The Petitcodiac River system with a tidal bore that once flowed through Greater Moncton, to the Bay of Fundy is going to be revived and restored, or is it?
As broadcast on CBC News, the Province of New Brunswick plans to spend an initial $20 million on what is said to be "Canada’s biggest river restoration project ever". A recent publication from the local newspaper The Times and Transcript states that restoration will begin in the spring of 2010. In addition, it will require a bridge to replace the existing causeway, as well as erosion protection and remediation work.
This is great news for environmentalists. The causeway is said to have "choked" the river's tidal bore and blocked the passage of fish. "This is an environmental disaster that needs to be fixed." However, the causeway has existed since 1968, so it is unlikely that things are going to improve quickly.
If we apply precautionary thinking to this argument, many questions arise. How will the restoration affect lakeside communities and resources that have developed since 1968? Will the original Tidal bore return? If this project fails, could it cause drought in the region? These are key issues that need to be assessed. This is an expensive project. Where will the funding come from to complete it? One would hope that since it has taken so long to realize the river is in need of restoration, that many of these questions have been resolved.
References
By unknown, CBC news
July 8, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/07/08/nb-river.html
By Craig Babstock, Times and Transcript
September 26, 2009
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/804626
Petitcodiac Riverkeeper’s Third Annual List
January 31, 2005
http://www.petitcodiac.org/riverkeeper/english/Campaigns/News_Articles/list04.htm
I thought you did a really good job at analyzing this article using the precautionary principle. It was effective that you stated both sides of the argument so clearly, it makes it easy for the reader to think about what side they support. Sounds like a crazy ambitious project to me!
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job of anticipating how the precautionary principle could be used by decision makers in this situation, and including them in your article. However, in your analysis, I believe a more effective argument style would have been to ask fewer questions, and attempt to answer some which you posted. It is difficult to do with such a small word count! Good work!
ReplyDeleteThis sounds crazy!!! I liked your article choice, great work fitting what you wanted to say into such few words, and good explination of all aspects of the argument.
ReplyDeleteIt seems very important to take all sides of the discussion into view when looking at a project with such great potential impact. Makes one wonder how they could even start? I guess that is where the precautionary principle comes into play; evaluating wherein lies the most chance of risk. And clearly they've worked it out to understand that it's better to biuld it than not. Hopefully this was the right decision.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that we should not really on hope when making decisions. I think your questions are very thoughtful and should be answered before deciding whether or not to restore the river.
ReplyDelete