K-W RECORD KEEPS THE PRESSURE ON WATERLOO REGION

 

Tomorrow is the big day for the Region as they see whether or not private discussions/negotiations with Wilmot Township mayor Natasha Salonen will bear fruit. Keep in mind that regardless of new municipal governance legislation coming from Ontario, she like all other regional mayors will face the voters this October. Hence if she appears to bend too easily to regional wishes to take Wilmot water she might pay for that  at the polls and lose her job.

Meanwhile two new articles have appeared in today's K-W Record. The one mostly deals with more incentives for large water users to cut back on their usage and the other mentions some water upgrades to the Mannheim Service Area. This second article by Bill Doucet advises that 60 litres per second of water will be restored to the capacity of the Mannheim Service Area via upgrades to the Parkway water system located near Fairway Rd. and Manitou Dr. in Kitchener. Now of course as we already know these wells have long had trichloroethylene (TCE) in them courtesy of the former Deilcraft furniture building on the site. If the name Deilcraft rings a bell it may be due to association with Electrohome and or with Shanley St. in Kitchener which had an abandoned former Deilcraft factory there for many decades also with TCE contamination in the grounwater.

The first article reminds us that "...the region incorrectly combined the capabilities of two separate systems in its capacity calculations.". Now this is yet still another unanswered question by the Region of Waterloo.  Presumably the Record are referring to the two different water treatment systems namely the Middleton System using chlorine versus the Mannheim System using chloramination. Why are there two systems and why can't the treated water be interchangeable whether used in Cambridge versus used in say Waterloo?  At one point in time I suspected that the more highly contaminated (especially with bacteria and viruses) Grand River water required stronger treatment and maybe that was the reason for chloramination versus straight chlorine.

This first article also points out that the region has been over pumping the Mannheim Water Service Area. Presumably again the reporter is referring to specific wells very close to Kitchener's west side and just barely into Wilmot Township. This over pumping was also mentioned in the second article done by Bill Doucet although he referred to it as the Mannheim well field. That description I believe to be more accurate. 

Finally there still has been no followup in the Record regarding the shutdown Greenbrook wellfield (a little too close to the Ottawa St. landfill) or the very long time shut down Woolner and Pompeii wells beside the Grand River very close to Breslau (& Safety-Kleen).  

WHY WAS UNIROYAL SO TERRIFED OF GOING BACK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD (EAB) IN LATE 1992 ?

 

The simplest and most straightforward answer is DNAPLS, DNAPLS & DNAPLS. Boy is hindsight ever clearer and easier to see what has gone on behind the scenes. Uniroyal also had the October 1991 sweetheart deal negotiated between themselves and the Ontario Min. of Environment (MOE) to protect.  The  EAB announced their decision, after being unceremoniously dumped by the MOE in October/November 1991, that their jurisdiction remained and provided any party asked for the hearing to restart, they would do so. This also explains the timing to me as to why APTE did not ask for the hearing to restart. Susan B. and Sylvia were both made offers they could not refuse including lifetime permanent seats at the table provided they played ball on the DNAPL issue. 

Despite quotes in local newspapers from Susan B. in late 1992 stating that DNAPLS were the biggest environmental issue at Uniroyal Chemical she and Sylvia willingly sold the farm on the matter in late 1993. This even included a critique of consultant Conestoga Rover's DNAPL efforts by Sylvia, Glenys McMullen and myself on APTE letterhead in the fall of 1993. December 10, 1993 the MOE inexplicably (other than corruption & backroom deals) accepted Conestoga Rovers (CRA) and Uniroyal's plainly pathetic latest DNAPL report. Then APTE (i.e. Sylvia ) inexplicably without prior APTE consultation also accepted CRA and the MOE's new DNAPL position.

I've known for many decades that APTE buggered themselves and the public interest with their bizarre turnaround on DNAPLS in 1993-94 but until 2008 I felt that they had made a horrible but honest decision. I was wrong. The evidence of their (Sylvia & Susan B.) being co-opted by the polluter has only risen since. This co-opting of the citizens group via its' leadership is the primary reason that we still do not have either a restored aquifer nor a clean downstream Creek today.  That said the cooperation (legal or illegal) by our elected politicians has certainly aided and abetted the polluter, their successors and fellow travellors.

