York Region is pushing for a massive wastewater treatment facility. This facility will serve a massive increase in sprawl in the area, and will dump effluent into important water bodies.
2009 – York Region begins work on UPSS; Environmental Assessment (EA) process is started.
2010 – Terms of Reference approved.
2014 – EA completed.
2016 – Ministry review completed.
Proponents submit Stakeholder and First Nations review.
Provincial Duty to Consult determined to have not been met.
2010 – Part of the UPSS project – the York Durham Sewage System forcemain twinning and pumping station modification work – is separated out and exempted from the EA process. Construction on this part proceeds.
Present – Waiting for a decision by the Province.
York Region is planning to increase its capacity for wastewater treatment. The rationale is that this is required to meeting a projected increase of roughly 150,000 in population by 2031.
A key aspect of this project that is important to recognize that it is more than the sum of its parts. The EA for the project, on its own, does not capture the impacts the wastewater treatment facility will have on the region.
While the impacts of the wastewater treatment facility on its own are of concern, the knock-on impacts of increasing capacity for development in the area, which is what this project accomplishes, cannot be separated out from the wastewater treatment facility itself. One leads to the other.
Lack of Consultation with Georgina Island First Nation
The duty to consult with First Nations that has not been fulfilled.
Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Chief, Donna Big Canoe, has outlined concerns that the project would infringe on hunting and fishing rights, and stated that the province and region have not done enough to explore alternative solutions.
Sprawl
One of the biggest problems with this project is the financial justification is not on solid ground. This is a major reason why, as the thread embedded below outlines, the Region has had a on and off approach to implementing it.
This was key reason why York Region, chose to delay the Upper York Sewage Solutions Project. At one point there was $1 billion gap between anticipated DCs & actual collections! York, at one time, anticipated $229 million in water & wastewater dev charges & collected $62 million
— Neptis Foundation (@NeptisRegions) November 28, 2018
As the thread notes, York has put a lot of money into servicing areas closer to the GTA, but the development in the area didn’t materialize to the extent that justified this cost, putting York deep in the red financially.
The UYSS, however, is intended to service an area to the north, bordering on the southern shores of Lake Simcoe.
There is the potential for increased development that this project opens up, as mentioned above. Without a strong commitment to build complete communities, and to focus on the sustainability of the region those communities are situated within, this project simply doubles down on business as usual for developers in the GTA, which is to build cheap sprawl on farmland.
Learn more about the threats facing Lake Simcoe and take action to protect it.
Currently, approximately 3 out of 5 residents in York Region commute more than 30 minutes each way to work every day, and just under 1 out of 5 drive more than an hour.
While York is starting to work towards increased intensification, it is important that its ability to direct growth beyond these areas remains constrained. The Region, for example, states that towards the end of the anticipated planning period to 2041 employment growth will shift towards what are currently less populated, and less integrated in the regional urban fabric, ares of Georgina and East Gwillimbury. It also states that additional urban lands will be required to accommodate forecasted growth.1York Region: Preferred Growth Scenarios – 2041
The capacity of the UYSS is 1/3 unfilled through 2031, allowing for continued growth through the projected lifespan of the facility.
It is increasingly clear that policies that promote increased vehicle traffic should be seen as a last resort, and implemented only where no other options are possible.
Freedom of Information requests obtained by the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition show that the province is not being upfront regarding the Bradford Bypass.
…congestion will worsen on highways 400 and 404, the province continues to intentionally mislead Ontarians using unverified traffic studies.
Research by Gravel Watch Ontario, Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition and Environmental Defence suggests aggregates needed for the Bradford Bypass and 413 highways will come from the 905 and the Greenbelt.
There are a lot of misconceptions, myths, and misunderstandings regarding the role that highways and cars play in our economy, and the impact they have on our environment and communities. Many of these are coming to the fore with the Bradford Bypass. Here we address some of them.
York Region is planning to increase its capacity for wastewater treatment. The rationale is that this is required to meeting a projected increase of roughly 150,000 in population by 2031.
A key aspect of this project that is important to recognize that it is more than the sum of its parts. The EA for the project, on its own, does not capture the impacts the wastewater treatment facility will have on the region.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
1997 – Route Planning and Environmental Assessment Study
2002 – Environmental Assessment
2008 – Simcoe County includes link in its Master Transportation Plan.
