Lunenburg Part 2 - Section 5 - Social Vulnerability - August 30.pdf

costly damage if pipes freeze and burst. Power loss is an urgent concern for medically
dependent persons who rely on devices such as respirators for survival. Emergency backup
generators are a financial cost that socially vulnerable people may not be able to afford.
The Tancook Islands are isolated, accessible only by ferry; only a small number of residents are
present year-round. Consultees noted that ferry infrastructure is threatened by erosion around
the ferry docks. Riisser’s Beach has no cellular phone service or payphones; although
authorities evacuate the campground if a severe storm is anticipated, campers caught in
unexpected severe weather could be unable to contact emergency services.
Overall, many consultees indicated that access problems and damage to infrastructure are
increasing in frequency, and the costs of accessing remote areas and providing comprehensive
emergency service rise continually. Damage to infrastructure is costly to repair, and a significant
burden for a municipality with limited resources, particularly if damage is recurring. Some argued
that municipalities shoulder an unfair proportion of infrastructure maintenance costs. Due to
budget constraints, the Municipality currently does not perform proactive maintenance of
infrastructure, instead allowing facilities and equipment to function as long as possible, only
performing repairs when a component has broken.
Consultees identified a number of places of employment in locations with increased risk of storm
damage or inundation, such as LaHave Seafoods, the High Liner Foods fish plant, the LaHave
Bakery, boatworks in Lunenburg and Mahone Bay, and numerous active fishing wharves.
Damage to these locations could cause loss of employment and private property, resulting in
new or increased social vulnerability.
Constraints to Risk Prevention
Consultees demonstrated abundant knowledge about risk and probability of coastal flooding.
However, the ability of the Municipality to undertake preventative measures is severely limited by
the fact that the majority of the District, including much of the coastline, is unplanned, with no
land use planning controls. Consultees explained that a plebiscite with 66% of voters in support
of planning would be required to institute land use planning; although there is an additional
clause that would allow Council to institute planning, councilors and staff both felt that this would
be unlikely to occur except in an extreme situation, such as an imminent threat to the area’s
supply of drinking water.
Consultees noted that in those areas where secondary plans do exist, planning was instituted in
reaction to a proposed development that residents objected to - such as an asphalt plant in the
Blockhouse area, and a gun range near Riverport –rather than as a means to plan proactively.
Consultees had mixed perspectives about local interest in planning: some suggested that there
are no local champions for planning or climate change adaptation while others identified
significant community support for coastal planning, and speculated that this could be the majority
view. Several communities have expressed interest in coastal planning; examples include Petite
Riviere and the entire Broad Cove to LaHave area, where over eighty residents attended an
informational workshop; and Kingsburg, where the Kingsburg Coastal Conservancy includes a
large proportion of residents.
All consultees agreed that many long-time residents have a strong sense of ownership of their
land, and resist interference in their private property rights. However, they may also object to
new coastal development that blocks their view and access to the water. New residents may be
more supportive of land use planning; many have previously lived in areas with restrictions
imposed by planning controls, or have witnessed the types of problems that can occur without
planning. Consultees agreed that while local people are generally knowledgeable about weather
64