Most citizens are straightforward albeit complacent. The ambitious ones often become politicians and quickly learn how to deceive. Those that can't get elected sometimes learn how to gain respect and authority in other ways. Being "friends" with people in power and authority is one of those ways. One that I hope never to learn.  

WATERLOO REGION RELEASES WATER INFO IN DRIBS & DRABS

 

Today's K-W Record has an article written by Luisa D'Amato titled "Regional council advised to rescind restricting draw from Wilmot aquifers".  Now according to a staff report supposed to be debated at regional council this Wednesday; both the Wilmot Centre wellfield and the Mannheim wellfield draw from the same underground aquifer known as AFB2. This particular aquifer is the largest one beneath a very large portion of the Waterloo moraine. The Wilmot Centre wellfield includes wells K50, K51 and K52. Samantha Lernout of Citizens for Safe Ground Water is appropriately demanding transducer data (i.e. presumably groundwater elevation levels)   since 2019 for these three wells. 

While the Region admit to over pumping at the Mannheim wellfield and that it should be allowed to rest and recover, apparently according to the Region water levels are fine in the Wilmot Centre wellfield and can be drawn from further. Now here is where the Region have to expect pushback at least until and after citizens have seen and analyzed water elevation levels from the Wilmot Centre wellfield. I hope that regional councillors are not so stupid as to rubber stamp the taking of more water from Wilmot Township this Wednesday until, at the earliest, citizens and other stakeholders have had time to look at the data presented. Right now the Region's credibility is on thin ice and any more "mistakes" in communicating honest information and data will never be forgotten or forgiven. 

GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN POLITICIANS - WELL THAT WAS BOUND TO BLOW UP IN EVERYBODY'S FACES

 Today's Woolwich Observer has a story by Meg Deak titled "Wilmot demands that Waterloo Region reveal well monitoring data". According to this story there really wasn't a written agreement at all between Wilmot and the Region regarding Wilmot water being pumped to the three cities. So let me get this straight. Is this just like my accountant friend's quote that  "a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's not written on." ?  Apparently the Region of Waterloo think so albeit that's with some pretty convoluted language suggesting that it didn't really happen it was just all a test of sorts. Hmm maybe the word "test" is the problem. Wilmot are supposed to think that the "testing" being discussed has to do with aquifer capacity and sustainability whereas the Region view the whole thing as merely a "test" of the gullibility of rural politicians.

Wilmot councillor Lillianne Dunstall is having none of it. Especially the part about the Region don't have groundwater levels readily available to share with Wilmot. Next Wednesday Regional Council want to discuss officially and formally taking water from Wilmot Township for use in the nearby cities. Both Ms. Dunstall and mayor Natasha Salonen want more transparency from the Region as well as better accountability as far as monitoring the water requirements of never ending growth. 

NOVEMBER 10, 2022 LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

This letter to the editor (Woolwich Observer) was published over three years ago. As usual exactly zero response or comment from various guilty stakeholders in and around Elmira, Ontario. In one sense that is a good thing. The title put on my Letter To The Editor is "Uniroyal problems persist, but so too does inaction". I view the lack of response, whether verbal or legal, as both an admission as well as  a belated understanding that poorly crafted, weak denials can be worse than admissions sometimes.

My letter to the editor is a broad indictment of the system currently allowing polluters to run their own cleanups with little more than superficial oversight by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE).  Afterall it was the Ministry's shoddy oversight in the first place that got us all into the Elmira Water Crisis and so many more around the province.  Yes certainly the Ministry have been underfunded and understaffed. That has always been an intentional situation by each and every provincial government for many decades ever since Bill Davis first announced the beginnings of that new Ministry. It was simply virtue signaling to the electorate that their government would include environmental preservation among their other poorly managed ministries such as labour and transportation. Make no mistake Mr. Davis most likely had to calm corporate fears of any serious attempt by the government to reverse many decades of corporate and industrial environmental abuse and damage .  

