Is there something fishy in Salmon Arm council?

[Rick Shea]

The Salmon River has responded well to the considerable efforts of local citizens and groups. Bank stabilization work and efforts to improve spawning areas have resulted in several thousand salmon making their way up the river to spawn annually. Herons, osprey, kingfishers, and numerous other species rely on the river as well. Consequently, the idea that Salmon Arm council, or any other politician and any level, would allow any change to the current habitat, and especially any change which would threaten the critical riparian area at the mouth of the Salmon River, is almost inconceivable. Yet that threat exists.

There are several pieces of legislation that should in theory prevent this threat from proceeding.

At the local level, there are two critical pieces of legislation that Salmon Arm council should keep in mind in considering any sort of development at the mouth of the Salmon River.

First, the British Columbia Community Charter is the provincial legislation that lays out the fundamental purposes and powers of municipal governments. According to that Charter,the purposes of a municipality include

(a) providing for good government of its community,

(b) providing for services, laws and other matters for community benefit,

(c) providing for stewardship of the public assets of its community, and

(d) fostering the economic, social and environmental well-being of its community

The second piece of legislation is the Canadian Fisheries Act, which states in Section 35 (1) that “...no person shall carry on work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” In this Act, “habitat” includes “spawning areas; feeding areas for any stage of the life cycle; living/holding areas; fish food producing areas where food can form part of the life cycle, even if fish are not present; and migration routes.”

Salmon Arm council is legally required, by the Community Charter, to comply with legislation. And that legislation clearly states that the environment is not a secondary consideration. Environmental well-being is just as important as economic and social well-being. Indeed, many argue that environmental well-being is a prerequisite for the latter two.

As well, Salmon Arm council would appear to be negligent if it provides the approvals which allow others to alter, disrupt, or destroy fish habitat.

The riparian area at the mouth of the Salmon River is not a vacant piece of undeveloped land, and a target for speculators. It is a well-developed natural riparian area, critical for the survival of salmon and other species which rely upon the Salmon River, and a critical piece of the ecological systems which support human life on this planet. In addition to the legal imperatives, Salmon Arm council has a moral and ethical obligation to protect this area now, and for future generations.

Or is sustainability just a convenient word to mask our incremental and inexorable degradation of this planet?