START HERE — WATERSHED DEBACLE READING GUIDE

This page is the front door to the Watershed Debacle record. The existing issues remain exactly as published. This guide changes only how readers find and follow them.

Recommended reading order

1. Begin with the human story

Start with The Tait’s Personal Story to understand why the inquiry began and how a broad planning system was experienced at the parcel level.

2. Read the Mission Creep overview

Next read MISSION CREEP: 13 ISSUES EVERY LANDOWNER DESERVES TO UNDERSTAND. It is the main table of contents and links the numbered issues in their intended order:

1. Private-Land Control

2. The Green Blanket Effect

3. Generalized Mapping

4. Notice and Reverse Onus

5. Burden of Proof

6. Market Interference

7. Taxation, Compensation and “We Pay”

8. Public Benefit, Private Burden

9. Administrative Fragmentation

10. Access to Justice

11. Absence of Self-Correction

12. Enforcement and Emergency Access

13. MFIPPA and Missing Records

14. Separate Special Investigation: Water Quality and Source-Water Protection

Use the Mission Creep overview—not the blog’s publication-date order—to move through Issues 1–14.

3. Read the current public updates

Read these dated updates after the core issue series:

• The Candidates Update — September 26, 2026

• Legion Thanks, Mapping Errors and Landowner Accountability — September 27, 2026

• Independent Notice to Candidates — September 27, 2026

• Crown Law, Black’s Law and the Greenlands Authority Question — September 28, 2026

4. Use the supporting research record

The Evidence Library, Discovery Framework, and Ask Professor Lex: Where Is the Compensation Record? provide supporting records, research questions and legal context.

Browse by subject

• Start Here

• Mission Creep — Core Issues

• Current Updates and Candidate Notices

• Legal Research and Authorities

• Evidence, Records and Procedure

• Landowner Stories and Contributors

• Earlier Updates and Registrant Archive

How to read the evidence labels

• Confirmed record: supported by an identified public or documentary source.

• Reported fact or recollection: attributed but still requiring independent verification.

• Reasonable inference: a possible explanation drawn from available facts, not a proven conclusion.

• Disputed allegation: a claim that has not been adjudicated.

• Missing proof: a record, witness or expert opinion still required.

• Commentary: plain-language analysis, not law or expert evidence.

Important limit

The website is an organized public-inquiry record. It does not claim that every question has been answered, that every allegation has been proved, or that any comparison establishes liability. The materials are research and public-interest commentary, not legal advice.

John Tait | Lead Landowner Representative | Watershed Debacle Inquiry