UNDERMINING, LYING, CHARACTER ASSASSINATION AND FOR WHAT?

 

You know I have far more respect for the Ruby Weber's of the world with their right wing, pro business positions and opinions then I do for the local, former, psuedo environmentalist Elmira residents who have cut and run. This is because I think that Ruby is a true believer whereas the others are simply opportunists looking out for number one and if that means switching sides mid stream then so be it.. Ruby was a Woolwich Council member for many years and very sympathetic to Uniroyal Chemical. She never forgot that they provided local jobs and tax revenue despite the mess they've made environmentally. In fact if she were still involved herself with TRAC and the former TAG I expect that she would have expressed her horror at how Uniroyal's promises have turned out to be nothing but wind. I also got to know her through a couple of other local issues and was pleased with her common sense as well as of her ethics of fair play. Quite possibly her, what I view as right wing, pro business attitudes, may very well have been due to her husband Amsey who I understood to be a self-made man. A self-made man who was an astute businessman who did well for himself and family.  

It is that lack of ethics, decency and fair play which have appalled me in regards to Sylvia Berg, Susan Bryant and Pat Mclean. Their modus operandi is not to declare war on someone they view as a threat or a risk to their plans but to claim friendship and collegiality along with common interests. They do not want their intended victim to even see coming their assault of lies and deceptions all intended to lower that individual's status, standing and positions be they environmental or otherwise. It is my opinion based upon personal experience that there is no room in their lives to treat others as well as they've been treated. Their incredibly self-centered approach is to slowly undermine while pretending the opposite. It does not matter that the intended victim doesn't even know that they are in the cross- hairs of their sights. The victim does not have to be intentionally undermining goals and plans that he/she are totally unaware of. In fact if asked they would likely, honestly respond oh no those self-centred goals can not be their's. 

Further thoughts have come to mind. Susan Bryant did not like Bill Strauss at all. She claimed to me that his speaking and education were an embarrassment to Woolwich Township. On the other hand both Pat McLean and Sandy Shantz liked Bill Strauss because as mayor he worked with them on Council or perhaps Pat thought she was manipulating him as she attempted with others. At first Pat made her dislike of Sandy clear based on losing her council seat to her. Later they were best buddies as both Susan and Pat worked on Sandy's election campaigns. In the scheme of lying manipulators I would rate Susan as number one, Sylvia as number 2 and Pat as number three.  

It has been specific Woolwich Council members working mostly through Susan and Pat that have enabled Uniroyal and successors, in harmony with the Ontario Ministry of Environment, to give Woolwich residents a totally inadequate and unsuccessful cleanup of their groundwater, surface water and soils and sediments.

A CULTURE OF LYING & DISINFORMATION: CAN IT BE OVERCOME TO SOLVE WATER PROBLEMS?

 

Some politicians might even admit quietly that lying to the public is an art form. They might suggest that every lie requires a fallback position. That fallback position might be new information that the public generally don't have. It might be scapegoating another political party for "obstructing" your legislative agenda. It might be blaming a higher tier of government such as the provinces blaming Ottawa and the Federal government for environmental failures. When in great trouble relying on "acts of God",  weather emergencies, outside influences, immigrants, the radical left whatever is the hot button issue of the day helps. Unions and labour unrest used to be a great scapegoat for corporations and businesses to blame when their outdated  products or technologies were no longer competitive. All in all accepting responsibility and taking blame for mistakes and failures is not the preferred option.

So according to today's K-W Record the Region of Waterloo are planning on using another $15 million dollars of taxpayers money to bring in a type of "workaround" technology.  This technology is referred to as container filtration systems.  A quick on-line check shows that several companies sell prefabricated water treatment systems generally for smaller applications including mining camps, isolated small locations involving using surface water (creeks & rivers) versus wells and even industrial plants. Yes they do claim that they can properly treat river water which in the case of the Grand River includes high turbidity (murkiness), pathogens such as bacteria and viruses, heavy metals, industrial discharges (legal or otherwise), parasites from cattle including cryptosporidium and less than perfect treatment of human wastes.  Lets not forget nice things like dead fish and animals that end up in the river not to mention the odd human body found immersed.

These new units apparently can produce 25 litres per second of clean water hence you would need at least eight of them to up our water supply by a whole 200 litres per second.  Boy that's not very much and certainly tells me that this is simply a workaround or maybe even a bandaid approach. Now I did the math on a couple of commercial units and they claim a somewhat higher volume of water produced than 25 l/sec but maybe the Region are simply being conservative in their estimates. Regardless based upon this one article and half an hour of research I am a little underwhelmed. 

But then again our local developers and builders want results yesterday and maybe that's exactly what they are going to get. Remember no problem is so serious and so bad that rushed, panicked decision making can not make it worse. Are our regional politicians up to the challenge? Hey we all elected the buggars so we get what we deserve.  

TECHNICAL REMEDIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TRAC) MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19/26 AT 6 P.M..

