Why the Debate Over 1188 Ridge Road Is About More Than One Pit

In Prince Edward County, gravel pits are not new. They have long been part of the local economy and landscape but they have also been a source of problem and concern because many residents depend on groundwater for daily needs. 

What has people in the County arguing is not just one gravel pit. It is a bigger question: if a site cannot be shown to have the paperwork Ontario law requires, should it still be treated as a valid pit at all, especially in a county where many residents depend on groundwater?

That is why the debate around the site, 1188 Ridge Road, has grown into something bigger than a single pit.  In recent posts and comments from the community, residents wrestled with two linked concerns. One is legal: whether this site has the licensing record needed under Ontario’s Aggregate Resources Act.

The other is practical: what any renewed extraction activity could mean for local water in a region where roughly 59 percent of residents rely on groundwater, much of it through private wells.

John McKinnon, who has been publicly challenging the status of the site, says records obtained through freedom-of-information requests show no approved site plan for 1188 Ridge Road. That matters because Ontario law says every application for an aggregate license must include a site plan. Public consultation is also built into the license process once an application meets the legal requirements. On top of that, Ontario’s own licence transfer policy says a transferred license continues under the same terms, conditions, and site plan requirements as the original one.

What has not yet been independently confirmed in the material provided here is the site-specific conclusion McKinnon draws from that legal framework. It strongly show what he is alleging, but they do not include the underlying ministry records, transfer file, or correspondence needed to settle the matter on their own.

That means the strongest version of the story is not “the pit definitely has no license.” It is this: a resident has raised a documented challenge that appears serious, and the public deserves a clear answer backed by records.

The water concern is not speculative in the broader sense, even if the exact risk from this site remains disputed. Prince Edward County’s own planning material describes the local aquifer as fractured limestone and highly vulnerable. County documents also show that water infrastructure is already under strain. A recent regional servicing report says Picton’s treatment plant dates back to 1928 and points to source-water concerns tied to Picton Bay. That does not prove this site is harming water today, but it does explain why residents are not treating the issue as a paperwork technicality.

Online reactions show a clear divide. Some people dismissed the concerns or argued that living near a pit means accepting certain impacts. Others supported McKinnon and said these questions should have been answered clearly by officials long ago.

Many residents simply want straightforward answers. They are asking: Is the site legally licensed right now? If records are missing, how did that happen? And if a new application is required, why has there not been a clear public process?

These are reasonable questions. They go beyond one location and affect the whole community. People in Prince Edward County depend on groundwater and expect rules about land use and resource extraction to be applied fairly and consistently.

At this point, the issue is not just about proving one side right or wrong. It is about transparency. If the site meets all legal requirements, the records should be shared clearly. If it does not, the public deserves to know that as well.

What do you think residents should be asking for first here: a clear release of the licensing record, a fresh public review, or an independent water study?