In terms of the costs involved, we have had to hire a staff member specifically to get grants approved. When I became mayor in 2005, we weren't getting any drainage done. We weren't getting any gravel removed from the Fraser River because the municipality did not have the technical people to write the necessary grants to get it done, or the time to do it. We had to add staff members.
As I mentioned earlier, the fact is the soils have become less productive because we were not doing our job, and it is part of a municipality's job to ensure that the agricultural land is productive because it's part of the old ARDSA agreement from some time ago. All these things were costing money. The actual digging or cleaning of the ditches costs a lot more because it has to be done under the supervision of monitors, if there's any chance of disruption of fish habitat. These are the types of things that contribute to it.
I noticed that I wasn't asked about what my theories were for streams versus ditches. Ditches don't have headwaters. Ditches go dry. That's not what really worries the farmers. What worries the farmers more is 30-metre setbacks when they have relatively small, 20-, 30-, or even 10-acre fields. Agricultural land is extremely scarce in the Fraser Valley, which you must be aware of as well. The growing of trees for riparian areas takes up space and also cuts down productivity.
I've had many discussions about this. I certainly think that a well-grassed surface is far more effective in preventing the siltation you mentioned than the growing of trees, which shed more leaves and branches, etc. We could argue that point for a long time.