 

It looks to me as if they have over time changed their process for Delegates to speak at this meeting of Woolwich/Lanxess vetted citizens.  Apparently if a Delegate is speaking to a new item not on the agenda, one must register eight days prior to the meeting. Now of course the fricken Agenda doesn't come out until one week before the meeting hence potential Delegates have no way of knowing if their specific TRAC related/mandated speaking topic is or isn't on the Agenda until after their deadline (8 days) is passed. So in other words you'd better register eight days beforehand unless of course you have an inside track to TRAC and can get tipped off early about the Agenda topics. I view this as a valid metaphor for the efficacy and honesty of this committee, which blame does not lie with individual members but with Woolwich Council.

This meeting may be observed silently and reverently from the chairs in the gallery or on Zoom. For those of us with twitchy stomachs and concerns about speaking out of turn (i.e. at all) then it may be safest to watch it by video a few days later on the Township's website (under Council Calendar). This I usually do and then post here both the good and the bad. The good may contain some kind words about restoring our groundwater and the bad may be the feeble excuses made and reasons allegedly out of their control as to why they have failed to do either that or to clean up the Uniroyal Chemical gross downstream contamination in the creek soils, sediments and floodplain soils. The other bad part is the unwillingness or inability for the members as a whole to stand up and call out Lanxess and the MECP for their never ending bullshit and junk science. There simply is no hard questioning as to why this project goes on and on for decades (36 years) without successful completion.

 

ZERO RESPONSE TO ANY WATER QUESTIONS TO THE REGION DESPITE REGIONAL CHAIR & COUNCILLORS RECEIVING THEM IN WRITING

 

It really is beyond shameful. Yet not surprising when you look at how deceitful either councillors or somebody has been to the public regarding our water supply (& quality) for decades. To me it would seem that that is the councillors' job to respond to serious questions whether from uninformed citizens or even better informed citizens such as myself. Having read their Annual Water Reports for many years I've learned where the opportunities are for gilding the lily and where and how likely problems with certain wells are hidden or camouflaged. All of those questions have been sent directly to multiple regional councillors plus the Chair Karen Redman.  No response.

Today's K-W Record has a very interesting article by Aislinn Clancy, Green Party M.P.P. for Kitchener Centre titled "Who's protecting Waterloo Region's water?". She appropriately takes aim at the provincial Doug Ford (Conservative) government for numerous offences against the environment including water supply and quality. Her article ends with "Water is life and we cannot take it for granted."

SO HAS THE MAYOR OF WILMOT TOWNSHIP SOLD OUT HER CONSTITUENTS TO THE REGION?

 

Or in the alternative has she extracted meaningful concessions or favours from the Region beneficial to Wilmot residents? As is usual citizens and voters likely will be left in the dark about that. What caught my eye in yesterday's K-W Record article titled : "Humane society project at standstill due to water crisis" was the mention of the 1980 Regional policy restricting the transfer of water from Wilmot production wells into other areas of the Region such as Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. There was a good reason for that policy back in 1980 as Township farmers and city residents had concerns even then about the security of their water supply. They realized that the growing cities were already eyeing their water supply and they the Township were having none of it. I think it should be a public matter as to what has been proposed in exchange for mayor Salonen handing over water access to the Region. Just off the top of my head I have to wonder if the removal of the Region's 700 acre shovel ready land acquisition was the sweetener.

Not for the first time Kitchener mayor Barry Vrbanovik has suggested that 50% of planned and unbuilt water capacity coming online within the next five years should be directed to support development approvals. Wow but he is sure signaling his expected financial and other support at the polls by our local development groups and lobbies by pushing that idea. Gee using mayor Vrbanovic's logic maybe I can get a million dollar interest free bank loan based upon my planned and unreceived monies from my 2019 book : " Elmira Water Woes: The Triumph of Corruption, Deceit and Citizen Betrayal".  

As my wife tells me, wait to buy my superyacht until AFTER the money is in the bank not before. Maybe the same should happen with the PUBLIC'S water as well.

$81 MILLION EXTRA WOULD BE MORE PALATABLE AFTER WE LEARN WHO MESSED UP AND HOW

 

Was there an element of "act of God" or even bad luck involved? Has climate change caused greater more subtle effects than we ever imagined? Did a senior, regional employee experience a heart rending personal tragedy that totally flattened them? Could there be an element of sabotage involved whether by hire or personal? Did group think and personal loyalty overcome common sense and good decision making? Region of Waterloo citizens deserve answers to these questions and others. Now is not the time to be protecting individuals or groups from the consequences of bad decisions no matter how well intentioned they might have been. This most especially includes local region councillors. Could there be a group of councillors with far too much influence over the rest who need to step back somewhat?

In today's Woolwich Observer we are advised by reporter Julian Gavaghan that spending $1.2 million for nine new hires is the first step and top priority for regional council. Or at least Chair Karen Redman says that is so.  Apparently that conclusion is based upon a staff report dated January 29/26. Hmm now I wonder who on staff wrote the report.  I also wonder if this is an old report with a new date or if it is actually something new. If it's a recycled old report then the first question has to be why didn't Council act sooner? Were they too much in awe of local developers and builders or even of Premier Doug Ford to take any controversial steps for fear of enraging powerful local interests? 

