Despite spending weeks deciphering statistics and comments about the County’s shoreline preservation bylaw, and Dysart’s site alteration bylaw, I feel I have more questions than answers.
The years-long process leading to the introduction of the bylaws was highly politicized. In the end, three townships agreed to play ball, while Dysart dared to be different.
There are notable variations between the two documents – arguably the biggest being the County introducing a mandate forcing anyone who wants to make changes to an existing shoreline development plan to first ensure their property complies with the new shoreline preservation bylaw before work can proceed. Any complaints are considered by a new staffer hired to manage the program.
There’s no such requirement in Dysart’s bylaw, while complaints are investigated by existing staff.
Mayor Murray Fearrey and County warden Liz Danielsen are both happy with how their respective programs have performed in their inaugural year, though for different reasons.
County staff have responded to 52 complaints since April 2023, with action taken at 22 properties. Danielsen believes that’s evidence people are paying attention to the new rules. She said the fact staff can follow up with offenders, and initiate remediation, is positive.
She’s focusing on the environmental benefits – which, for a program designed to maintain water quality and improve lake health, seems obvious.
There was little for Fearrey to reflect on in Dysart, given staff only received four complaints. Two investigations have been completed, with no action taken, while two others are still in progress.
The big focus in Dysart, seemingly, has been on total spend. While the County has invested approximately $118,000 into its program, Dysart’s costs are around $900. Fearrey noted his council has likely saved in the region of $100,000 going their own way. But if those savings come at the expense of deteriorating local lakes, are we actually saving anything? I’d argue the opposite.
Tourism is the number one driver of the County economy. People come here because of our pristine lakes. Lose that and a lot of businesses would be in big trouble.
When discussing preventative actions, Fearrey pointed to Dysart’s new shoreline health report card. While a neat addition, the program is carried out by inspectors whose primary job is to test residential septic systems. As far as I’m aware, these assessments cannot be booked or scheduled – they’re an add-on to an existing service.
That’s not great when you consider Dysart conducts septic tests in specific regions each summer. This year they’re out on Benoir, Elephant, Farquhar, Fishtail and Grace lakes – which is great for those areas, but what about everywhere else? They’ll have to wait their turn, it seems.
As well, Bri Quinn, program manager, confirmed the assessments are for public information only. The township cannot act or issue fines to any wrongdoers. That seems counterproductive.
Most concerning were the responses I received from some in the community. While the consensus was the Dysart bylaw isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, none would publicly condemn it. Nor would they criticize the council that endorsed it, out of fear of damaging relationships. Most felt Dysart was simply paying lip service by introducing this bylaw, believing it to be too weak. In discussions I’ve seen at the council table, there appears little appetite to strengthen or improve it.
Absent any kind of performance metric, it’s difficult for people to understand what the numbers mean. What difference the bylaws are making. Why they’re so important. The County bylaw is guilty of this, too.
I think it’s fair to say there’s room for improvement with both bylaws.
