If I could just add a little bit to that, it's very important to understand that there are a number of layers to this question. One question is whether there should be gravel removal, and undoubtedly the aggregate business has a role in that. Behind that, it's actually the fact that aggregate is needed for construction, and there's a real shortage of aggregate in the Lower Mainland.
But the bigger question for Cheam, on a day-to-day basis in dealing with DFO and what used to be called Land & Water B.C., is where particular operations should be carried out at particular times. Frankly, that is driven as much as anything by the flood considerations.
In other words, from Cheam's perspective, it would prefer one of two things: either that the aggregate removal happen closer to Powerline Island, closer to its reserves, where there has been historical gravel removal, but where the government doesn't see the same benefits in terms of flood protection; or that there be less gravel removal, because frankly, it creates a large-scale competitor for its dryland aggregate business.
I just want to get across that the Cheam aggregate business is not driving this process. The real issue is that for Chilliwack and other communities in the gravel reach of the Fraser River, there is a real flood control issue. It comes down to either lowering the bottom of the river, raising the top of the dykes, or doing a bit of both. Of course, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans then has a raft of habitat issues attached to it.
I was counsel in their long gravel case in which Lincoln Douglas was charged with respect to a gravel removal operation and acquitted of any charges of destruction of fish habitat. I was involved in that case, and I can tell you that the amount of paper generated around the management of gravel removal and balancing these flooding issues is immense.