One vote. That’s all Chatham-Kent council needed to reassure rural residents of the municipality that councillors take their rights to clean drinking water seriously.
Yet, in the end, it didn’t happen.
Council needed a two-thirds majority to bring the issue of whether or not Chatham-Kent wants to be a willing or unwilling host to wind turbine farms back before council for discussion. They needed 12 of 18, but got 11.
A year ago, council opted to remain as a willing host for turbine farms. It’s good tax money, after all.
But with all the wind farm issues with groundwater in North Kent, including a number that are under “keep your mouths shut” non-disclosure agreements in parts of the former Dover Township, rural residents are understandably concerned over future turbine projects. In North Kent, several rural homes and farms saw their well water turn murky to the point the filters on their pumps clogged up repeatedly and the water was undrinkable. For some, it was during the construction of the turbines nearby; for others it occurs as the turbines spin; and for more, it began with turbine construction and has never let up.
This past summer, two turbine firms came a knocking, seeking to establish sites in East Kent. Citizens organized and loudly told council they didn’t want the things in their part of the municipality.
And council listened. They turned down proposals from Capstone Infrastructure and EDF Power Solutions in early October.
Such a move was applauded by citizens in attendance at the Oct. 6 council meeting. A month later, someone shouted, “Shame on you; shame on you” in the wake of council’s decision to not reopen discussions to become an unwilling host.
Shame on them indeed. Access to safe drinking water is an internationally recognized right under the United Nations. It’s tragic that people in Third World Countries don’t have such access. But it’s abysmal that there are rural residents in Chatham-Kent – not to mention way too many First Nations citizens in the north – apparently don’t have that right.
Council should have at the very least brought the matter back for discussion.
