A constituent’s observations:
The City obtained an extension of the comment period for the Dolime quarry. Since priority is given to municipal uses of water, can’t the same thing happen here?
While the water-taking may not be impacting on the current supply, I definitely feel this is an opportunity for a political response. This is an opportunity to be both a tax crusader and defender of people’s right to water their lawn (to some degree).
Since Councillors are representing the interests of their constituents, the point to be made is why on earth should Guelph taxpayers be stiffed with a bill for a 500 million dollar pipeline, while Nestle blithely sucks away at our aquifer?
From time to time the resident’s of Guelph are subject to watering restrictions. How do these restrictions impact water-takers such as Nestle? Are they entitled to their full 3.6 million litres a day while the rest of us have to conserve?
A big emphasis in the Water Supply Master Plan is conservation. Cutting out Nestle’s water taking would be the same as achieving 7% conservation results daily. SW