Be Well!

Whew! I'm letting out the steam and letting the dust settle on this hot day under the collar debate. As you may know, our local water engineer (and other good volunteers) has completed his analysis for input into the EA process. From what I see, we have made cool solid progress on many fronts, despite the tight, middle of summer deadline that has descended like a shadow on our tiny village. Kudos!

As far as the EA report, there should be more information available to the community per the scientific and consultative methodology. Although the EA report may likely be authored by an individual (or farmed out to some poor consultant shmuck), I understand that the standard practice is that no name is attached to the document (institutional blessing).

I agree it would be polite and nice to know what they did, how they did it, what they learned and what it all means to the local ecosystem and us - and our amazing spring water that we and so many others rely on?

I agree that the optics of this EA screening report appear flawed, skimped or maybe a little rushed? This is not unexpected considering this mega project was granted a lowly EA screening from the get go. Maybe we should get a second opinion?

Some SOS members make good points about sticking to the facts and creating a credible and professional conduct and relationship concerning the obvious noise impact on sensitive wetland wildlife (Brown/Carmen/Meech creek) in the park.

This is only the beginning...

I'm not sure about the official SOS media headline, "Not Worth the Paper It's Written On" - besides, a real environmentalist hippie would read the report on line. My own 3 picks:

EA Sham Alive But Not Well?
EA Process Serves Quebec Mega Highway Builder First - While Sleepy Village of Wakefield is Threatened with Thirst?
Bakefield Gets Left High and Dry!

Take good care and be well!