[All] Fwd: Source Water Protection & Aggregate industry

Sun Feb 8 12:53:07 EST 2015

The Cambridge Advocate article from Concerned Citizens of Brant

Eleanor
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Cambridge Advocate" <noreply+feedproxy at google.com>
Date: 8 Feb 2015 05:09
Subject: The Cambridge Advocate
To: <eleanor7000 at gmail.com>
Cc:

    The Cambridge Advocate <http://cambridgeadvocate.com>
------------------------------

Does Source Water Protection Really Protect Our Water?
<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CambridgeReporter/~3/HuxVGq_af6I/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>

Posted: 07 Feb 2015 10:32 AM PST

*[image: glass_inset]
<http://cambridgeadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/glass_inset.jpg>*

*“The first barrier to the contamination of drinking water
involves protecting the sources of drinking water.” *

– Justice Dennis O’Connor, Walkerton Inquiry 2002

*Article by Jeff Broomfield, The Brant Advocate*

The Clean Water Act was created to implement all of the recommendations of
the Walkerton Inquiry. The Source Protection Plans are supposed to identify
the potential threats using a science based approach and either reduce or
eliminate those threats.

Living in a well head protection area, it was quite a shock to find out
that a gravel pit was opening right on our source of drinking water. The
GRCA had done a great job informing us about all of the things that were
considered a threat and even had a program where they would pay to ensure
that old wells were decommissioned properly.

It’s hard to imagine how an old well would be a threat, but a gravel pit
removing all of the material to within 1 metre above the aquifer is not.
That just doesn’t make any sense at all. Now they tell us it is the lateral
movement through the aquifer that will filter the water but if that is true
for a gravel pit, then it’s also true for an old well. If that is the case,
then they just wasted a pile of taxpayers’ dollars to properly fill in old
wells that are not really a threat. The truth is that an improperly filled
in well will give rain water direct access to the aquifer… and so will a
gravel pit.

When we first received our notices of threats, certain gravel pit
activities were listed as threats. But then they disappeared from the list.
To understand how this could happen, you have to attend some of the Source
Water Protection Committee meetings. On every committee is a representative
of the aggregate (gravel) industry. Since these people are paid by the
industry, they are there to protect the interests of the industry. If any
of their activities are considered a threat, that will cost them money and
limit certain activities. It just happens that the best gravel deposits
also make the best aquifers. It would be their job to ensure that none of
their activities are listed as threats.

Originally, the committee did list potential threats from aggregate
operations but the Director of the program over-ruled the committee and
denied the listing of aggregate activities as potential threats. This is in
direct contradiction to the mandate of using a science based approach. This
was a decision made by one man without any science. This decision was made
because the Provincial Government has a document called the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS) that puts the needs of the aggregate industry over
and above the health and safety of the citizens. The Clean Water Act can
say whatever it wants, giving the impression to the people that the
government is doing everything it can to protect our water. The PPS simply
over-rules any other act or rule.

Let’s remember that a science based approach is supposed to be used to
identify threats. That means that the committee will have to present
potential scenarios that could be a threat and assess whether the threat
exists using scientific methodology. If this committee was fulfilling its
mandate, and you and I were to look at the situation and identify a threat,
then they would have the science that tells us why it was cleared as a
threat. Right?

Apparently not.

The Concerned Citizens Of Brant have identified several credible scenarios
that could potentially contaminate our drinking water that have never been
considered. For starters, the land they want to mine has been farmed and
sprayed with pesticides. The most dangerous is a chemical called Atrazine,
a nasty substance that has been linked to the feminization of frogs and
breast cancer and stays in the soil for over 20 years. It just happens that
the same company that makes Atrazine, which turns up the production of
estrogen, also makes the leading breast cancer treatment called Letrozole,
which turns down the production of estrogen. Why this toxin is still
allowed to be sprayed on our food is another subject. Our hypothesis is
that the residues will be washed off of the material with high pressure
when it is processed and concentrated back into the wash pond, which is no
more than a big hole in the aquifer, allowing it direct access to the
aquifer. Another possibility is that it can be concentrated within the
waste material in the settling pond, which would be scraped out and spread
across the floor of the gravel pit, one metre above the aquifer where it
can gain direct access to the aquifer.

If the committee was fulfilling its mandate, then they should be able to
pull the data that shows the chemical composition of the settling pond
water, the source pond water and the mining waste. The fact is that none of
these have ever been measured. These, and several other hypotheses are
currently being considered by the Ministry Of Environment with the Permit
To Take Water and it is our hope that they will take these threats
seriously and force proper science to be done. It has now been over a year
since the application was filed and we hope to get the answers at an
upcoming stakeholder’s meeting.

Regardless of the outcome, I’m deeply concerned about the lack of
consideration that the Source Water Protection Committee has put into the
safety of our drinking water. We just looked at threats related to
aggregates and are left to wonder what other threats were not properly
considered. It seems that the aggregate industry just wave their hand and
say “these are not the threats you are looking for” like that scene from
Star Wars where Obi Wan uses the power of the force to get the droids past
a check point.

With my experience, Source Water Protection looks more like an illusion.

http://www.brantadvocate.com/does-source-water-protection-really-protect-our-water-by-jeff-broomfield/

<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/CambridgeReporter?a=HuxVGq_af6I:iyhej_ta-vI:yIl2AUoC8zA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/CambridgeReporter?a=HuxVGq_af6I:iyhej_ta-vI:D7DqB2pKExk>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/CambridgeReporter?a=HuxVGq_af6I:iyhej_ta-vI:F7zBnMyn0Lo>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/CambridgeReporter?a=HuxVGq_af6I:iyhej_ta-vI:7Q72WNTAKBA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/CambridgeReporter?a=HuxVGq_af6I:iyhej_ta-vI:qj6IDK7rITs>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/CambridgeReporter?a=HuxVGq_af6I:iyhej_ta-vI:gIN9vFwOqvQ>
   You are subscribed to email updates from Cambridge Advocate
<http://cambridgeadvocate.com>
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now
<https://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=y_UsSjntrKgihBaoVwmRYk6J3YI>
. Email delivery powered by Google  Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, CA 94043, United States
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20150208/d8c30559/attachment.html>