2008 – Highway is not included in the Growth Plan.
2020 – Province announces the Bradford Bypass will proceed.
2021 (March) – Bradford ByPass is mentioned in the provincial budget in section outlining money to be spent on highway construction and maintenance.
2021 (October) – Bypass is exempted from the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The government says this will help “ensure appropriate environmental protection.”
2021 (October) – The Toronto Star and the National Observer publish an investigation on ties between developers and the provincial government and how developers stand to gain from building the Bypass. The piece also notes that, through information obtained by SCGC via a FOI request, the government was intending on making the highway a toll route.
2022 (January) – Petition of more than 10,000 signatures released opposing construction of the Bypass.
2022 (February) – The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada decides not to designate the project.
2022 (March) – Lawsuit brought against the federal government by seven ENGOs challenging its refusal to designate the Bypass for a federal impact assessment.
2022 (April) – Contract awarded by provincial government for the Yonge Street bridge. This is part of the ‘early works’, which are to be started prior to all the studies being completed.
The provincial government is moving forward with building a highway connecting highways 404 and 400. The route passes along the northern edge of Bradford, and through portions of the Holland Marsh.
The highway is controversial due to the route running through portions of the Greenbelt and the Holland Marsh, which is a significant wetland and agricultural area, as well as the fact that it is based, largely, on an environmental assessment that was done more than 20 years ago. (More recently the provincial government decided to exempt most of the project from environmental assessment requirements.)
Opponents also argue that highways should not be prioritized in a climate crisis.
Finally, the government argues the highway is needed to ease congestion. Highways DO NOT accomplish this, though. This is well known, as outlined by the video we share below, yet they continue to push the project. If congestion is indeed the primary concern, it is clear that the government is mismanaging public money, throwing good after bad, with the project.
There are a number of major concerns with respect to this project:
Early Works
The province would allow so-called “early works”, which include bridges, so proceed before key studies on the impacts they might have on wildlife are completed. This is putting the cart before the horse, to use a well worn analogy, and in effect is saying that the project will proceed regardless of the outcome of studies. This is the opposite of evidence-based planning.
Outdated Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment the project is using was done 23 years ago, before the two major land-use plans in the area, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, had been created.
These plans exist for a reason. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is intended to enhance and protect the health of Lake Simcoe, and the Greenbelt Plan delimits lands to be protected from urban growth, which is most often in the form of sprawl.
Basing a project on an EA that pre-dates these plans, such that the concerns these plans address aren’t taken into account, effectively nullifies them.
Further, the EA was contingent on the completion of further studies, including archaeological assessments, stormwater management, hydrological systems, noise, and compliance monitoring. The province is proposing that the highway be exempted from these additional studies.
Issues of concern that are have received support from necessary levels of government and are currently being implemented.
Issues that have the support of the municipality but are waiting on approval from the province or another entity.
Issues that have been proposed but have not yet received the support of the municipality.
Issues of concern, such as MZOs, that have been denied by the province but that are still progressing at the local level.
Issues that have been successfully resolved.
Subject Lands Outline
Greenbelt
GO Train Line and Stops
Road/Highway Construction
500 m High Risk Air Pollution
Evaluated Wetlands
Unevaluated Wetlands
Negative Impacts
The proposed route is anticipated to negatively impact high quality woodlands, the Holland Marsh, Provincially Significant Wetlands, and significant wildlife habitat. These are the direct impacts.
There are additional, and perhaps far more significant, impacts that will result from building infrastructure that enables an increase in single vehicle car use.
At a time when we are facing a climate emergency, when it is becoming increasingly clear that our inability to address it is leading us towards a worst case scenario, continuing to base our communities around a reliance on cars as the primary mode of transportation is extremely irresponsible.
All major infrastructure projects – all publicly funded projects – should require a full climate change assessment. It could not be more clear that the public interest is directly tied to addressing the impacts of climate change, and accordingly no public money should be spent that exacerbates the crisis. This project profoundly misses that mark.
This is a rendering of what a four-lane highway bridge could look like crossing over the East Holland River looking to the north and Lake Simcoe.
