MORE ON REGION'S ANNUAL WATER REPORT

Eleven months ago I received a response to a number of my questions from Mr. Peter Clarke, RMOW Water Specialist. This response was extremely disappointing in that it seemed as if Mr. Clarke was passing the buck from the region to the province. My questions of course all dealt with last year's Annual Water Report which came out in February 2011 and covered the testing results for 2010. This years results which to date I still have not completely in detail examined, do however share the same, in my opinion, fatal flaws as its' predecessors. Mr. Clarke would have me assign this blame to the Province of Ontario rather than the Region of Waterloo. To a certain degree I can understand Mr. Clarke's position. However the Region needs to be far more forthcoming both to the local Municipal Councils and to Regional Council regarding the inherent flaws and weaknesses in these reports. There are huge relevant data gaps that need to be addressed whether or not the province has mandated them. Region of Waterloo this isn't a case of going the extra mile. The Province have totally wimped out in their mandated list of chemical parameters required to be tested for. This is no accident as these parameters are ubiquitous in our water supply and we the citizens have a right to know if they are indeed present or not.

Quoting Mr. Clarke: "The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) provides an Annual Water Quality Report Template for owners/operators of drinking water systems to fill out. There is no regulatory requirement to test for the parameters listed above." The parameters listed above are the ones I asked him about in my letter : "Why are the following common contaminant results not listed namely Toluene, Xylenes, Ethyl benzene, NDMA, Dioxins, 1,1,1 TCA again throughout the reports?".

Keep in mind that Toluene, Xylenes and ethyl Benzene are components of gasoline. All cities have old, leaking gas stations. NDMA has been found in groundwater and well water in both Elmira and Cambridge in the past. 1,1,1 TCA is in Cambridge groundwater courtesy of Rozell (GE) on Bishop St. in Cambridge.

Another question to Peter Clarke was: "Also why aren't other by-products of disinfection listed with their numerical values such as Chloramines and Chloroacetic acids?" Mr. Clarke's answer: " There is no regulatory requirement to test for Chloroacetic Acids or Chloramines."

Finally I asked "How come there are no results for Radiological compounds?" Mr. Clarke's answer: "There is no MOE requirement to test for these compounds.".

My last question to Mr. Clarke dealt with high method detection limits (MDL). These detection limits when set too high can readily hide low level detections of contaminants. I asked Mr Clarke: "Is there any reason why the Region couldn't use lower MDL's?" Mr. Clarke's response: "As noted previously, MDL's are set by individual accredited laboratories.".

It is my opinion that Mr. Clarke's answers are unsatisfactory. He may be assigning blame elsewhere but that does not improve these Annual Water Reports. They are masquerading as proof that our drinking water is fine but they are ignoring important and crucial data that we have a right to have.