|
|
|
Beach petition on its way to the House of Commons By Darrell Ziegler After taking the long way around, the Point Clark Beach Association’s (PCBA) “Petition for Action” will finally be making it to the floor of the Canadian Parliament building. Huron-Bruce MP Paul Steckle will bring up the Point Clark Beach Association’s (PCBA) “Petition for action” in the House of Common’s shortly after parliament reconvenes an April. Don Thorpe, the association’s president, along with VP Dave Hyman, visited Steckle’s office in January to present the petition and discuss how best to address the problems along the lakeshore in regards to deteriorating water quality and beach conditions in the township. Liberal MPP Carol Mitchell was also at the meeting. She promised to bring the petition to the Ontario Legislature at a later date as well. The association hopes the petition will draw support for the restoration of the Point Clark lakeshore, specifically, the improvement of near shore water quality and beach conditions from the Amberley Road to Pine River. The petition asked among other things that, “ecological studies be initiated immediately to provide the necessary data to determine long-term solutions to the pollution problems.” They also suggested studying the effects of the gryones that were created by property owners south of the lighthouse, which some experts believe may be causing algae and sludge to build up and get washed into the Point Clark Beach area. The sludge, at times ankle-deep, not only causes a foul odour, but adds bacteria to the water at the beach, which was posted as unsafe for much of the swimming season in 2006. Groynes are man made channels dug into the lakebed, with the dirt piled up along either side of the channels. Geoff Peach of the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation says the groynes restrict the water flow along the shoreline. He says that plant life and algae get held up in the channels, where it rots. When heavy wave action or storms occur, the foul sludge is washed out of the channels and in many cases, ends up along the Point Clark Beach. It is hoped that by removing the groynes, the water flow along the lakeshore will go back to its natural state and help relieve the sludge build-up on the Point Clark Beach. The petition also points to studies done by consulting engineers B.M. Ross and Associates in Goderich, which have been monitoring water quality in the Pine River, the Huron-Kinloss lakeshore area, as well as several creeks in Point Clark. Elevated levels of bacteria have been found in the area in studies dating back to the 1960’s and 70’s. More recent studies by B.M Ross, (funded totally by the township of Huron-Kinloss), show that the problem of elevated bacteria counts are not going away, in many instances, they are on the rise. Elevated counts of e. coli, nitrates and total phosphorus are not unusual in the area, following heavy rainfalls or heavy wave action. The PCBA, along with the township, hope that the petition will show the federal and provincial governments that they are serious about fixing the problems, but that they can not do it alone. They need help from the upper tiers of government. The township and its residents are taking a leading role in their environmental protection programs and water quality monitoring programs, but as a small municipality, they can not afford to do all that is necessary. A major problem faced by the township is that much of bacteria gets washed in from streams and creeks, along with the Pine River, which is out of their control. Members of the Point Clark Beach Association and the 1,334 people who signed the original petition are asking not only the province, but also the federal government for help. The petition however, had some setbacks with the original draft. Steckle’s office said there were some slight problems with the wording of the document and that it could not be presented formally to the government without minor changes. Thorpe and Hyman say another problem was that a copy of the petition was put on-line. Unknown to them at the time, on-line petitions are not acceptable in formal, federal petitions. “They have very specific ways that things are to be done,” said Thorpe. Because of those minor glitches, the document could not be brought up formally in the house until April. The idea of a petition was originally discussed at the association’s general meeting on August 12, 2006, with approximately 50 people in attendance. Members decided that a petition might be beneficial in bringing local environment concerns to the upper tiers of government and raise public awareness. The petition was printed off and ready for signatures by the August 25 weekend. “They, (Steckle and his staff) were amazed at the number of people who signed and the amount of work and effort that went into it,” says Thorp. Lou D’Alessandro, of the Grey Bruce Health Unit spoke to council at A January 8, 2007 meeting in Ripley where he discussed the unit’s 2006 Beach Management Report, released to council back in September 2006. D’Alessandro said at the start of 2006, that sampling was done at the same location as in previous years, near the lighthouse. The first two dates, the sample results came back acceptable, but the following four dates, came back adverse, above the standard. The beach was posted as unsafe for the month of July. It was decided to relocate the beach sampling sites in hopes of better results. Sampling for the next two weeks were done further north in the Clark Creek area, those too were over the acceptable limit for bacteria. The site was then moved further north again, to the Pine River Boat Club. The first sample at that location, taken July 13, 2006, was higher than it should be, but the following three came back well within acceptable levels. The beach was closed for seven weeks total. D’Alessandro told council, “There’s a problem by the lighthouse, there are things I can suggest to improve it, but it comes with a cost. I think people want to see that area cleaned up.” He went on to tell council, “There are solutions out there, but which one is the right one? We can sample 200-300-feet up, or try to fix the problem.” It was then decided by Huron-Kinloss council to move the “public bathing area” sign about 200-feet to the north, in hopes of avoiding more “unsafe” postings. Without funding help from the upper tiers of government regarding a solution to the problems, council felt that at that time, it was the only affordable option for the township to take. This did not sit well with many residents, or the PCBA. Thorpe and Hyman were at the meeting and neither liked the idea of moving the sign north, believing that if the sign (indicating where the public beach begins) gets moved 200-feet north enough, that, “Eventually we’ll be in Lurgan Beach.” “The lighthouse is a tourist spot. We spent a lot of money on washrooms, parking, etc. People want to use the Point Clark Beach near the lighthouse, not at Clark Creek. Local residents and association members want to see the beach cleaned up so that future generations can continue to use it. “It’s a historic site. The beach has been there since the first cottages were built in Point Clark.” Without help from the federal and provincial governments, it’s unknown if the beach will ever be re-opened. |
|