DECADES OF CLIENT DRIVEN TECHNICAL REPORTS

Even the most biased and perverted environmental technical reports usually have some redeeming social value. It's been my experience after nearly thirty years that you can often learn where the skeletons are buried by noticing what isn't in these reports. What chemical compounds are not tested for. Is the sampling always groundwater sampling without any soil samples also being done? Is the sampling done at regular intervals (both timing and location) or is it literally all over the map with little rationale or reasoning?

This evening I will be a Delegate at RAC at 4 pm. in Council Chambers. There are two recent GHD Reports that I will be focusing on although I will mention one or two other recent reports briefly. None of these reports are perfect although there is one that I personally believe is the best of the lot. GHD by the way are the new name/owners of Conestoga Rovers (CRA) whose reports I have strongly criticized for a very long time.

Most of these reports are valuable despite some incredibly blatant and self-serving Conclusions made from the data. I have long ago lost count of how many reports at the end make Recommendations based upon the author's Conclusions that simply are not remotely supported by the evidence presented in the report. How do they get away with this? A big part is by being the only paid professionals examing the issue whatever it may be. As the only paid professionals you are most likely to be employed by the polluting party, developer or proponent. It's not much of a gunfight when only one party is carrying a loaded gun. Of course sometimes the Ontario Ministry of the Environment bring along their professionals. Calling them the corrupt local Sherrif is just such a huge understatement. Their individual professionals may be just that but they also know where their bread is butterred and if they contradict their employers publicly don't expect to see them back anytime soon.

I have long wondered but never been able to prove any instances of jiggered lab results. I am aware that various labs over the decades in North America have had various scandals. Toronto's Centre for Forensic Sciences has had a couple including the recent "Mother Risk" Program. That said oftentimes high groundwater (especially) and rarely high soil test results grab our attention. Similarily in recent years we've seen some astoundingly high sediment test results in the Canagagigue Creek. This is why I read all reports distributed to the public. They all have some important data in them. The fact that the vast majority of politicians, bureaucrats and citizens wouldn't even consider reading these technical reports in their entirety is a huge part of the problem. Then the polluters and their partners in pollution can have their way with the data.