[All] GREN in news on pipeline

[Robert J. Fleming]

I am very concerned about storing "treated water" underground, possibly
cross-contaminating our pristine ground water aquifers with water treatment
chemicals such as chlorine and chloramine.  What about "treated water" that
is fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid containing silicofluoride and
co-contaminates arsenic, lead and mercury similarly cross-contaminating our
pristine ground water aquifers?  In minutes we can contaminate water that
has taken eons of time to purify by way of earth's natural processes.  To
me, this kind of gamble is unacceptable as pure water is increasingly
becoming scarcer.  It is risky even if "treated water" meant everything but
the chemicals which would only be added once water is taken back out of the
ground and sent on its way to the consumer.  We still pose risk by pumping
huge amounts of water into the ground; water which may contain living
micro-organisms, organics and/or other inadvertent contaminants through
human error.  By all accounts, a risky business, unless we humans are
infallible.  If wells pose significant risk for contaminating aquifers
through mismanagement or accident, does pumping millions of gallons in and
out of underground aquifers pose lesser or greater risk? 

 

P.S.  I liked your "engineer's pipe dream" summation, John.  Direct and to
the point!

 

Cheers,

 

Robert J. Fleming

 

www.WaterlooWatch.com <http://www.waterloowatch.com/> 

 

  _____  

From: all-bounces at gren.ca [mailto:all-bounces at gren.ca] On Behalf Of John
Jackson
Sent: October 28, 2009 7:48 PM
To: GREN
Subject: [All] GREN in news on pipeline

 

   
Planned water pipeline's cost surges past $1B 
     
  By Jeff Outhit, Record staff
                                    

WATERLOO REGION - A new study estimates it would cost $1.2 billion to pipe
drinking water from Lake Erie by 2035. 

That figure, calculated in 2008 dollars, is much higher than a previous
estimate of $700 million, in 2007 dollars. But the pipeline is still
feasible, the study concludes. 

Waterloo regional government prepared the feasibility study with six
municipal and First Nations partners who might share the pipeline. 

The proposal is to draw water at Nanticoke. The site already has twin intake
tunnels, a provincial permit to draw water, some preliminary facilities and
40 hectares of space for other facilities.

The study looked at various pipeline options. It concludes the best one is
to: 

 Build a new water treatment plant at Nanticoke.

 Pipe treated water north toward Six Nations, then past Brantford and into
Waterloo Region. 

 Build storage and pumping facilities at four locations along the route.

 Branch off smaller pipelines to divert some water to participating
communities.

Costs would be shared by partners, and paid by water rates that would rise
to cover the bill. 

However, the pipeline would not supply all local water demand. Some water
would still have to be provided from local sources that include groundwater
and the Grand River.

The proposal "scares" John Jackson, chair of the Grand River Environmental
Network, a coalition of local groups. 

"It's completely unnecessary," Jackson said. "It's an engineer's pipe dream.
But it's not the solution to our water problem." 

Pipeline money is better spent retrofitting buildings to conserve water, he
said. He's also concerned about the energy needed to run huge water pumps. 

Regional councillors voted Tuesday to continue studying the pipeline,
planned for 2035. This is prudent "whether we use it or not," said Coun.
Sean Strickland of Waterloo. 

Council's shorter-term plan to meet water needs is to promote conservation,
store treated water underground and find new groundwater sources. 

jouthit at therecord.com
  
 

  

<http://news.therecord.com/default>   


-- 
John Jackson
17 Major Street
Kitchener, Ontario N2H 4R1
519-744-7503

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20091029/6c0b45ee/attachment.html>