New Protected Areas in the North Okanagan amidst new threats -- By Don Elzer - Vernon Courier

The following is an excerpt from an article published by the Vernon Courier on October 25. It is reprinted with the approval of the author.

With the announcement of the proposed expansion of Kalamalka Lake Provincial Park, many residents will be celebrating, but there are other efforts that have caught the attention of those folks eager for more environmental protection in the Okanagan.

But, there’s also some cause for concern.

Agricultural land at risk in Coldstream

A while back, this column reported on the question of the future of the Agricultural Land Reserve within the possibility of a new super regional district.

As it happens, a common threat to the ALR is about to play out as the Municipality of Coldstream seeks to ask voters to change the use of agricultural land to land used for parks and sports fields.

With the referendum we are witnessing a relatively new provision in the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate that justifies such removal or change of use based on "community need" - something some argue is an illegal consideration, given the current legislation that governs the ALR.

It already appears as though our elected representatives are the one’s that define “community need” to the commission. However, a public outcry over the issue has caused Coldstream council to leave it in the hands of the voters.

Regardless, it’s playing the “community need” trump card against the commission.

There continues to be growing pressure within this region to remove agricultural land from the ALR, which is intended to protect lands that have agricultural capability regardless of external community pressures.

In Coldstream, there is a need for sports parks, but like it or not pushing any kind of community service farther into food production areas will place pressure on those lands. More houses, strip malls, perhaps even industrial areas will follow.

Proponents of excluding certain lands from the ALR within urban/rural fringe areas point to high housing prices and the trend of continued growth as the reasons to make more land available for housing, jobs and public facilities.

Bob Ransford an urban development consultant and columnist with the Vancouver Sun said, “It is nonetheless ironic that the same people who argue that community need should trump agricultural capability also reject the role that the ALR plays as a de facto urban-growth boundary. They argue that the only criterion for including lands within the ALR should be agricultural capability”.

Ransford goes on to explain that on the other side of the debate, the positions are just as entrenched and principle often trumps logic. There are environmentalists unwilling to make certain land-use trade-offs for more intensive forms of agriculture that would result in increased food production and that have no deleterious impact on the land. There are also those who look purely at the aesthetic value of open space, yet are unwilling to accept the realities of farming.

Referendum or not, when land is removed from the ALR using the community need provision, what guarantee is there that future sprawl won't result? Are we placing future food production needs at risk?

You’ve heard it here before; we are without a food security plan in the Okanagan.

*****************************************