A Puslinch-based group concerned about the impacts of aggregate mining has launched an email-writing campaign aiming to put public pressure on the University of Guelph to change its ways when it comes to gravel pits.
“If they’re going to do it, how can they do it in a way that is best for the community and the environment?” said John McNie, a member of the Mill Creek Stewards Association.
The organization formed about five years ago out of concerns about extensive aggregate mining in the Mill Creek area, and among those concerns is a gravel pit on land on Concession 2 owned by the U of G known as the Mill Creek Pit.
It’s the university’s action with regard to this land that the group feels shows a lack of integrity on the part of its administration – going back decades.
“It really is not coming anywhere close to meeting its mission statement,” said McNie.
He was speaking of the “improve life” branding that appears on the U of G website, but also of its mission statement’s assertion that “its aim is to serve society and to enhance the quality of life through scholarship.”
According to the website created by Mill Creek Stewards as part of its email campaign, the university brought the Mill Creek Pit land almost 40 years ago when it was still farmland.
“They stated their purpose was to establish an agricultural research station,” the website states. “Instead the university administration chose to go into partnership with an aggregate company to extract gravel below water table from this prime farmland.”
That was the first of a long list of broken promises by the university regarding the property, McNie said.
He went on to describe other things the university said it would do, including using a “research royalty” collected from the aggregate company leasing the land to fund research; establishing a demonstration station and teaching lab for aggregate rehabilitation work; not extracting every shovelful and limiting the duration of the pit; protecting rural heritage; and more.
“Over the last 40 years, they don’t appear to have met any of those promises,” McNie said.
The extraction limits on the property have been increased four times, and the extraction area has also been extended, he said.
“When the university got approval for that the pit next door said, why shouldn’t we,” said McNie, describing it as the university “leading by bad example.”
McNie, a veterinarian and U of G alumni, described the university’s partnership with the aggregate industry as one that is risking the school’s reputation, saying the money brought in from gravel extraction may not make up for what is lost from potential donors who no longer hold U of G in high regard.
McNie said because the university is paid per tonne on what is extracted from the site, the royalties received vary from year to year, but he estimates it has pulled in more than $20 million since 1992.
“Yes, it is a lot of money . . . but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the university’s annual budget,” said McNie.
As the pit is reaching a stage of exhaustion, the Mill Creek Stewards would like to see the university take advantage of opportunities to “make good,” McNie said.
That includes supporting a moratorium on new below-water-table gravel pits, developing a teaching and demonstration facility on site, and being transparent about how research royalties are being used.
They are asking members of the public to visit win.newmode.net/mscai/integrity and use the form email to address concerns to the university’s administration.
McNie also recently presented to Puslinch Township council asking the township and members of council to do the same.
Council members seemed generally supportive, thanking McNie for raising the issue.
“I think it’s alarming that this is going on and I commend you for elevating it,” said Coun. Russel Hurst. “I think this is really important for both the community and the environment to raise these issues.”
Asked for a response to the allegations of “broken promises” on the Mill Creek Stewards’ website, and whether the university would support a moratorium on new below-water-table permits, the university sent a brief email statement.
“When the university determined the land would no longer be used for teaching and research, it was contracted to St. Lawrence Cement which mines the property today as Dufferin Aggregates,” said the email from U of G director of media relations and stakeholder communications Tara Sprigg.
This was presumably a reference to the university’s decision decades ago not to establish an agricultural research facility on the property.
Sprigg went on to say the land is currently under a lease agreement with Dufferin Aggregates, a division of CRH, until extraction is done the site has been restored and remediated.
“Dufferin Aggregates projects that all extraction will be completed by 2028/29,” Sprigg said.
“The University of Guelph has publicly committed that it will not pursue further aggregate extraction once this previously committed to project is complete. The university will undertake a comprehensive review of the land in the future.”
McNie said while aggregate extraction on the site may be nearing completion, his group is now concerned about the site being used as a processing facility for gravel from other site, due in part to its proximity to Highway 401.
The question of excess soil which has arisen in recent years with the speed of growth and development is also a concern of the group, with the worry being that the university could be persuaded to accept contaminated soil at the site, he said.
“It’s a fear we have when the university is making revenue-oriented decisions,” McNie said.
He said the group has made little progress in attempting to deal directly with the university’s administration, so launched the email campaign in hopes of having a greater impact.
“We’re raising this awareness flag not because we are out to get the University of Guelph, but because we care about the University of Guelph,” he said.