The bridge crossing of the East Holland River is likely to disturb one of the most significant archeological sites in southern Ontario, where artifacts have been found dating back nearly two-thousand years.
Image: Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition
There are also costs that communities built around cars have that aren’t evident or easy to see.
Negative health impacts, such as obesity, can be correlated with communities built for cars as people drive to get basic amenities, such as groceries, rather than walk or bike. There are more direct consequences, though perhaps less acknowledged, as well, such as the fact that cars are a leading cause of death in the United States for children.
It is also likely that there will be economic impacts to the town, with development being drawn toward the highway and associated traffic, and away from the downtown. This form of development is most suited to larger commercial operators, and the jobs offered often pay less than what a smaller, locally based business provides.
This development pattern has been repeated just about every time a highway has been built near a town, and it can seriously impact the ability of local businesses to remain viable.
One of the main argument proponents are making in favour of this project is that it will reduce commute times. It is highly unlikely this will be the case in the long term. Evidence shows, repeatedly, that building and increasing car infrastructure does not ease congestion, rather the opposite happens. This is known as “induced demand.”
Basically, induced demand is when the increased capacity of a road leads to increased development along the road and increased use of that road. Think of what happens with Waze and the alternate routes it shows drivers to help them get around heavy traffic – before long those alternate routes become clogged themselves.
For a more detailed explanation watch the video below.
With induced demand what we will end up with is over a billion dollars spent (which could otherwise be spent on enhancing transit options such as the GO line), increased sprawl, and increased congestion. In other words, after all has been said and done it is highly likely that we will find ourselves confronted with the same dilemma, though with a greatly degraded environment.
Finally, the costs associated with car dependant communities1Report – The Unbearable Costs of Sprawl (Congress for New Urbanism)2Report – Suburban Sprawl: Exposing Hidden Costs, Identifying Innovations (Smart Prosperity Institute)3Report – The High Costs of Sprawl (Environmental Defence) – the key characteristic of sprawl – are higher than those associated with complete, walkable communities. This cost is passed on to taxpayers.
Official Plans are among the most important components of planning and building our communities, the places where we live, play, and work. They deserve to be given the highest level of consideration, which includes the best possible process of deliberation.
Corporate sponsorship opportunities for the “Gather for the Greenbelt” event in Barrie, Ontario, featuring in-person storytelling from Margaret Atwood, special guests Sarah Harmer, Jeff Monague, and poetry from Barrie’s Poet Laureate, Tyneisha Thomas.
Art installation by Rochelle Rubinstein will be featured, as well.
Join us for an in-person organizing session to advocate for protection of the Greenbelt.
Governments have failed to act to protect our communities and the futures of our children and grandchildren, and they continue to treat our environment as if it’s incidental to life, rather than a foundation for it.
We need strong community organizations to fight for our future, now more than ever.
Please consider donating to support our work. It’s people like you who make us possible.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
…if this government is truly committed to these initiatives, by which we mean that they are not being used as cheap politics to deflect from the criticism, fully deserved, that they are receiving with regard to the policy changes noted above, then we expect the following…
This letter was written after the Province passed Bill 229, which came after a huge outcry from the public, from environmentalists, from Conservation Authorities, and from municipalities, among others, and which prompted the resignation of seven members of the Province’s Greenbelt Council.
There has been much attention paid lately to the future of our Conservation Authorities – one of the last regulatory bodies designed to protect our environment. In a response to the public outcry regarding the neutering of Conservation Authorities’ ability to protect water, wetlands and public health, Minister Clark made a series of statements and announcements:
First, was the promise of $30 million dollars to “create, restore and enhance wetlands” across Ontario;
Second, was a promise to improve the “quality and quantity of the Greenbelt”.
The timing of these announcements is troubling and does not add to our confidence in the government’s commitment to protecting the environment coming, as it has, on the heels of eight members of the Greenbelt Council quitting in protest over provincial policy changes. Changes that former Toronto Mayor and, until he resigned this past week, Chair of the Greenbelt Council, David Crombie outlined as “high-level bombing”.
