAN committee, for whatever reason, has only heard part of the story. Here is a quote from a senior federal bureaucrats who appeared before the TRAN committee and advocated for the erasure of the public right of navigation in Canada. From Shirley Anne Scharf, a senior manager with Infrastructure Canada: “The way it (the NWPA) is constructed right now—and I believe David Osbaldeston made this point—minor waters are such that I believe if you float a canoe in a body of water it is considered a navigable water. From that point of view, streamlining the act and excluding things of that nature would be very advantageous.” More at website... also http://www.yccc.ca/node/7920 and http://newsociety.com/blogs/index.php/2009...-protection-act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishfairwx Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Since Access seems to be an issue at the moment... anybody see this? http://www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca/ More at website... also http://www.yccc.ca/node/7920 and http://newsociety.com/blogs/index.php/2009...-protection-act Not ****ing funny ... I need to write some friggen letters this is not good!!!! I do not IMI do not blame the harper government for this... but I do excpect them to do something about this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 I don't think it will be an issue (in Alberta)... more of a time concern. It only applies to works in those waters and I don't think it will change what is considered Navigable, but I haven't really heard much about this before now. One thing to think of... putting logs in the river is bad for navigation, but can be very good for fish and the environment. I don't think that protecting rivers for navigation has any bearing on protecting the environment in those rivers. For the best navigation we should mow down all the bankside veg and remove all the instream stuff like boulders and logs (except where kayaking is king... there you just turn the river up and down... like the Kananaskis). Of course I don't think I agree with the gov't shedding responsibilities, either. Somebody has to look out for the good of the public, we obviously don't look out for ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishfairwx Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I don't think it will be an issue (in Alberta)... more of a time concern. It only applies to works in those waters and I don't think it will change what is considered Navigable, but I haven't really heard much about this before now. One thing to think of... putting logs in the river is bad for navigation, but can be very good for fish and the environment. I don't think that protecting rivers for navigation has any bearing on protecting the environment in those rivers. For the best navigation we should mow down all the bankside veg and remove all the instream stuff like boulders and logs (except where kayaking is king... there you just turn the river up and down... like the Kananaskis). Of course I don't think I agree with the gov't shedding responsibilities, either. Somebody has to look out for the good of the public, we obviously don't look out for ourselves. Well you know damn well that a Developer is not going to think of the river or do a damn thing to protect it other then making sure it does not wash away any of his precious bank that he is trying to sell... look at what buddy did near the 507 bridge on the flood plain.. and those acrages below HyWy 3 on the crow what is going to happen there... And never say never or that it can't happen here BECAUSE IT WILL AND WE WILL NOT BE LOOKING AND BAMM THERE IT IS HITTING YOU ON THE FRIGGIN HEAD.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Ahh, but protection of Navigation doesn't cover bank work now... what do they care if you pile rocks on the stream vegetation? What's in the floodplain at 507 bridge? Plus, it will still be illegal to block navigation (fence across the river, etc). I just means that Nav Waters won't review a bridge replacement... (I think, I'm still reading up on this) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishfairwx Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Ahh, but protection of Navigation doesn't cover bank work now... what do they care if you pile rocks on the stream vegetation? What's in the floodplain at 507 bridge? Plus, it will still be illegal to block navigation (fence across the river, etc). I just means that Nav Waters won't review a bridge replacement... (I think, I'm still reading up on this) Ok but still have to watch ans see how this plays out in other places... 507... Bermis bridge east side where the "developer" plowed roads and trails all over the flood plain and right up close to the river it appears that he wants to put a park or even a house or something there.. Camping ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishfairwx Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Ok but still have to watch ans see how this plays out in other places... 507... Bermis bridge east side where the "developer" plowed roads and trails all over the flood plain and right up close to the river it appears that he wants to put a park or even a house or something there.. Camping ? The way I read the info is that they will leave it up to the devoloper etc.. to decide if what they are doing is going to impact the "minor Water way" as we know some would look at the Crow or some other small river, brook, creek as a minor waterway and decide to unload *hit into it or block or build on it or intrude on it as it is a minor water way and not "protected " any more... Worst case I know and maybe fear mongering but I also do not like gov Agencies unloading responsibilities to special interest groups etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.