Comment
IGAP issues get a lot more complicated
by Michelle Minnoch

IGAP (the Intergovernmental Action Plan) started out as an exercise as to where growth should go in Simcoe County but its brewing up to be a lot more.

Warden Terry Geddes termed the study just "a consultant's opinion" on Thursday but urged Simcoe County municipalities to get together and find a solution warning that if one is not found, one would be imposed (by the province).

But municipalities at Thursday's Wasaga Beach meeting were not only concerned about growth. Questions about governance were arising.

The term "two tier" was sprinkled throughout the IGAP report in terms of the delivery of service in areas like planning, water and wastewater. Other services were looking at being unified like policing.

To many, "two tier" is just another name for some form of regional government and the loss of local automony.

Thursday, also saw the battle lines being drawn over which municipalities get to develop and where. Barrie is identified as the centre for growth. But that growth is really on the moratorium lands in north Innisfil. There are supposed to be provincially mediated talks between Barrie and Innisfil which haven't started yet and Innisfil Mayor Brian Jackson worried out loud about boundary changes and the threat of annexation or amalgamation with Barrie.

He warned that the tax losses would be felt by all of Simcoe County making sure everyone knew they had a stake in this fight.

But the entire development issue took an entirely different turn on Friday. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority met and expressed their disdain for the IGAP choice. While being involved in the assimilative capacity study for Lake Simcoe, the Conservation Authority then said it was shut out of the process.

In the end the environment was considered just one of four principles with each getting equal waiting. Once again the environment and Lake Simcoe would be the loser again in the IGAP option chosen of concentrating the growth in either a south Barrie or north Innisfil. It makes no difference from the Lake standpoint.

That growth puts every one of the targets of the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy in jeopardy say the Authority.

While developers argue that the best way to save Lake Simcoe is allow them to develop and urbanize farmland and they can actually reduce phosphorus inputs with new technologies the Conservation Authority rejects that idea and wants to reduce the effect of urbanization on the Lake.

That's why putting 100,000 more people in north Innisfil because through Barrie that is the cheapest land to service is the worst thing for the Lake according to the Conservation Authority.

The Conservation Authority is in direct opposition to such member municipalities as Barrie, Innisfil and Bradford West Gwillimbury that want substantial growth and even the Authority's chair (Innisfil's Roy Bridge).

In terms of Lake Simcoe and the environment, the Multi Nodal approach to growth was better even though somewhat more expensive to service.

It would provide for more growth in existing communities and on the Nottawasaga watershed where Georgian Bay is better able to hand treated sewage effluent than is Lake Simcoe.

Growth and the environment are not easy bedfellows, throw in the prospect of regional government, amalgamations and annexations, and you have a lot of fuel for a real battle with lots of powerful voices.

The Conservation Authority is taking a very strong stand saying it cannot support the options as they exist and asking the Province to consider another option to evaluate where future growth could occur within Simcoe County while maintaining the Assimilative Capacity Study phosphorus targets.

Hang on folks, you're going to be reading a lot on this subject that affects all of Simcoe County.