Boiling Over

While the information in Jim MacInnis’s “Water removal” [Summer 2008] did not totally surprise me, it really infuriated me. Why do regional and federal governments continue to give away our water? What will it take to get the message across that unless things change, Canada will run dry?

The situation that was allowed to happen in Guelph is unbelievable. The application fee of $3,000 paid by Nestlé Waters Canada Inc. was like lunch money to them, and the price levied per million litres is outrageously cheap. I am certainly not in support of putting a higher price on water; what I can support, however, are regional and national programs that collectively put a sustainable management program in place to ensure that Canadians have water for many generations, rather than to quite literally give the water away so it can be sold back to us.

I’m sure the residents of Guelph put up a good fight to keep Nestlé from draining the Mill Creek watershed, and I hope the fight continues. I will lend my support to saving our precious water resources from being given to multinational corporations.
J.C. Brown, East York

Light Reading

Thank you for the article “The dark side of light” by Shannon Wilmot [Summer 2008]. For many, light pollution is hidden in plain view until they are made aware of its deleterious effects.

The “what you can do” advice is good, but since most light pollution comes from non-residential sources, it is also crucial to make sure that our political representatives know that we expect sensible lighting policies and practices. Like much of the work undertaken by naturalists over the past decades, campaigning for responsible lighting requires a great deal of educating and working with municipal governments, political representatives and business.

Responsible lighting is relatively straightforward and makes economic sense. Once society realizes that light pollution is just as unacceptable as air and water pollution, we may reclaim our natural heritage of dark night skies.
Wayne Liebau, Fenwick