Gatineau River Protection VICTORY!!
Save the Gatineau / Sauvons la Gatineau

Roy Dupuis, le président de la Fondation Rivières announces his adoption of the Gatineau River


Aug 1, 2012 - Canadian Wildlife Federation Video Contest WINNER: - Official Submission from "Save the Gatineau / Sauvons la Gatineau"

Read Roy Dupuis' letter of support to the Save the Gatineau / Sauvons la Gatineau team: Click for letter

Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter

Watch Flikr Slideshow from #savethegatineau photo contest
Printable Telephone / Letter Writing Log

Two Page Printable Phone Log

Please print out a copy of this call/mail in log and contact some of the people found on the form and ask them some great questions.  If you’re at a loss, keep in mind the following phrases the council of mayors are fond of using and it will probably give you some good ideas:

 

1. it has to go somewhere  — problem: this doesn’t address the type of technology nor the disproportionately huge volumes of septic sludge trucked from 80 KM away nor the damages done to the river

2.you people haven’t provided any alternatives — problem: our tax money will be used for this project and our MRC specifically dictated septic sludge lagoons to the consulting engineers — they didn’t even investigate alternative solutions — they do exist and that’s THEIR job

 

3. The river will be cleaner: problem — there hasn’t been any comprehensive baseline testing of the river quality beyond very basic e-coli testing, and it defies logic to think that trucking sludge from Buckingham and Quyon to Farrellton and releasing effluent into the Gatineau River will clean it up

 

4. In the old days people didn’t even have septic tanks, it went straight in the river so this is better: problem: In the old days the population density was much lower and people weren’t ingesting pharmaceuticals on a wide scale, nor were they using anti-bacterial soaps and modern household cleaners and assorted chemical cleanses in their day to day life.  Secondly, small amounts of people living along the river with outhouses is completely different than a single-point-of entry to the river for the effluent from 46,000 people every day, 8 months of the year.

 

5. Think of all the cows along the river and the runoff from them – this will be way better — the equivalent of about 7 cows a year. Or a teaspoon of sugar in a pool  Problem: believe it or not one of the councillors along the river made these claims to a constituent — it doesn’t deserve a rebuttal.

 

6. They do this all the time in Quebec and the Minister of Environment always approves these types of installations — problem: just because other rivers have been damaged and polluted doesn’t mean it’s a good idea -the river will NEVER be as clean as it is now if they go ahead with the project and alternatives do exist.  Indeed, the Minister of the Environment also usually approves a variety of proven technologies, most of them more efficient and requiring less trucking than this one.

 

7. You people are just selfish NIMBYs- Problem: the river is part of the communal heritage of each and every citizen and taxpayer — just because many of the vocal people live near the river doesn’t mean that they own the river– everyone owns the river .. if the MRC were planning on building a septic sludge lagoon system draining into the lake or stream near your house, that would be wrong too.

 

8.We’re not there yet: Problem: this is a phrase you’ll hear often when you ask any of the following tough questions

1) how much trucking will be involved with this project?

2) will the trucks be owned by the municipality or will they be private contractors?

3) how much insurance will you have to carry for this project and ongoing operations

4) what will become of the left over, dried ‘cake’? will it be spread on farmers fields? will we have to pay to have it trucked and processed somewhere else/

5) will LaPeche institute mandatory pumping every 2 years?  Is there any proof that this is necessary?

9. Let us do our work.  Problem: this is a meaningless sentence. It implies that citizens are disturbing progress when in fact, being accountable, transparent and acting in our communal best interests is part of their oath of office

If you’ve heard any outrageous statements lately, send the in!! thanks, webmaster