[All] FW: [Pipeline] High rate of unsafe water for private wells

[Carole Clinch]

 2010 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development, Chapter 2 available: <
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201012_02_e_34425.html#hd3c
>

Water quality in Canada from 2005-2007 was rated as:

   - “fair,” “marginal,” or “poor” at *61 percent of monitoring sites;* and
   - “excellent” or “good” at *39 percent of sites*.

 Exhibit 2.5—The Fresh Water Quality Monitoring program is not monitoring
on most federal lands

Federal lands

Number of federal lands

Number monitored by the Fresh Water Quality Monitoring program4

First Nations reserves

*3,0001*

*12 *

National Parks

422

31

National Wildlife Areas

543

2

Source:

1 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
2 Parks Canada
3 *Wildlife Area Regulations
*4 Environment Canada, Fresh Water Quality Monitoring program



 Carole


2012/1/24 Susan Bryant <shbryant at uwaterloo.ca>

> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Susan Bryant [mailto:shbryant at mailservices.uwaterloo.ca]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:28 AM
> *To:* 'Louisette Lanteigne'
> *Subject:* RE: [Pipeline] High rate of unsafe water for private wells****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Lulu-****
>
> ** **
>
> My two cents---it’s always better to FIX the water quality problems in
> private wells rather than treat the water! I’ve visited over 300 private
> wells in Waterloo Region with my Well Aware job, and most water quality
> problems here are the result of older wells that need upgrades because they
> leak (easy to fix, often, with simply a new well cap in 2/3 cases!),
>  land-use practices that create contaminants on the owner’s own
> land---which should also certainly be, and usually can be, corrected, or
> problems caused by filtration devices that are not properly maintained.
>  Remember that reverse osmosis wastes an awful lot of water in its
> backwashing process---and that it doesn’t address bacteria problems such as
> e-coli and coliform. You’d need to add UV treatment to kill bacteria.****
>
> ** **
>
> E-coli in wells can also be a useful early-warning sign of septic issues
> that should be addressed, and positive coliform tests don’t always mean
> that the bacteria in the well is harmful. It just means there’s a leak
> somewhere that should be fixed. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Public health in Ontario recommends bacteria testing 3 times a year, and
> it’s free. I’ve noticed that people who treat their water often don’t
> maintain their wells or worry about land-use issues---and that’s a big
> problem, because they can then contaminate the aquifer.****
>
> ** **
>
> Treatment is a good option only when there’s no other option.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Susan  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* pipeline-bounces at gren.ca [mailto:pipeline-bounces at gren.ca] *On
> Behalf Of *Louisette Lanteigne
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 15, 2012 4:14 PM
> *To:* pipeline at gren.ca
> *Subject:* [Pipeline] High rate of unsafe water for private wells****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi folks****
>
> ** **
>
> New study from the US shows 40% of private wells don't meet safety
> standards for drinking water. Makes me wonder if we should push to
> encourage local or provincial policy to implement the mandatory use of
> reverse osmosis for folks in private wells. ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2012-01-14/news/30628917_1_water-wells-drinking-water-coliform-bacteria
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Lulu****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20120124/bf8e19a5/attachment.html>