Val Pratch owns land on the south side of the road and while the ditch on her side remained untouched, county equipment laid flat the landscape on the north side.
“This was not simple brush removal or clearing of dead trees,” Pratch told the Journal. “Well established 50 plus-year-old trees were bulldozed along with any new growth along the road. Multiple emails were sent requesting documentation of environmental sweeps or assessments that were conducted prior to the commencement of this project. The emails were not responded to and no documentation was provided.”
Today, Pratch has more questions than answers as to why the brushing was necessary. While she wasn’t eager to go public with her concerns, she said county residents need to be engaged in what is happening around them.
“The county has the chance to be leaders in the environment and they are choosing not to be,” she said.
However, County Public Works Director Daniel Reid said the brushing was required in order to properly maintain the roadway and was carried out within the parameters set out by the municipality’s Brushing and Tree Removal Policy. He confirmed concern over the brushing had been received from one nearby resident but that the landowners on the north side were in favour of the work being undertaken.
“The County of St. Paul endeavours to handle all ratepayers concerns equally and with fairness. All landowners’ rights must be considered,” Reid stated in a written response to the Journal’s inquiries into the matter. “Ultimately, we have a responsibility to maintain and keep the roadways safe and to protect and preserve the environment.”
Reid noted that landowners on the north side of Twp. Rd. 584 entered into a brushing agreement as per county policy whereby the county brushed up to the property line and the landowners will build fences. Under this agreement, the landowners opted to permit the county to pile brushed material on their land to be burned and/or buried on site.
Reid stated, “maintenance concerns, traffic safety, drainage issue and condition of right of ways,” are all factors considered when brushing roadside ditches.
Wayne Cooknell, one of the landowners on the north side of the road, fully supports the brushing, saying he had been contacted by the county before the work began. He believes the work is necessary to ensure proper drainage along the northside to prevent the road from deteriorating over time.
“We like the trees; we like to have them but the road was starting to turn into a goat trail. The trees were encroaching the road too much and the water wasn’t flowing anymore and they would eventually have to rebuild the road and they would have to take the trees out anyway,” Cooknell said. “My wife and I and my sister felt it was probably time for a haircut. It will come back and they are doing a pretty good job.”
“Roadways that don’t have sun or adequate wind exposure run a high risk of being saturated with moisture. These roadways typically start to break up and eventually require a more costly re-build,” Reid explained. “There is also an inherent risk of trees falling once the right of way becomes congested with dead trees. Then there is the obvious visibility concerns especially at corners or at intersections.”
Pratch indicated she did contact her local county councillor, Maxine Fodness, with her concerns and was told Public Works is well within its jurisdiction to undertake the work.
“I expect that Public Works give consideration to the quality of life of county residents and the protection of valuable county resources including wetlands, water, wildlife, and forests during their decision-making process,” Pratch said.
Fodness confirmed to the Journal that she was aware of the concerns being raised but noted that elected officials are not involved in directing the day to day operations of the department.
