Discussions

Some gains have been made in protecting riparian areas by responsible producers. Unfortunately, I have seen and continue to see cattle having direct access to rivers and streams. These regulations aren't being properly enforced.  
 
And, the provincial government department of agriculture has vociferously defended the ability for people who live in developed areas near a lake in my area to have livestock there. This is really absurd because the lake is the drinking water supply for the nearby town and is constantly posting toxic algal alerts during the summer months. The Nutrient Management Regulation prohibts two things from happening in such developed areas. First there is to be no application of nutrients in the N5 zone. Second, livestock operations are not allowed in the N5 zone.  
Here's the rub. Livestock in numbers less than 10 Animal Units are not considered by the Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation to be livestock operations and therefore are not regulated in the N5 zone. So, the keeping of "small amounts" of livestock (less than 10 AU) is permitted and because they are making manure deposits, this is not considered by Manitoba Ag to be the spreading of nutrients. Manitoba Ag has conceded that these acreages cannot sustain even a small amount of livestock without importing feed which means nutrients are imported to the site. When fed to livestock and processed through their bodies they are being deposited on the site and accumulate there. This is nutrient accumulation even if they are not “applied” as defined by and prohibited by the regulation.  
 
By the way, it takes 200 broiler chickens, 7 finisher pigs, 30 weanlings, .75 horses, 5 sheep and their lambs, 1.3 feeder cattle each to produce 1 Animal Unit under the regulation.  
 
The Municipal Board accepted Manitoba Ag's premise that there isn't a problem with this reality as there is a regulatory vacuum here. Further, the zoning by-law requires livestock to be housed at the back of the yard site which is closest to the lake. What happens to the nutrients in the animal deposits when it rains, floods and during snow melt? What happens to the nutrients from this manure contained in "compost piles" allowed by the regulation or manure piles?  
Clearly, government is not interested in ensuring that manure nutrients do not escape into this town's drinking water supply. And, the municipality is more interested in promoting development than protecting the recreational area from being polluted and degraded.  
This town's brand new drinking water treatment plant cannot remove algal toxins. The Water Services Board was unconcerned because the entrance pipe for the water supply is in deeper water. The WSB did concede that shoreline contamination by toxic algae was a concern. That's where dogs drink, children and others swim, wildlife drinks, fish spawn and live etc.  
 
And, further, for balance, this municipality approved, sanctioned by the province, a 30 lot housing development adjacent to the lake to be situated on an area of gravel (supposed to be protected as a future aggregate resource) with plans to allow septic fields. Porous soils allow for rapid nutrient transport. The problem should be obvious.  
 
I'm sorry but I can't support your opinion on government enforcing such regs. My experience with the regulatory system is starkly different.