Then of course there is the simple issue of institutional lying. "Officials stressed the issue is not related to water quality...". Really? If the Grand River either had fewer or better Sewage Treatment Systems  would its' treatment costs be lower? If more cattle were kept out of the Canagagigue Creek, Conestogo River, Nith River and Grand River would Grand River water quality improve markedly without expensive treatment? Then of course we have salt washed into our creeks and rivers both from our cities and our highways. All of these reasons are why Grand River water treatment is so expensive. 

Regarding our groundwater a number of wells in Cambridge have been drilled deeper to get by industrial contaminated zones. Other wells have been shut down and not just in Elmira. Wells as shown in the Region's Annual Water Report that each year are shut down for significant periods of time likely are being "managed" via intermittent pumping of contaminant plumes to lessen the amount of contaminated water being put in the system. Routine mixing of cleaner wells with dirtier, more contaminated wells has also been going on for years. All of these factors affect treatment costs as well as operating costs. Sorry folks but today's quantity problems are directly related to ongoing quality problems affecting the operation of the system.

Then finally there is the big question. Actually how much water is available from  our local moraines and aquifers on a sustainable basis? Without that knowledge everything else is just political hot air and wishful thinking. 

BACK IN 2004 DR. HENRY REGIER WROTE AN ESSAY ON MODERN RISK ASSESSMENT (RA) AFTER RESEARCHING CHEMTURA'S RA OF THEIR SITE

 

I remember being shocked and flabbergasted by the shallowness and apparent amateurishness of Chemtura's results. Their RA was to determine if their site somehow was a threat to either human beings or wildlife. According to their scientific study the only human beings at risk were trespassers and the only wildlife at risk were shrews. Now the shrews ate worms contaminated with dioxin which explained their health risks but nary a word about predators of shrews . Keep in mind that both DDT and dioxins bio-accumulate in concentration as they move up the food chain. So what about hawks, owls, foxes, mink, weasels, coyotes and other consumers of shrews?  

Trespassers wandering aimlessly on their site allegedly were at risk. Perhaps these trespassers were kind enough to wear large signs distinguishing themselves from employees, contractors, invited visitors etc.  This would of course explain why only errant and  occasional trespassers were more susceptible to any of the hundreds of various manufactured poisons as well as poisons produced as by-products of fungicides, herbicides, pesticides, insecticides etc. Also from personal experience I can testify as to the noxious odours and fumes emanating from the two east side consolidation pits prior to their removal from the sub-surface.

Dr. Regier along with myself and others were members of CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee). Chemtura explained their various RA rationales and assumptions to CPAC although not particularly in detail or with specifics. Dr. Regier made it his business to professionally investigate the process and procedures around this Risk Assessment (RA). He by invitation and in person talked to a number of Ministry of Environment personnel with expertise in RA as well as other professional sources. He then later synthesized what he was told and advised into an essay which he provided//published in 2004.

I enclose merely the first several sentences of it as follows: 

"In recent years the environment agencies of the Canadian and Ontario governments have implemented a bureaucratic process of Risk Assessment ostensibly to satisfy a commitment to the Precautionary Principle, inter alia. In effect the process abstracts, truncates and devolves difficult issues from the political arena to a conventional bureaucracy with limited competence on these matters. A costly, junk science version of a shell game may result. Whether or not it was the subversive intention of political operators "unfriendly to the environment" to do so, the process of Risk Assessment actually implemented seems designed to cripple a commitment to effective precaution or clean-up. In addition to treating this subject generically from a perspective of post-normal science, personal experiences with Risk Assessment related to contamination of a creek in Elmira will be described. An alternative participatory process for making decisions in such cases was published by officials of Ontario's environment ministry some years ago, but seems to have been ignored."

Dr. Regier thankfully is still alive and kicking and recently passed this essay and words onto some academic colleagues as well as myself.  These words as well as my personal experiences with TWO Risk Assessments, one by Chemtura and one by Lanxess Canada have formed my opinion of the second RA regarding the downstream Canagagigue Creek. To call that most recent RA a "...costly, junk science version of a shell game..." is far too kind.  The TRAC and TAG committees of Woolwich Council have either forgotten or never understood the criticism and concerns of myself and some committee members. One former member, Joe Kelly, was both accurate and clear in his descriptions of shovel sediment sampling versus using core samplers. Other issues included a plethora of Non-Detect (ND) results due to lab Method Detection Limits (MDL) in excess of health criteria. Locational sampling biases were but another flaw in the field work surrounding a RA which claimed that there were 

                              "...NO UNACCEPTABLE RISKS "  in the downstream Creek.

No proper, independent health studies combined with junk sampling and junk science. I mean Woolwich Township will happily throw their own volunteer citizen committee members under the bus as they have in the past (2008 & 2015). That is your eventual purpose TRAC. Do you think professional politicians are dumb enough to take the blame both after the 2028 groundwater failure and professional, unbiased academic papers begin to condemn decades of Elmira/Uniroyal junk science?