This is the trick of governance. You must appeal to the masses publicly and tell them what they want to hear while at the same time quietly assuring the much, much smaller but powerful elite and wealthy that you will not change the status quo which they love so much. 

My letter focuses on technical reports produced by client driven consultants on behalf of the polluter (Uniroyal/Lanxess).  It also focuses on the Sept. 1, 2022  MOE report titled " Sediment and forage fish monitoring results from September 2020 in Canagagigue Creek".  Finally I focus on the long denied but blatantly obvious conflicts of interest in the entire remediation system here in Elmira. 

REGION OF WATERLOO: "THAT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT"

 

Luisa D'Amato's Opinion column today is titled "Region reveals the purpose of pumping water from Wilmot Centre wellfields".  Well in fact I would suggest that what the Region have done is not so much revealed anything as much as their own stubbornness. At least one local citizen, Samantha Lernout, may have expressed doubts as well when she said "You don't run an experiment and not tell people". If seven years of pumping water from Wilmot to Kitchener-Waterloo is merely a test then I wonder what the last many decades of pumping groundwater from the Waterloo Moraine should be referred to .  

I would also like to see the Region offer copies of these alleged hydrogeological reports claiming lots of available water in the Wilmot Centre wellfield to both individuals and citizen groups. It is conceivable that there is plenty of water at the same time as some residents' and businesses' wells are running dry. Factors include the depth of the wells running dry as well as their proximity to regional pumping wells. A high volume pumping well does produce a large cone of influence whereby water levels within half a mile or so of these wells can be seriously lowered while the rest of the aquifer water levels remain as high as ever. Another term for the resulting cone of influence is drawdown. Again a high volume pumping well can seriously lower nearby water elevations by several metres while having minimal effect or no effect on wells one or two miles away.    

FROM THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER ARCHIVES OF JUNE 30, 2022

 

The title of the article in the Woolwich Observer is "Community experts say Lanxess is not doing enough  to address contaminated hotspots in Canagagigue Creek". Susan B. and Tiffany Svensson , Chair of TAG (Technical Advisory Group), both are quoted as stating that Lanxess and their hired Risk Assessor (Stantec) are taking shortcuts. First of all this whole thing about "hotspots" has been beaten to death by all parties.  These alleged "hotspots" are basically very convenient locations for consultants, engineers and contractors to access the Creek both for monitoring /sampling purposes as well as for possible remediation. They are magically located right at the intersection (bridges) of New Jerusalem Rd. and the Canagagigue (Gig) , followed by miraculously the next downriver bridge at Northfield Dr. again followed miraculously by the last bridge over the "Gig" at Jigs Hollow Rd. (#46). Of course extensive sampling at those three locations has resulted in more exceedances there than in other less sampled locations.

Now the two TAG reps are not incorrect when they state that there are large exceedances of health criteria at those three spots. But seriously if there are exceedances miles downstream at Northfield Dr. and Jigs Hollow Rd. do you really think that there aren't lots of other exceedances upstream closer to the source namely Uniroyal Chemical? In my opinion TAG members were trying to be accommodating and compromise with Lanxess and the Ministry of Environment by suggesting/agreeing with the three "hot spots" claims. This has been the huge failure of citizens in general and UPAC, CPAC, RAC & TAG (now TRAC) and most definitely Woolwich Township. They have all been terrified of confronting the polluter. It's as if they believe that they can somehow be criminally charged for holding the polluter and his kid gloved regulator to account for their gross negligence which has resulted in both serious health issues and shortened lifespans for some Elmira residents.

Four years later and Lanxess continue to uphold their predecessors skills at perpetual delay. If the locals don't immediately accommodate the polluter's plans then the company's response is to do nothing. Every dollar they put off spending today is less money down the road both due to devaluation of that money as well as due to ongoing discharge to groundwater, air and the Creek. I expect that another one hundred years of delay while costing both downstream human beings and the environment health impairments will greatly reduce Uniroyal on-site contamination. Yes it's merely been shifted including as far as Lake Erie but if we're feeling bad about that we can always put a straw (pipeline) into the lake and suck some of the toxins back up here for consumption. I think that is referred to as political closed loop recycling.