But we are willing to accept these announcements in good faith, and we look forward to hearing more about these initiatives. To be very clear, however, if this government is truly committed to these initiatives, by which we mean that they are not being used as cheap politics to deflect from the criticism, fully deserved, that they are receiving with regard to the policy changes noted above, then we expect the following:
That no more MZOs will be issued that allow development in provincially significant or locally significant wetlands. It makes no sense to commit to restoring wetlands and putting taxpayer money towards that, while simultaneously destroying or impairing other wetlands. Refusing to do this would be creating a boondoggle for developers, using public money to offset wetland destruction.
Any MZO that is issued in the Lake Simcoe watershed will clearly outline how the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan policies will be adhered to, in order to ensure conformity with said policies as MZO conditions.
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which will be reviewed in the new year, will be strengthened by building on proven existing policies (e.g. phosphorus loading targets and WWTP moratoriums), demonstrating the government’s commitment to protect the environment with policies that protect more high quality natural cover, including wetlands and forests. This should be a zero loss target and policy structure, meaning that there should be no reduction in the quantity and quality of natural cover going forward. Currently, the target in the LSPP is 40% high quality natural cover – a target that we are failing to meet.
The $30 million Wetland Restoration Fund will be money invested by the Government of Ontario and not “blood money” that comes from developers paying a fee to permit the destruction of wetlands. If it is based on offsetting, this is a “pay to pave” mentality that has been proven disastrous for watershed health in other jurisdictions. Funding wetland restoration through the destruction of other wetlands would be disingenuous to the government’s commitment and breaks faith with Ontarians who rely on wetlands for flood mitigation, drinking water purification and recreation.
Growing the Greenbelt includes keeping the existing Greenbelt strong. We don’t want to see a bait and switch where more Greenbelt is added in exchange for current Greenbelt lands being removed from protection. The Greenbelt, its farms and communities, contribute $9.6 billion of economic impact and $3.2 billion of environmental services to Ontario every year. As a region that is growing we will be relying on the services it provides far into the future. Dismantling it through land swaps threatens its ecological functions, and, consequently, its contributions to our collective prosperity and wellbeing.
The province, if it is genuine in its commitment to growing the Greenbelt, will base new included areas on science and public health, not just land ownership. Following such a process means that all source water areas (highly vulnerable aquifers, significant recharge areas, moraines and locally significant wetlands) in Simcoe County should be added to a bigger Greenbelt, at minimum. Simcoe County residents are highly reliant on groundwater for their daily needs. If we don’t protect these areas soon, the public’s health is at risk.
We hope that your government is genuine in its commitment to these ends. We are sure you would agree that using environmental policy as a ploy is dangerous to our public health and erodes faith in our democratic institutions and your governments’ commitment to acting in the best interest of all Ontarians.
Ultimately, it is in no one’s interest that a government fails – such an event has real life consequences for the people of Ontario, including to their health and wellbeing. We are committed to helping where we can to find success in the above noted expectations, but we will not betray our knowledge and understanding, born by evidence, of the actions required to create a more just, prosperous, and sustainable Ontario. We will be watching closely to ensure that you stick to the commitments you have made and do so in a genuine manner.
Governments have failed to act to protect our communities and the futures of our children and grandchildren, and they continue to treat our environment as if it’s incidental to life, rather than a foundation for it.
We need strong community organizations to fight for our future, now more than ever.
Please consider donating to support our work. It’s people like you who make us possible.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
The content on this website, by
the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition,
is licensed under
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Hi there!
Use this form to send an email to our general inquiries address.
Hi there!
Use this form to send Adam an email.
Hi there!
Use this form to send Julie an email.
Will you give a small amount to help us continue to do the work that we do?
As a small, grassroots environmental organization, each contribution we receive truly makes a big difference.
A monthly missive, full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, community polls you can vote on, and deep dives into key topics.
Friends. Online censorship by unaccountable tech companies, combined with an all-out assault on the Greenbelt by Ontario’s developers/government, make this a perilous time for the future of democracy and the power of the people in Ontario.
We need to build new ways of empowering those who believe in accountability, in a healthy environment, and in communities ready to thrive in the economy of tomorrow.
Join our supporter network and stay informed about efforts and actions to protect the Greenbelt, to build communities that support the health and well-being of people, and to lay the foundations of a resilient, climate friendly future.