ORICA CANADA INC. has a strong argument in support of its contention that it should get an injunction extending the temporary zoning for its federally licensed explosives storage in East Luther Grand Valley pending the outcome of its appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of township council's refusal to extend it.

Although we harbour misgivings with the way the Orica saga has unfolded, we see it as in everyone's best interests to resolve the issues quickly and reach an understanding while the appeal is under way.

Among other things, Orica says its hydrogeological studies have shown there is no scientific substance to concerns that its ammonium nitrate storage poses a risk to Luther Marsh — "the most fundamental concern raised by the community."

It notes that a storage site has been in existence as such for 15 years under temporary zoning "without incident," and asks why there is a sudden concern. In the face of denials by township council, it says it was led to believe there would be no zoning problem before it invested $2.5 million in construction of a modern storage facility.

The problem now, as we see it, is not so much with the facility as with the public perception of a multinational giant embarking on a major construction program without proper zoning, compounded by a federal bureaucracy that conducted an environmental assessment of sorts and issued a permit without reference to the local government, except that the facility must be in compliance with its regulations.

All of this has placed the "giant" in the unenviable position of facing non-compliance, ergo an invalid permit, as of tomorrow, unless the situation is resolved.

In the circumstances, the township should now grant a stringently conditional extension of zoning.

Its Official Plan includes some of the conditions. Additionally, Orica should agree not to undertake manufacturing at the site and should post funds to ensure payment of the roadway improvements it has already promised to undertake and agree to eventual upgrading of the township road to the site, including an asphalt surface.

On those bases, we would support a limited extension to the "temporary" zoning. and we suspect both the court and Ontario Municipal Board will concur.